V (Children), Re

V (Children), Re

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was wrong to conclude that long term fostering would serve the interests of the children. The judge failed to give sufficient weight to the significantly detrimental features of the mother's contact, which was damaging and undermined the children's placement and emotional security. The evidence established that the children's welfare required adoption and that parental consent should be dispensed with. Adoption was necessary and proportionate in the circumstances.

Parties
Appellant: Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council; 1st Respondent: Mother (M); 2nd Respondent: Father (F); Interested Party: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal (care and Placement Orders) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Placement Orders, Adoption, Article 8 ECHR, Welfare of the Child, Parental Consent, Proportionality, Contact With Parents
Family Law Child Law Care Orders Placement Orders Adoption Article 8 ECHR Welfare of the Child Parental Consent +2 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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

Appellant

Mother (M)

1st Respondent

Father (F)

2nd Respondent

Children's Guardian

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal (care and Placement Orders) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to approve the local authority's care plan for adoption and to grant placement orders for the children
  2. 2 Whether long term fostering was a more suitable plan than adoption
  3. 3 Whether the children's welfare required adoption and dispensing with parental consent

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was wrong to conclude that long term fostering would serve the interests of the children. The judge failed to give sufficient weight to the significantly detrimental features of the mother's contact, which was damaging and undermined the children's placement and emotional security. The evidence established that the children's welfare required adoption and that parental consent should be dispensed with. Adoption was necessary and proportionate in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Care orders with care plans for adoption substituted for the orders made by the trial judge
  • Placement orders made dispensing with the parents' consent on the basis that the children's welfare requires it