S (A Child), Re No. 1 [2007] EWCA Civ 54 (06 February 2007)

S (A Child), Re No. 1 [2007] EWCA Civ 54 (06 February 2007)

The court held that the decision between adoption and special guardianship must be determined by which order better serves the welfare of the particular child, considering all relevant statutory checklists and the specific facts. There is no presumption in favour of either order; each case turns on its merits. In this case, the judge was entitled to make a special guardianship order of her own motion, and her reasoning and application of the welfare checklist were sound. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 54
Parties
Appellant: DO (Adopter); 1st Respondent: LP (Mother); 2nd Respondent: PH (Father); 3rd Respondent: Bury Metropolitan Borough Council; 4th Respondent: GN (The Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adoption, Special Guardianship, Parental Responsibility, Welfare of the Child, Dispensing With Parental Consent
Family Law Child Law Adoption Special Guardianship Parental Responsibility Welfare of the Child Dispensing With Parental Consent

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DO (Adopter)

Appellant

LP (Mother)

1st Respondent

PH (Father)

2nd Respondent

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council

3rd Respondent

GN (The Guardian)

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the child should be adopted or placed under a special guardianship order
  2. 2 Criteria for making adoption orders versus special guardianship orders
  3. 3 Approach to dispensing with parental consent for adoption

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the decision between adoption and special guardianship must be determined by which order better serves the welfare of the particular child, considering all relevant statutory checklists and the specific facts. There is no presumption in favour of either order; each case turns on its merits. In this case, the judge was entitled to make a special guardianship order of her own motion, and her reasoning and application of the welfare checklist were sound. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Special guardianship order affirmed
  • No adoption order made