B (Children), Re

B (Children), Re

It was open to the judge to change his mind in light of new evidence, including the new guardian's assessment and the psychologist's ambivalence, and to conclude that adoption was in the children's best interests. The judge's failure to use the precise statutory language regarding dispensation of consent was an error but not sufficient to warrant appeal.

Parties
Applicant: Unmarried parents (Applicants); First Respondent: Salford City Council; Second and Third Respondents: C and S (children, by their Children's Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Care and Placement Orders) / Application for Permission to Appeal, Post Final Orders
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Placement Orders, Adoption, Dispensation of Parental Consent, Children's Welfare, Appeal Procedure
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Placement Orders Adoption Dispensation of Parental Consent Children's Welfare Appeal 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unmarried parents (Applicants)

Applicant

Salford City Council

First Respondent

C and S (children, by their Children's Guardian)

Second and Third Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Care and Placement Orders) / Application for Permission to Appeal, Post Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in changing his mind from long-term foster care to adoption for the children
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient new evidence to justify revisiting the July 2007 decision
  3. 3 Whether the judge properly considered the statutory requirements for dispensing with parental consent under the Adoption and Children Act 2002

Ratio Decidendi

It was open to the judge to change his mind in light of new evidence, including the new guardian's assessment and the psychologist's ambivalence, and to conclude that adoption was in the children's best interests. The judge's failure to use the precise statutory language regarding dispensation of consent was an error but not sufficient to warrant appeal.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • No order as to costs