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.
Ms Ruth Cabeza and Ms Mavis Amonoo-Acquah (instructed by Burgess Mee Family Law) for the 1st and 2nd Applicants Ms Janet Bazley KC, Ms Olivia Magennis and Ms Melissa Elsworth (instructed by Goodman Ray ) for the 1st Respondent Ms Artis Kakonge and Ms Nisha Bambhra (instructed by A Local Authority) for the 2nd Respondent Ms Taryn Lee KC, Ms Alison Moore and Mr Luke Eaton (instructed by David Wilson Solicitors) for the 3rd Respondent Hearing dates: 23-30 November and 1 December 2023 Judgment: 30 January 2024 ____________________
And Upon the parties agreeing that given [Z's] very young age, all parties will be flexible and responsive to [Z's] needs both now and in the future when he grows up;
AND UPON it being agreed that [Z's] routine will be communicated between the parties prior to each contact sessions and sensible arrangements made to ensure that his routine is adhered to as far as possible during contact;
AND UPON it being recorded that the applicant does not seek to parent [Z] but looks to be a presence in his life, and the first and second respondents agreeing that it is important for [Z] to know the applicant
"(1) An adoption order may not be made if the child has a parent or guardian unless one of the following three conditions is met; but this section is subject to section 52 (parental etc. consent).
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.