Y (Children), Re

Y (Children), Re

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge failed to consider long-term fostering as a realistic alternative to adoption, which was a necessary part of the welfare evaluation.

Parties
Appellant (mother): JY; Appellant (father): MY; 1st Respondent: Birmingham City Council; 3rd Respondent: Children's Guardian (Richard Pashley); 4th Respondent: Foster Carer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Care and Placement Orders
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Placement Orders, Adoption, Long Term Fostering, Welfare of Children
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Placement Orders Adoption Long Term Fostering Welfare of Children

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JY

Appellant (mother)

MY

Appellant (father)

Birmingham City Council

1st Respondent

Children's Guardian (Richard Pashley)

3rd Respondent

Foster Carer

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Care and Placement Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge failed to consider long-term fostering as a realistic alternative to adoption
  2. 2 Whether proper weight was given to all relevant factors in deciding if adoption was necessary
  3. 3 Whether sufficient reasons were provided for permanent severance of the children’s relationship with their family

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge failed to consider long-term fostering as a realistic alternative to adoption, which was a necessary part of the welfare evaluation.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted for reconsideration by a first instance judge
  • Early directions hearing to be scheduled to minimise delay