Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

Family Law

The leading authority on all aspects of family law

03 AUG 2016

Re W (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 793

Re W (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 793

(Court of Appeal, Jackson, McFarlane and Lindblom LJJ, 29 July 2016)

Public law children – Adoption – Special guardianship order in favour of biological family member – Weight to be given to child’s placement with prospective adopters – Meaning of ‘nothing else will do’

The appeal from a special guardianship order was allowed.

The child, born in 2014, was placed with foster carers shortly after birth when her parents were unable to care for her. Care and placement orders were granted and no suitable kinship carers were identified. At 7 months the child was placed with the prospective adopters where she had remained ever since. An adoption application was made which was opposed by the paternal grandparents who had not previously been aware of the child’s existence. They sought a child arrangements or special guardianship order. An independent social worker and the guardian supported their application.

The application for an adoption order was dismissed and a special guardianship order was granted. The prospective adopters appealed.

The appeal was allowed.

When the child had been placed with prospective adopters for a significant period of time the welfare balance to be struck where a biological family member put themselves forward at a late stage had to reflect those circumstances. In those circumstances the court would require expert evidence as to the strength of the attachment between the child and the adopters and the likely emotional and psychological consequences of ending it. In this instance the generalised evidence of the social worker and the guardian fell far short of what was required.

The phrase ‘nothing else will do’ was no more than a useful distillation of the proportionality and necessity test set out in the European Convention and reflected the need to afford paramount consideration to the welfare of the child throughout her lifetime.

The existence of a viable home with the child’s biological grandparents should make than option a ‘runner’ but not an automatic ‘winner’. There was no right or presumption for a child to be brought up by her natural family.

Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWCA Civ 793

Case No: B4/2016/2297

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM Mr Justice Bodey
The High Court, Family Division
NE15PO1527

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL


Date: 29/07/2016

Before:


LORD JUSTICE JACKSON


LORD JUSTICE MCFARLANE


and


LORD JUSTICE LINDBLOM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


W (A child)


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mr Frank Feehan QC and Mr Martin Todd (instructed by Carr & Co Solicitors) for the Appellants
Ms Rachel Langdale QC and Ms Ravinder Randhawa (instructed by North Tyneside Council legal department) for the first respondent local authority
Ms Emily Ward (instructed by Swinburne Maddison Solicitors) for the second respondent grandparents
Nicholas Stonor QC and Mr Stephen Ainsley (instructed by DMA Law) for the Child through her Children’s Guardian


Hearing date : 20th July 2016


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Judgment Approved

Re W (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 793.rtf
Family Law Reports

Family Law Reports

"The unrivalled and authoritative source of judicially approved case reports, covering all areas...

More Info from £166.00
Available in Family Law Online
Family Law Online

Family Law Online

Get a FREE trial today! The fastest way to access the latest law reports, case law, commentary,...

Available in Family Law Online
Subscribe to our newsletters