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 third Respondents are the children. Their interests are represented by the Children' s
       A local authority has applied for care orders for both children. There is consensus that Y should remain in her current placement, with her maternal aunt as her foster carer, under a care order. For reasons which will be explained, the court supports this plan as entirely appropriate.
       There is consensus that X should remain in the care of her maternal grandmother. The issue between the parties is how that placement should be supported.
"It is not best practice to make a Supervision Order alongside a Special Guardianship Order, as outlined in the Public Law Working Group Best Practice Guidelines, March 2021."
       The situation, though, is that the grandmother has refused to be assessed as a foster carer because she flatly refuses to care for her grand-daughter on that basis. The grandmother regards herself a grandmother and will not engage in any care arrangement that undermines this. She will not tolerate the restrictions and bureaucracy that inevitably accompanies foster care. Placement with the grandmother under a care order is not an option open to the court.
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.