M'P-P (Children), Re [2015] EWCA Civ 584 (11 June 2015)

M'P-P (Children), Re [2015] EWCA Civ 584 (11 June 2015)

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge fundamentally erred by failing to consider the effect on the children of removing them from their primary attachment figure and the value of that relationship, which was a key factor in the welfare analysis. The judge's approach to merging the statutory welfare checklists led to important considerations being overlooked, rendering the welfare evaluation flawed.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 584
Parties
Appellant: Y; First Respondent: J (paternal aunt); Second Respondent: London Borough of Croydon; Third Respondent: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From First Instance Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; permission to appeal granted; first instance orders set aside; case remitted for rehearing before a different judge.
Legal Topics
Adoption, Special Guardianship, Welfare of the Child, Care Orders, Placement Orders, Attachment Theory, Status Quo Principle
Family Law Child Law Adoption Special Guardianship Welfare of the Child Care Orders Placement Orders Attachment Theory +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Y

Appellant

J (paternal aunt)

First Respondent

London Borough of Croydon

Second Respondent

Children's Guardian

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From First Instance Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in his welfare analysis by failing to consider the effect on the children of removing them from their primary attachment figure (the foster carer) and the value of that relationship.
  2. 2 Whether the judge correctly applied the welfare checklists under the Children Act 1989 and Adoption and Children Act 2002.
  3. 3 Whether the judge gave appropriate weight to the competing factors of 'status quo' and 'family' in determining the children's best interests.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge fundamentally erred by failing to consider the effect on the children of removing them from their primary attachment figure and the value of that relationship, which was a key factor in the welfare analysis. The judge's approach to merging the statutory welfare checklists led to important considerations being overlooked, rendering the welfare evaluation flawed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; permission to appeal granted; first instance orders set aside; case remitted for rehearing before a different judge.

Orders

  • Set aside special guardianship orders in favour of J.
  • Set aside revocation of care and placement for adoption orders for B.