B (Long term fostering or Adoption), Re [2014] EWCC B15 (Fam) (05 February 2014)

B (Long term fostering or Adoption), Re [2014] EWCC B15 (Fam) (05 February 2014)

The court found the threshold criteria for care orders met for both children. For M, it was in her best interests to remain accommodated under s.20 Children Act 1989, with no care order made. For A, the court rejected the special guardianship application due to the grandmother's health and risk factors, and refused to approve the adoption care plan or make a placement order, finding that adoption was not in A's welfare interests given the importance of his relationships with his sister and grandmother and the likely adverse impact of adoption. The court ordered a care order for A with a care plan for long-term fostering in his current placement, subject to the local authority amending its...

Citation
[2014] EWCC B15 (Fam)
Parties
Local Authority: Kent County Council; Mother: Ms B; Father of M (deceased): PB; Father of a: MB; Maternal Grandmother: Mrs W; Child (subject): M; Child (subject): A
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Care and Placement Proceedings / Final Judgment
Outcome
Care order for A; no order for M; special guardianship and placement order applications refused.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Placement Orders, Special Guardianship, Adoption, Welfare of the Child, Contact Arrangements
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Placement Orders Special Guardianship Adoption Welfare of the Child Contact Arrangements

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kent County Council

Local Authority

Ms B

Mother

PB

Father of M (deceased)

MB

Father of a

Mrs W

Maternal Grandmother

M

Child (subject)

A

Child (subject)

Procedural Posture

Care and Placement Proceedings / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether threshold criteria for care orders are met for M and A
  2. 2 Whether a care order or accommodation under s.20 Children Act 1989 is appropriate for M
  3. 3 Whether a care order, special guardianship order, or placement order for adoption is appropriate for A

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the threshold criteria for care orders met for both children. For M, it was in her best interests to remain accommodated under s.20 Children Act 1989, with no care order made. For A, the court rejected the special guardianship application due to the grandmother's health and risk factors, and refused to approve the adoption care plan or make a placement order, finding that adoption was not in A's welfare interests given the importance of his relationships with his sister and grandmother and the likely adverse impact of adoption. The court ordered a care order for A with a care plan for long-term fostering in his current placement, subject to the local authority amending its...

Court Disposition

Care order for A; no order for M; special guardianship and placement order applications refused.

Orders

  • Care order to Kent County Council in respect of A, subject to local authority amending care plan to long-term fostering in current placement.
  • No order in respect of M; she remains accommodated under s.20 Children Act 1989.