W (A Child), Re

The judge sufficiently explained his rejection of the expert and guardian recommendations, properly applied the welfare checklist, and exercised his discretion in favour of a placement order for adoption to secure the child's welfare.

Parties: Appellant: B's mother; First Respondent: London Borough of Hillingdon; Third Respondent: Children’s Guardian; Interested Parties: Mr and Mrs N
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 14 October 2011
Procedural Posture: Family Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome: appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Adoption, Special Guardianship, Contact Orders, Welfare Checklist

Family Law Child Welfare Adoption Special Guardianship Contact Orders Welfare Checklist

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

B's mother

Appellant

London Borough of Hillingdon

First Respondent

Children’s Guardian

Third Respondent

Mr and Mrs N

Interested Parties

Procedural Posture

Family Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting professional recommendations for special guardianship in favour of adoption
2 Whether the welfare checklist under section 1 of the Adoption of Children Act 2002 was properly applied
3 Whether the judge sufficiently explained rejection of expert and guardian evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

Appeal dismissed; placement order for adoption upheld; contact to be left to the judgment and commitment of the adoptive family.