BFC v R & P [2015] EWFC B42 (16 April 2015)

BFC v R & P [2015] EWFC B42 (16 April 2015)

The risk of disruption to the children's current placements by JP is not as high as alleged by the Local Authority and is manageable. The emotional harm and risk of future harm from moving the children from secure, established placements outweigh the potential benefits of a joint adoptive placement. The best interests of AR and AP are served by remaining with their current foster carers, who should apply for adoption. Placement order applications are to be adjourned to allow this process. A section 34(4) order is made to allow the Local Authority to refuse direct contact between AR and VR.

Citation
[2015] EWFC B42
Parties
Mother: JP; Father of AR: VR; Putative Father of AP: AA; Child (aged 6): AR; Child (aged 17 Months): AP; Applicant: Local Authority (BFC); Children's Guardian: NJ (Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Care and Placement Order Applications / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Care orders made for AR and AP; placement order applications adjourned; children to remain in current foster placements; foster carers to apply for adoption; section 34(4) order made to refuse direct contact between AR and VR; undertaking accepted from JP not to disrupt placements.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Placement Orders, Adoption, Special Guardianship, Parental Responsibility, Child Welfare, Contact Orders
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Placement Orders Adoption Special Guardianship Parental Responsibility Child Welfare +1 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JP

Mother

VR

Father of AR

AA

Putative Father of AP

AR

Child (aged 6)

AP

Child (aged 17 Months)

Local Authority (BFC)

Applicant

NJ (Guardian)

Children's Guardian

Procedural Posture

Care and Placement Order Applications / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether final care and placement orders should be made for AR and AP
  2. 2 Whether children should be moved to a joint adoptive placement or remain with current foster carers
  3. 3 Assessment of risk of disruption by JP to current placements

Ratio Decidendi

The risk of disruption to the children's current placements by JP is not as high as alleged by the Local Authority and is manageable. The emotional harm and risk of future harm from moving the children from secure, established placements outweigh the potential benefits of a joint adoptive placement. The best interests of AR and AP are served by remaining with their current foster carers, who should apply for adoption. Placement order applications are to be adjourned to allow this process. A section 34(4) order is made to allow the Local Authority to refuse direct contact between AR and VR.

Court Disposition

Care orders made for AR and AP; placement order applications adjourned; children to remain in current foster placements; foster carers to apply for adoption; section 34(4) order made to refuse direct contact between AR and VR; undertaking accepted from JP not to disrupt placements.

Orders

  • Care orders for AR and AP
  • Adjournment of placement order applications