|
The CA upheld a judge’s decision to dismiss a grandmother’s application within care proceedings for residence orders in respect of three of her grandchildren.
Re M (Residence Order) Fam Div 23.02.07
An appeal by foster carers, who had applied for a residence order for a child, against the dismissal of their application to be joined as parties to care proceedings in respect of that child was allowed.
Re B (Children) (costs order) CA 21.02.07
An appeal against a costs order made on an indemnity basis against a mother was allowed and the order set aside. Due to a clerical error the District Judge had proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the mother had not complied with his previous order to produce medical evidence in support of her non-attendance.
Re W (a child) (care proceedings) CA 20.02.07
An appeal was allowed against the making of a final care order. In the proceedings allegations had been made that a child had been sexually abused by her father. The judge had found on the balance of probabilities that the abuse had not taken place. It had therefore not been open to the judge to hold that the threshold criteria had been satisfied on the basis of failure to protect. The CA noted it was difficult to see logically how a parent could be held to have failed to protect a child against something which had not occurred.
S (a child) (adoption order or special guardianship order) No .2 CA 14.02.07
CA held that a judge did not have the power to make a special guardianship order where no report had been obtained from the LA under s14 (8) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. However in a case where as in the instant case the bulk of the information necessary was already before the court the LA would only be required to file a report cross-referencing to the relevant information in the court’s papers and giving the missing information.
|