M'P-P (Children), Re

M'P-P (Children), Re

The trial judge fundamentally erred by failing to consider the effect on the children of removing them from their primary attachment figure (the foster carer) and the value to the children of maintaining that relationship, as required by the statutory welfare checklists. This flaw in the analysis necessitates a rehearing before a different judge.

Parties
Appellant/foster Carer: Y; First Respondent/paternal Aunt: J; Second Respondent/local Authority: London Borough of Croydon; Third Respondent: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal (children's Welfare/adoption/special Guardianship) / Appeal From First Instance Judgment; Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; permission to appeal granted; orders set aside; rehearing ordered before a different judge.
Legal Topics
Status Quo in Child Placement, Attachment Theory, Special Guardianship, Adoption Orders, Welfare Checklist, Article 8 ECHR Rights, Sibling Participation, Judicial Discretion in Child Welfare
Family Law Child Law Adoption Law Status Quo in Child Placement Attachment Theory Special Guardianship Adoption Orders Welfare Checklist +3 more

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Y

Appellant/foster Carer

J

First Respondent/paternal Aunt

London Borough of Croydon

Second Respondent/local Authority

Children's Guardian

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (children's Welfare/adoption/special Guardianship) / Appeal From First Instance Judgment; Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge failed to properly consider the effect on the children of removing them from their primary attachment figure (the foster carer)
  2. 2 Whether the welfare checklists under the Children Act 1989 and Adoption and Children Act 2002 were properly applied
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in weighing the importance of family placement versus status quo/attachment

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge fundamentally erred by failing to consider the effect on the children of removing them from their primary attachment figure (the foster carer) and the value to the children of maintaining that relationship, as required by the statutory welfare checklists. This flaw in the analysis necessitates a rehearing before a different judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; permission to appeal granted; orders set aside; rehearing ordered before a different judge.

Orders

  • Judge's orders set aside.
  • Applications to be reheard before a different judge.