D (A Child)
The judge was entitled and bound, on the professional evidence, to find that there was no realistic prospect of rehabilitation between Ms D and D, that Ms D was unreasonably withholding her agreement to adoption, and that the termination of contact was within the judge's discretion. No further assessment would...
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Appellant: Ms D; Respondent: Bournemouth Borough Council
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 26 July 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Family Law Child Care and Adoption / Application for Permission to Appeal (post Care and Freeing Orders)
- Outcome
- Permission to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Care Orders, Adoption, Termination of Parental Contact, Permission to Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ms D
Appellant
Bournemouth Borough Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Care and Adoption / Application for Permission to Appeal (post Care and Freeing Orders)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judge erred in making a care order and freeing order for adoption in respect of D
- 2 Whether the judge was correct to permit the local authority to terminate contact between Ms D and D
- 3 Whether Ms D was unreasonably withholding her agreement to adoption
Ratio Decidendi
The judge was entitled and bound, on the professional evidence, to find that there was no realistic prospect of rehabilitation between Ms D and D, that Ms D was unreasonably withholding her agreement to adoption, and that the termination of contact was within the judge's discretion. No further assessment would assist, and granting permission to appeal would serve no useful purpose.
Court Disposition
Permission to appeal refused
Orders
- Application for permission to appeal refused
- Care order and freeing order for adoption to stand
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
0 paragraphs
Full judgment text is not available for this record.