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.
On 2nd April 2019 a prospective adopter made an application to adopt R, a girl born on [a date in] 2015, who is now four years old.� She is the child of M, the Mother, and F, the Father, who share parental responsibility for her.
On 23rd July 2018 I granted a care order and a placement order in respect of R.� The care proceedings in respect of R and her siblings were allocated to me and I heard both a lengthy fact-finding hearing and a contested final welfare hearing in respect of those children.� It is pursuant to the placement order that I made that on 5th November 2018 R was placed with her prospective adopter.
On the application being made by the prospective adopter, notice was given of the application in accordance with the rules of the Court to both parents and they each in their separate ways indicated their intention to seek the permission of the Court to oppose the making of an adoption order.� HHJ Hudson gave directions on 23rd May 2019 for evidence to be filed by each of the birth parents and by the local authority by way of response.� The matter comes before me today for determination of whether I should grant permission to oppose the making of an adoption order.
It is important at the outset to set out the legal framework within which this application falls to be considered.� Section 47 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 governs this application and, as I have indicated to the Mother at the outset of this hearing, the Court cannot give leave to oppose the making of an order unless it is satisfied that there has been a change of circumstances since the placement order was made.� In that regard I must consider the findings that I made against the parents, both at the fact-finding stage and at the final hearing.
The change of circumstances relied on in support of the application must be relevant or material to the question of whether leave should be granted and must be of the nature and degree sufficient to open reconsideration of the issue that was determined, namely that there be planned adoption for R.
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.