K (Child: Placement options: Concurrent planning), Re

K (Child: Placement options: Concurrent planning), Re

The Judge was entitled to prefer the evidence of the children's guardian over the local authority, properly applied the welfare checklist, and conducted a sufficient analysis of the placement options. The criticisms of the Judge's reasoning are unfounded, and the appeal has no prospect of success.

Parties
Applicant: Local Authority; Respondent: Mother; Respondent: Child (through Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Child Placement, Adoption, Care Orders, Special Guardianship Orders, Appeals Procedure

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Local Authority

Applicant

Mother

Respondent

Child (through Guardian)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the District Judge was plainly wrong to prefer the recommendations of the children's guardian over the local authority's social work team
  2. 2 Whether the Judge failed to properly apply the welfare checklist under s 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002
  3. 3 Whether the Judge erred in her analysis of placement options for the child K

Ratio Decidendi

The Judge was entitled to prefer the evidence of the children's guardian over the local authority, properly applied the welfare checklist, and conducted a sufficient analysis of the placement options. The criticisms of the Judge's reasoning are unfounded, and the appeal has no prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused