A (kinship carer welfare determination) [2017] EWFC B36 (7 March 2017)

A (kinship carer welfare determination) [2017] EWFC B36 (7 March 2017)

The court found that while MM and RR demonstrated commitment and positive contact with A, the evidence did not support that either could meet A's complex needs as a sole carer in the long term. The risk of placement breakdown was high, and the consequences for A would be severe. Adoption, though a last resort, was necessary and proportionate to secure A's welfare throughout his life, as no less radical option would suffice.

Citation
[2017] EWFC B36
Parties
Subject Child: A (child); Sibling: Z (child); Mother: KK; Father: LL; Paternal Grandmother: MM; Great Aunt: RR; Applicant: Local Authority; Children's Guardian: Children’s Guardian (Kate Coxon)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Care and Placement Order Proceedings / Final Judgment After Adjourned Final Hearing
Outcome
Care and placement orders made for A; application for special guardianship order refused.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Placement Orders, Special Guardianship Orders, Adoption, Welfare of the Child, Threshold Criteria, Proportionality, European Convention on Human Rights
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Placement Orders Special Guardianship Orders Adoption Welfare of the Child Threshold Criteria +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A (child)

Subject Child

Z (child)

Sibling

KK

Mother

LL

Father

MM

Paternal Grandmother

RR

Great Aunt

Local Authority

Applicant

Children’s Guardian (Kate Coxon)

Children's Guardian

Procedural Posture

Care and Placement Order Proceedings / Final Judgment After Adjourned Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether care and placement orders should be made for A
  2. 2 Whether special guardianship order should be made in favour of MM or RR
  3. 3 Whether adoption is necessary and proportionate given A's welfare needs

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while MM and RR demonstrated commitment and positive contact with A, the evidence did not support that either could meet A's complex needs as a sole carer in the long term. The risk of placement breakdown was high, and the consequences for A would be severe. Adoption, though a last resort, was necessary and proportionate to secure A's welfare throughout his life, as no less radical option would suffice.

Court Disposition

Care and placement orders made for A; application for special guardianship order refused.

Orders

  • Care order in respect of A
  • Placement order in respect of A