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.
This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
(i) The parents� learning difficulties and the impact that those difficulties may have on their ability to meet the basic needs of a child
(ii) The level of assistance that each parent requires as a vulnerable adult with day to day living, each living in supported accommodation for this reason
(v) The Paternal Grandparents had been caring for their other grandchildren, who were not able to remain in their care and, following negative assessments of them, were placed in alternative placements by another local authority.� One of those children was adopted.
It is not for the court to look for a better placement for a child; social engineering is not permitted. In YC v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 33 it was said: "Family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and�. everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to 'rebuild' the family. It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing."
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.