header-logo header-logo

10 May 2013
Issue: 7559 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Adoption

Re CB (a child) (adoption proceedings: lack of care order) [2013] EWCA Civ 476, [2013] All ER (D) 29 (May)

Where a child was accommodated by an authority and the authority considered that the conditions of s 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 were met, it had to apply to the court for a placement order. There was no suggestion in the statutory scheme that looked after children who were accommodated but in respect of whom parental responsibility had not been vested in a local authority by the making of an interim or full care order were excluded from the placement order decision making process. Accordingly, it was legally permissible for a local authority to present a case to its adoption panel and issue an application for a placement for adoption order in circumstances where the child was not subject to an interim care order but was simply accommodated under s 20 of the 1989 Act.

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll