I (A Child)

I (A Child)

Permission to appeal is granted in part because the judge did not sufficiently consider special guardianship as an alternative to adoption, which is necessary to determine if the child's welfare 'requires' adoption under the statutory test.

Parties
Appellant: Mr I; Appellant: Titilayo I; Respondent: CW; Respondent: Local Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Family / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal granted in part
Legal Topics
Adoption, Special Guardianship, Child Welfare, Contact Orders, Dispensing With Parental Consent
Family Law Adoption Special Guardianship Child Welfare Contact Orders Dispensing With Parental Consent

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr I

Appellant

Titilayo I

Appellant

CW

Respondent

Local Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in failing to consider special guardianship as an alternative to adoption
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to make a contact order reflecting the agreed position
  3. 3 Whether the placement order was unnecessary and disproportionate under Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is granted in part because the judge did not sufficiently consider special guardianship as an alternative to adoption, which is necessary to determine if the child's welfare 'requires' adoption under the statutory test.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal granted in part

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused on ground relating to Adoption Panel process.
  • Permission to appeal granted on grounds relating to insufficient consideration of special guardianship and contact order.