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.
Mr Donnelly for the Local Authority Ms Sweeting for the Mother Ms Dawson for the Father Mr Murray for the Maternal Grandparents Ms Choudhury for the children Hearing dates: 27th June, 28th June, 29th June, 14th July 2016. ____________________
The LA's application for a care order is governed by section 31 of the Children Act 1989 and I may only consider making a care or supervision order in this case if I am satisfied that the threshold is crossed namely;
(i) Children's welfare is paramount and in considering the outcome I must have regard to the welfare checklist at section 1(3) Children Act 1989.
(ii) The case of Re C [2013] EWCA Civ 1257 emphasises the need for the court to consider, in deciding whether to approve a care plan of adoption (before moving to consider the placement order), not only the welfare checklist at section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 but also the enhanced welfare requirements in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 section 1 and section 52. Section 1(2) stipulates that the paramount consideration must be the welfare of the child 'throughout his life' and section 1(4) provides a checklist of factors which I must consider.
(iii) Although the child's interests in an adoption case are paramount, the court must never lose sight of the fact that those interests include being brought up by the natural family, ideally by the natural parents, or at least one of them, unless the overriding requirements of the child's welfare make that not possible.
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.