EH v London Borough of Greenwich & Ors

EH v London Borough of Greenwich & Ors

The trial judge's orders were set aside because he failed to apply the statutory welfare checklist, did not consider Article 8 ECHR or proportionality, failed to consider alternatives to adoption, and did not ensure procedural fairness. The judge's findings of fact did not inexorably lead to adoption and the process was flawed by the local authority's conduct and lack of support for the mother.

Parties
Appellant: EH; 1st Respondent: London Borough of Greenwich; 2nd Respondent: AA; 3rd & 4th Respondents: REA & RHA (through their Children’s Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal (care and Placement Orders) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; care and placement orders set aside; case remitted for rehearing.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Placement Orders, Adoption, Article 8 ECHR, Children Act 1989, Adoption and Children Act 2002, Procedural Fairness
Family Law Child Protection Human Rights Care Orders Placement Orders Adoption Article 8 ECHR Children Act 1989 +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EH

Appellant

London Borough of Greenwich

1st Respondent

AA

2nd Respondent

REA & RHA (through their Children’s Guardian)

3rd & 4th Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (care and Placement Orders) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding a continuing relationship between the parents
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to apply the statutory welfare checklist and Article 8 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to consider alternatives to adoption and the proportionality of the orders

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's orders were set aside because he failed to apply the statutory welfare checklist, did not consider Article 8 ECHR or proportionality, failed to consider alternatives to adoption, and did not ensure procedural fairness. The judge's findings of fact did not inexorably lead to adoption and the process was flawed by the local authority's conduct and lack of support for the mother.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; care and placement orders set aside; case remitted for rehearing.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Care and placement orders set aside