T (Children) (Rev 1) [2014] EWCA Civ 1549 (02 December 2014)

T (Children) (Rev 1) [2014] EWCA Civ 1549 (02 December 2014)

The appeal was dismissed because the judge at first instance had fully reasoned his decision, conscientiously considered all realistic options, and properly applied the legal principles from Re B and Re B-S. The judge's findings that the mother lacked insight, failed to accept responsibility for past harm, and was not equipped to care for the children, even with support, meant that rehabilitation was not a realistic option. Adoption was therefore the only viable alternative in the children's best interests.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 1549
Parties
Appellant (mother): MT; Respondent (local Authority): Hertfordshire County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Care and Placement Orders) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Placement Orders, Adoption, Parental Responsibility, Threshold Criteria, Appeals Procedure
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Placement Orders Adoption Parental Responsibility Threshold Criteria Appeals Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MT

Appellant (mother)

Hertfordshire County Council

Respondent (local Authority)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Care and Placement Orders) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge failed to adequately assess the mother's ability, with support, to care for her two youngest children
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to comply with the guidance in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 regarding adoption as a last resort

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the judge at first instance had fully reasoned his decision, conscientiously considered all realistic options, and properly applied the legal principles from Re B and Re B-S. The judge's findings that the mother lacked insight, failed to accept responsibility for past harm, and was not equipped to care for the children, even with support, meant that rehabilitation was not a realistic option. Adoption was therefore the only viable alternative in the children's best interests.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Care and placement orders in respect of J and O affirmed
  • Dispensation with parental consent to placement order confirmed