header-logo header-logo

FAMILY LAW

22 February 2007
Issue: 7261 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll