header-logo header-logo

20 September 2007
Issue: 7289 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

FAMILY LAW

Re P (a child) (adoption order: leave to oppose making of adoption order) [2007] EWCA Civ 616, [2007] All ER (D) 334 (Jun)

The Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002), ss 1(1) and (7), apply only to decisions under ACA 2002 and do not include coming to a decision about granting leave in any other circumstances, including decisions about granting leave in proceedings under the Children Act 1989.

An application for leave to defend adoption proceedings under ACA 2002, s 47(5) involves a two-stage process: (i) the court has to be satisfied, on the facts of the case, that there has been a change in circumstances within s 47(7), and if there has been no change in circumstances, the application must fail; (ii) if there has been a change in circumstances, the court has a discretion to permit the parents to defend the adoption proceedings. 

The decision whether or not to grant leave is governed by ACA 2002, s 1, and the paramount consideration for the court must be the child’s welfare throughout his life. When deciding either limb, the judge has a discretion whether or not to hear oral evidence.

It is not necessary for the judge to conduct a full welfare hearing unless the issues which arise for decision positively require one, or require oral evidence in one or more particular respects.

Issue: 7289 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll