Hello. Welcome, everybody. My name stuffed Mahmoud and I'm very pleased to welcome you to today's bys. I session through data law Destinies de Bites I session where I'm taking through the steps after placement towards a made in terms of education and also opposing adoption. So despite Sigh session, I'll be going through somebody Developments in this field of law off the course off the last few years and in particular I'll be taking foods. The developing case law on tests for revocation of placement orders and also leave to oppose the making off adoption orders. Onder really bringing up to speed with somebody developing on recent case law and statutory developments in this field. Okay, Celestine, start with D position with applications. Revoke a placement order. So just to put this into context, this is where by let's assume you're dealing with a case where, by the local thought in its capacity as an adoption agency has lodged on pursuit of care and placement order. Now the placement order under Section 21 of the adoption Children at 2000 and two, we'll give the adoption agency the authority to place the child for adoption with prospective adopters chosen by them unless they care and placement order is granted in relation to a child on the adoption agency, are now seeking to place a child for adoption. They identify the fact that there will need to be a number of approaches to try and find families, which will be looking both internally within the adoption agency and also externally. And let's say that's taken some time, some months to try and find alternate but possible prospective adopters for the child. And in doing that time, let's say you're acting for the mother or father or both on that question. Done is if the parents not situation, seek to seek permission to be able to seek leave to revolt de placement order. Now that application is going to be made under Section 24 subsection two off the adoption Children at 2002. But the questionnaires at what stage are they going to be prevented from making the application? And that is the point of which a child has been placed for adoption. So therefore, it's very important for backing for parents that if you're going to be applying for leave to oppose, so it leaves revolt a placement order that you make such an application before the child has been placed. So when is that what This is where this case of C City Council and others off 2011 summed up this point. This involved two Children aged one to local authority. Obtained Kevin placement orders on the prospective doctors were introduced to the Children. The plan was to increase the contact and for the Children to reside with the prospective adopters nine days later. But on the 11th Sorry on the eighth day, and if a day before they were going to be beginning to reside with the prospective adopters on a long term basis, the foster care is in fact, applied these other foster kids for Children. They applied for leave to revolt, the placement orders and also for an injunction to prohibit the removal of the Children from their cats. On that this is really the question the court had, which is did the court of jurisdiction to make an injunction with short term foster carers gave notice off the intention to adopt a foster child to prevent removal by local authorities who had the benefit of a placement order, and secondly, When is a child placed for adoption? Is it when the child food first meets the prospective adopters? Was it when they begin to look liquid that might want city introductions have been concluded. What a court did say on appeal. The court did say that the lower court did have jurisdiction to grant injunctions if necessary. Uh, and it's follows where the foster care is. Within time, the court said yes, they were because the child is not formally placed until such time of the child begins to live with the prospective adopters or if the child is already living with them when they changed it capacity as Foster cares to one of adopters, and that's when the adoption agency formally allows them to continue to live with them, and they're fresh capacity as prospective adopters. So essentially, the court took the view that the child is formally placed when the child begins to form, delivered the prospective adopters and therefore, after a period of introductions, or if the prospective adopters are foster cares. For example, when one state therefore changed their status for one of Foster cares to adopters on that, Therefore the placement continues. But the point of which their status has been changed to one of the Spectra doctors. So that's that. Just the one case to bear in mind. Then let's say the child is such that the child, therefore, has not yet Bean placed for adoption. What then is the test for leave to revolt? The placement told one. This is where the case or white shirt can a council and others is important. So this was an application by the mother in relation to two Children aged three and five. She sought leave to revolt the placement orders on the reasons why D placement orders were made initially, where it issues for signing substance misuse and also domestic abuse perpetrated by mothers. Former partner to her. My mother sought leave to revolt to placement orders on the basis that she argued that pursuant to Section 24 subsection two subsection A, the two limbs were met. Firstly, she was arguing that she had been a changing circumstances and secondly, she sought to argue that the welfare of the Children was such that leave should be granted, not a court did, Cesar told other wealthy child is a relevant consideration. This is not department consideration when it comes to leave to revoke placement order instead of relevant consideration principles. Whether the proposed application has a real prospect off success now here there have been changes i e. Mother had addressed some of the issues surrounding the domestic abuse, but she was really only able to be it. Initial stages have been get to address these matters and therefore imbalance to court did not feel that have been sufficient change of mothers, or they have been changed to warrant satisfying the test on the Section 24 a. That there had been a change of circumstances that unwanted, moving onto a second limp off, being satisfied at wealth overcharged required leave to be granted. Let's assume, then, that the child has not been placed for adoption and it may well be that there is an application by saying birth parent for leave to oppose the making of the adoption order. On that. This is where one of the early cases on this was a case of Ri p. A child is 2007 quarter appeal case, so this is one whereby the child had been placed with prospective adopters. The parents had another child on having had undergone a successful residential assessment. That second child was returned and placed back in their care. Mother then became pregnant with their third child on an apparent applied for leave to oppose the making of the adoption or relation to their first child. They argued that there had been a changing circumstances in that they are the second child which was successfully rehabilitation into their care. Mother was pregnant with baby number three, and matters are going very well what a court did say. But to be satisfied that relief should be granted, one has to look at Section 47 of the Adoption Children Act. It's a two pronged test. Firstly, want us to show that there has been a changing circumstances and then, secondly, that leave of the court should be that the wealth of a child is such that leave should be granted on here? The court did say that the changed circumstances has to relate to grant of leave and has to be of a nature or degree sufficient on the facts to one of the exercise off judicial discretion. The test should not be set too high as parents in a position that parents should not be discouraged from bettering themselves or from seeking to prevent the adoption off their child by imposition of tests, which may seem unachievable once on. If that test