header-logo header-logo

13 September 2024
Issue: 8085 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 13 September 2024

Adoption

Re M (a child) [2024] EWCA Civ 1000, [2024] All ER (D) 55 (Aug)

The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on the appellant’s appeal against the order of the previous judge who had refused the local authority’s (LA) application for a placement order in respect of a four-year-old child, ‘M’. The judge said he considered of the fact that M as a child in care could have been stigmatised and at increased risk of breakdown of long-term fostering placements. However, the fact that there was such a close bond between mother and daughter, it would have helped to make the foster placement stronger, and less likely to break down. The LA advanced three grounds of appeal and argued that the judge: (i) erred in peremptorily dismissing adoption as a realistic option for M; (ii) failed to sufficiently evaluate the realistic options; and (iii) his reasons were inadequate. The court held that it was difficult to comprehend how the judge so unhesitatingly reached the decision he did. The judgment lacked a rigorous

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll