T (Children)

T (Children)

The judge at first instance was wrong to find that there had been no relevant change of circumstances. The judge failed to consider the change in the children's circumstances, focusing solely on the father's situation, and set the threshold for change too high. The unsettled behaviour of the children, together with the father's new relationship, constituted a relevant change in circumstances sufficient to allow the application to proceed to the second stage, where the court could exercise its discretion whether to permit an application to revoke the placement orders.

Parties
Appellant: Appellant (Father); 1st Respondent: Neath Port Talbot County Council; 2nd Respondent: Mother; 3rd & 4th Respondents: Two older children; 5th & 6th Respondents: Two younger children
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Refusal of Permission to Apply to Revoke Placement Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Revocation of Placement Orders, Change in Circumstances, Adoption and Children Act 2002, Sibling Separation, Children's Welfare, Article 8 ECHR Rights
Family Law Child Law Revocation of Placement Orders Change in Circumstances Adoption and Children Act 2002 Sibling Separation Children's Welfare Article 8 ECHR Rights

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant (Father)

Appellant

Neath Port Talbot County Council

1st Respondent

Mother

2nd Respondent

Two older children

3rd & 4th Respondents

Two younger children

5th & 6th Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Refusal of Permission to Apply to Revoke Placement Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a relevant change in circumstances sufficient to permit an application to revoke placement orders under s24 Adoption and Children Act 2002
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred by focusing solely on the father's circumstances and not the children's circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the unsettled behaviour of the children constituted a relevant change in circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance was wrong to find that there had been no relevant change of circumstances. The judge failed to consider the change in the children's circumstances, focusing solely on the father's situation, and set the threshold for change too high. The unsettled behaviour of the children, together with the father's new relationship, constituted a relevant change in circumstances sufficient to allow the application to proceed to the second stage, where the court could exercise its discretion whether to permit an application to revoke the placement orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed; the judge's refusal of permission to apply to revoke the placement orders is set aside.
  • The matter is remitted for reconsideration in light of the relevant changes in circumstances.