is matched on the second part is to be satisfied at the world from Charlie such that leave should be granted now here. The court did say that the plan had for adoption had been placed for nearly a year on that the child had been placed with prospective doctors for some time on here. The court felt that there had been insufficient information. Before the court showed up. The first limb had been matin. Therefore, the court was not obliged to go on and considered a second limb under Section 47 subsection seven. So the appeal was dismissed. Now one of leading cases on leave proposed many of you will be familiar with is the place of re Bs. This is the 2013 quarter of pure decision, which involved two Children aged five in six. Both may subject Karen placement toward it. Ana subsequently placed for adoption, but four months later, Children placed for adoption on, but the Children had been with the prospective adopters now for some six months and the prospective adopters and lodge the application about a year after the care replacement orders inmates us to adopt the Children, and this is where Mother who was notified, that's so permission to oppose the making of the adoption. Or does she argued that there had been a change in circumstances. Now Mr the president of the family divisional J. Lord Justice Mumby, handed down the leading judgment on the court did say that the welfare of a child in relation to leave to oppose application is the court's paramount consideration. Under Section 47 subsection five, the test is one has to. Firstly, show has to be not changing circumstances, and secondly, it was believed to oppose should be given. We'll hear the court was satisfied that Mother had made quite significant progress insofar as being able to address a lot of issues that faced her when declaring placement orders were made. He was a lot more controlled and have thinking in the thought processes and on the court was pleased with the progress that she had made. The court did say that it may be argued that the leaf proposed application should be refused because of the impact upon the prospective adopters and if on a child, if the child is then moved from the prospective adopters to say back out into parental care else way the court did say, although not trivializing this point at a court should have touched, should not touch him due weight to the argument because, of course, any application leave to oppose should be such that parents must be given the opportunity to better themselves. On that. We have to seek Teoh, get leave her polls if necessary. But of course, the longer the child had been his perspective doctors, the more harder it would be to be up to justify leave. Tipo has been granted into circumstances. Under fact, believe leave to oppose was not granted. Your mother was a pretty that's for the first part of a tested, short changing second dances. The court did say that the welfare of Children, such was such that impact upon them off of not being adopted in the circumstances was such that that would be detrimental to their interests in a long term. Now, this is where there's also a case of A and B on Rotherham MBC This is one whereby leader opposed the making of adoption order was in fact granted. This is one where Child had been made subject Kevin Placement all doesn't place for adoption with prospective adopters and that the child had been with prospective adopters now for some 13 months. But when he came to the application for adoption, Father was served and in fact he didn't put himself forward. But he put forward his sister, who he claimed had not been identified. In fact, have not been assessed. Uh, Jundi cap seatings on the court if was there for being asked to deal with the question off. Applying Section one subsection six of the adoption Children acting that the court should only be making adoption order by doing so. It was better for a child on where nothing else will do, particularly bearing in mind of principles, and be here. The court did say that Section one, subsection 40 adoption and Children that does require the court consider the feasibility of a child remained a member of the original family. Now here. The child had been with the prospective adopters for some 30 months, but at the same time it was recognized that they had put being put 40 paternal aunt who had been assessed, for whom it was a positive assessment and therefore His Lordship doctor view that it was not possible on the fax to deny the charge being brought up by biological family. They only minded principles under Section one, subsection 40 adoption Children Acting that there was the feasibility of a child being brought up by the original family on different judge could not be satisfied that her adoption would be in the child's best interests and better for the child and not on that. Nothing else will do and therefore leave was granted, and subsequently the adoption order was not made. Now that them brings into play at the other case, off Re are on. In this particular case, the president of Family Division in 2014 emphasized the fact that insofar as we BS is concerned, this hasn't necessarily change the law insofar as Hamiti consider or realistic options on. In fact, there is still a need to consider or realistic options when it comes to plans for Children, whether it's adoption or otherwise under his Lordship did say that it is of course, possible Nonetheless, to discount possibility of placement family Andi friends are doomed proceedings on Also did. The president did say that that seems to be a increasingly increasing practice around the country at a time that to discount a kinship care, it seems that to negative assessments are required. But his lordship said that this is not the case on. Instead, one has to weigh up the realistic options on it is possible to, of course, ladies open and courts and local thought he should not shy away from seeking orders or courts for making care. Orders of the plan for adoption in circumstances where that's what the child's welfare demands and requires in the circumstances linked him. With that, there is the case of re out this more recent case, which looked up issue of change in circumstances. And this is one whereby an application was made by Mother for permission to appeal against the order refusing to oppose the making off adoption orders place from told us that he made, and it was, in fact, in the care and placement proceedings where they had been erected. There had been an assessment on off mother by a psychologist who had recommended that must engage in some 20 sessions of cognitive behaviour therapies and possibly more. Now came placement orders were made under Children. Dear Children are placed for adoption. Another timescales for the SS of cognitive behavior therapy was some 18 months to two years, and that it was felt by the trial judge would not be within the time scouts off these Children. The Children were subsequently placed for adoption and had been with the perspective doctors for some two years. And this is where Mother sought to argued that there had been a change in circumstances for the purposes of Section 47 5 that is, she had separated and remain separate from the Children's father that she had been a new relationship for some years where there was no domestic abuse, she had a stronger networks support network and she had gained its a good employment whereby there's a degree of responsibility. However, Mother had only completed some five sessions of the CBT, as opposed to the 20 odd sessions on the basis that she argued that the so peace has suggested that she didn't need to complete this, but actually under facts when the court made further enquiries to court identified that thing. Fat wasn't the case and in fact it was Mother who decided that the sessions would not help in a much Onda, therefore did not proceed with those. The court did take the view that despite all the effort was a maid and she need to be commended. For the Fergus had made what was outstanding at the CBT. