header-logo header-logo

22 February 2007
Issue: 7261 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

FAMILY LAW

Re S (a child) (adoption: special guardianship) [2007] EWCA Civ 54, [2007] All ER (D) 81 (Feb)

(i) A special guardianship order is only appropriate if it is best fitted to meet the needs of the child concerned. The key question which the court is obliged to ask itself in every case in which the question of adoption, as opposed to special guardianship, arises is “which order will better serve the welfare of this particular child?” It is incumbent on judges to give full reasons and to explain their decisions with care.

Provided the judge has carefully
examined the facts, made appropriate findings in relation to them and applied the welfare check-lists contained in the Children Act 1989, s 1(3) and the Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 1, it is unlikely that the Court of Appeal will be able properly to interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion, particularly in a finely balanced case.

(ii) The court has power to make a special guardianship order of its own motion, where the welfare of the child is in issue in any family proceedings. The statute implicitly envisages an order being made against the wishes of the parties, and in a case in which the party seeking a different order eg adoption does not want to be appointed the child’s special guardian. Note that Re J [2007] EWCA Crim 55, contains a helpful Schedule of Main Differences between Special Guardianship Orders and Adoption which sets out the differences between the two orders in tabular form.

Issue: 7261 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll