Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2008] All ER (D) 09 (May)
Neutral Citation: [2008] EWCA Civ 439
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judge:

Thorpe, Wall and Wilson LJJ

Representation Stephen Cobb QC and M Hancock for the father.
  Joanne Briggs for the local authority.
  Gerardine Buckley for the mother.
Judgment Dates: 1 May 2008

Catchwords

Family proceedings - Orders in family proceedings - Placement order - Father learning adoption plans for child being well advanced - Father applying for revocation of placement order - Father sending fax to local authority asking it to confirm that child not placed for adoption - Child placed with adoptive parents - Judge upholding local authority's submissions and refusing to grant revocation of placement order - Whether judge erring - s 24(2),(5).

The Case

Where a father applied for the revocation of a placement order where he had not been informed by the local authority that plans for the adoption of his child were well advanced, and where prior to the hearing of that application the child was placed with adoptive parents, the judge had been correct to refuse to grant his application for revocation of that order. Section24 of the was compliant with the and no question of a declaration of incompatibility arose. Once it had been accepted that s24(2) of the 2002 Act was compliant with the 1998 Act it was evident that Parliament had drawn a very clear line between an application for leave to apply for the revocation of a placement order, and the substantive application to revoke. In s24 of the 2002 Act, Parliament had struck a proper balance between the rights and duties of the respective parties. However, the conduct of the local authority demonstrated a profound, if not total, misunderstanding of its functions under the 2002 Act.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.