Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved.
Jonathan Cowen (instructed by A City Council) for the Applicant The 1st Respondent was not present and not represented Stefano Nuvoloni (instructed by Osbourne & Company) for the 2nd Respondent Richard Hadley (instructed by Lovesey Marsh Solicitors) for the 3rd Respondent Hearing dates: 13th and 14th November 2012 ____________________
i) by virtue of s18 (5) parental responsibility for J was vested in the local authority in their capacity as the adoption agency.
iii) Pursuant to s12 (3)(a) the parental responsibility held by the parents immediately before the making of the freeing order was extinguished.
iv) The parents become 'former parents' and in the event that they had opted to make a declaration under s18(6) (see paragraph 4 above) they would have received no more information concerning the adoption of their child.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.