AB v Durham County Council (Revocation of Placement Orders) [2024] EWFC 370 (17 December 2024)

AB v Durham County Council (Revocation of Placement Orders) [2024] EWFC 370 (17 December 2024)

The risk of harm to the children from returning to AB's care, due to the substantial risk of relapse into alcohol abuse, lack of professional and social support, language barriers, and AB's health prognosis, outweighs the benefits of revocation. The children's welfare requires the placement orders to remain in force to secure permanence and stability with prospective adopters. Revocation would not be in their best interests and would not be a proportionate interference with Article 8 rights.

Citation
[2024] EWFC 370
Parties
Applicant: AB; First Respondent: Durham County Council; Second Respondent (child, by Guardian): C; Third Respondent (child, by Guardian): D
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Family Revocation of Placement Orders / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Application to revoke placement orders dismissed
Legal Topics
Revocation of Placement Orders, Child Welfare, Adoption, Care Proceedings, Article 8 ECHR
Family Law Child Law Revocation of Placement Orders Child Welfare Adoption Care Proceedings Article 8 ECHR

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Applicant

Durham County Council

First Respondent

C

Second Respondent (child, by Guardian)

D

Third Respondent (child, by Guardian)

Procedural Posture

Family Revocation of Placement Orders / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the placement orders in respect of C and D should be revoked under s.24 Adoption and Children Act 2002
  2. 2 Whether it is in the children's best interests to return to the care of their father, AB

Ratio Decidendi

The risk of harm to the children from returning to AB's care, due to the substantial risk of relapse into alcohol abuse, lack of professional and social support, language barriers, and AB's health prognosis, outweighs the benefits of revocation. The children's welfare requires the placement orders to remain in force to secure permanence and stability with prospective adopters. Revocation would not be in their best interests and would not be a proportionate interference with Article 8 rights.

Court Disposition

Application to revoke placement orders dismissed

Orders

  • Placement orders in respect of C and D to remain in force
  • No order for post-adoption contact; letter box contact to be facilitated