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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll