Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division refused an application made by the paternal uncle of two young children for leave to revoke placement orders. The court held that there probably had been a change of circumstances, but, in considering the second stage, namely, whether the discretion to grant leave should be exercised, in all the circumstances, the application would be refused.
Family proceedings Orders. In earlier care proceedings, findings of fact were made in respect of the circumstances surrounding the death of a child (P) in 2012. Family proceedings ended with the making of care orders concerning the other children of the family. Subsequently, new medical evidence emerged, a new inquest was ordered in respect of P, a serious case review was in progress and it was announced that criminal proceedings were not to be taken against either of P's parents. The father applied for the discharge of the care orders and for a contact order. The application, which amounted to an application for a rehearing, was supported by the children's guardian, but opposed by the local authority and the mother. The Family Division held that, on the facts, justice required that a further hearing should take place.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The mother was the sole carer of a child who was born in 2012. In 2014, the child suffered injuries, which the medical evidence attributed to abuse. The local authority applied for care and placement orders. The Family Division conducted a fact-finding hearing and ruled that the child's injuries had been inflicted deliberately by her mother, that the threshold for orders had been met, both by the suffering of significant harm and by the clear risk of repetition. Care and placement orders were granted to allow the authority to implement a plan in respect of the child.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The judge refused the father's application for direct contact with his two daughters and made an order under s91(14) of the . The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the father's appeal against the orders. It held, inter alia, that there was nothing in the chronology of the proceedings that would lead the court to criticise the way in which the legal system had handled the case. The orders that the judge had made as to contact and under s 91(14) of the Act had been open to him in accordance with the law and nothing said in argument had persuaded the court that he had erred in proceeding as he had.
Adoption Dispensing with consent of parent or guardian. The Family Court approved proposals made by two local authorities regarding the future of the two daughters of the respondent mother and father. It held that, given the mental state of the father and the environment in which the children had been growing up, the parents would be refused contact with the older child and that an adoption order would be made in relation to the younger child.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court allowed the claimant local authority's application for care and placement orders allowing a child, S, to be adopted. S's parents, particularly his father, had behaved violently. The court held that S would not be safe with his father, and that nothing would suffice other than the granting of the orders.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The mother's application, pursuant tos24(2)(a)of the for leave to apply for the revocation of a placement order made in respect of her son was refused. The judge held that the first stage of the test, namely, a sufficient change of circumstances, had not been met and, consequently, did not go on to consider whether to exercise her discretion. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the mother's appeal, held, inter alia, that the judge would have been incapable of forming a valid judgment about the change in the mother's circumstances without making findings on the disputed facts before her, and had set the bar too high at the first stage of the test.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. Care orders were made in relation to two children, who were to live with their mother and have limited supervised contact with their father. The father appealed against the judge's order, challenging, among other things, the judge's treatment of the evidence of a clinical psychologist, G, which it was said to have been allowed to assume disproportionate importance. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the father's appeal. It held that, among other things, the judge had produced a most thorough judgment, drawing together all the strands of the evidence. From it, it was quite clear that her decision had not been based upon an unquestioning acceptance of G's evidence, whether as to physical risk or as to emotional considerations.
Child Care. There were before the court two applications from the local authority for a care order in relation to a little boy, A, who was born on 11 January 2014, and for a placement order. The father put himself forward as a sole carer of A. The Family Court held that the local authority's case was a tottering edifice built on inadequate foundations and flowing from that the local authority was to willing to believe the worst of the father. Both applications were dismissed.
Adoption Order. The father was 42. The mother was 41. They had four children who were all the subject of care proceedings mounted by the relevant local authority against the mother and the father. In due course, all the children were removed permanently from the parents with a view to either long-term fostering or adoption. There was before the court an application for the adoption of a child SSM. The father sought leave to oppose the application pursuant to Adoption and Children Act 2002. The father's application and the adoption application were to be one rolled-up hearing. The Family Division held that the sole question was whether it was in SSM's best interests that an adoption order be made. The father's application would be dismissed.