header-logo header-logo

Family

30 June 2011
Issue: 7472 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Re B (children) (adoption) [2011] EWCA Civ 729, [2011] All ER (D) 159 (Jun)

A judge had jurisdiction to make an injunction to prevent the removal of children in short-term foster placements by the local authority, pending the hearing of an application for an adoption order. In determining whether to make the injunction, the judge should pose to himself, and seek to answer, an initial question as follows:

(a) was there a real prospect that the foster parents would establish that the authority’s decision to remove the children from them notwithstanding that they wished to adopt them was, by reference to public law principles, irrational, disproportionate or otherwise unlawful or was otherwise in breach of their rights, or those of the adopters or of those of the children under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. If the judge’s answer to question (a) was negative, he should refuse to grant the injunction. However, if his answer to the question was affirmative, he should proceed to address further questions which, without purporting to be prescriptive, might run along

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Private wealth and tax offering bolstered by partner hire

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Firm grows real estate team with tenth partner hire this financial year

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
back-to-top-scroll