RBC v I & G [2016] EWFC B32 (13 May 2016)

RBC v I & G [2016] EWFC B32 (13 May 2016)

The court found that, despite positives in DaI's care, there were historic and ongoing concerns about her ability to provide consistent routines, boundaries, and to work with professionals, as evidenced by her care of LR. The risk of harm to PI if placed with DaI outweighed the benefits of maintaining birth family ties. The threshold criteria for a Care Order were met, and adoption was necessary and proportionate to secure PI's welfare. There was no other realistic option but adoption, and the court dispensed with parental consent to adoption.

Citation
[2016] EWFC B32
Parties
Subject Child: PI; Mother: DI; Father: KG; Maternal Grandmother: DaI; Applicant: Local Authority; Children's Guardian: Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Care and Placement Orders / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Care Order and Placement Order granted; parental consent to adoption dispensed with.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Placement Orders, Adoption, Special Guardianship Orders, Threshold Criteria, Welfare Checklist
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Placement Orders Adoption Special Guardianship Orders Threshold Criteria 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PI

Subject Child

DI

Mother

KG

Father

DaI

Maternal Grandmother

Local Authority

Applicant

Guardian

Children's Guardian

Procedural Posture

Care and Placement Orders / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Care and Placement Orders should be made for PI
  2. 2 Whether PI should be placed with his maternal grandmother under a Special Guardianship Order or adopted
  3. 3 Whether the threshold criteria under s.31(2) Children Act 1989 are met

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, despite positives in DaI's care, there were historic and ongoing concerns about her ability to provide consistent routines, boundaries, and to work with professionals, as evidenced by her care of LR. The risk of harm to PI if placed with DaI outweighed the benefits of maintaining birth family ties. The threshold criteria for a Care Order were met, and adoption was necessary and proportionate to secure PI's welfare. There was no other realistic option but adoption, and the court dispensed with parental consent to adoption.

Court Disposition

Care Order and Placement Order granted; parental consent to adoption dispensed with.

Orders

  • Final Care Order in respect of PI
  • Placement Order authorising adoption of PI