Judgments

Adoption order made in favour of the applicant uncle in respect of his 18-year-old niece, despite opposition by both birth parents.

The Court of Appeal allowed a father’s second appeal against an order that the child move from his care to live with her mother. The first-instance decision was unjust as a result of procedural irregularity, having relied substantially on a Cafcass assessment based on the conclusion that domestic abuse had occurred, failed to consider the consequences of changing D’s home and school, and contained inadequate reasons. The appeal was allowed, and the matter remitted for rehearing.

This was an appeal on a procedural point, against the care and placement orders made with respect to a boy aged 4 (T), and a girl aged 2 (F). The court dismissed the appeal on the basis that the failure to serve the child’s permanence reports in adoption proceedings to the parents did not render the decision to make placement orders unjust.

Application by a Swedish mother to relocate her nine-year-old daughter from England to Sweden following the refusal of an earlier Hague Convention return application.

Financial remedies case concerning the costs arising from the wife’s successful appeal against a finding that the husband’s parents were the beneficial owners of a property.

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against care and placement orders, holding that the welfare and proportionality evaluation undertaken at first instance did not sufficiently analyse the likely consequences of future harm or the availability of realistic protective measures before concluding that adoption was necessary.

In a very short judgment, District Judge Vine discharged an appointed Qualified Legal Representative due to significant concerns as to the approach taken to challenging the evidence and provided a concise and useful overview of the framework guiding the duty of QLRs and how these may impact upon fair trial rights.

Knowles J made a parental order in favour of a single intended father following an international surrogacy arrangement involving Northern Cyprus, Kyrgyzstan, and other contemplated countries of birth. The judgment warns of the legal, immigration, and welfare risks of entering into cross-border surrogacy arrangements without prior independent legal advice.

Peel J granted intended parents permission to withdraw their parental order application after DNA testing established that they had no biological link to twins born as a result of an international surrogacy arrangement. The intended parents were granted a joint ‘lives with’ order and leave to apply for an adoption order.

Application by an NHS Trust for a declaration authorising withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from severely ill 8-year-old child.

Adoption application in respect of S, heard with applications by both birth parents and S’s maternal grandmother for post-adoption contact. The court made the adoption order but declined to make a contact order. The two outcomes were not inconsistent: S’s birth relationships remained part of the child’s identity, but the court was not satisfied that S’s welfare required the adoptive family to be bound by an enforceable contact arrangement.

This was a Fact-finding hearing in care proceedings following the death of a two-and-a-half-year-old child. Mrs Justice Judd found that the local authority had not proved physical abuse and that the remaining concerns did not cross the section 31 threshold.

Application by a mother to discharge a care order. All parties supported the application, and the court concluded that it was in the child’s welfare interests to discharge the order. The child was to live with the father and spend increasing time with the mother.

A case concerning a local authority’s application for care and placement orders, issued following concerns relating to the mother’s intellectual impairment.

An appeal by mother (‘M’) against decision of circuit judge regarding an order that father (‘F’) should spend three weekends in four with the child (‘ZZ’) on the grounds, inter alia, that the judge had treated alienating behaviour as a live issue, but not domestic abuse.

This was a decision of Catherine Cowton KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) granting applications by the local authority not to notify third parties regarding the birth and planned adoption of a child, D, under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.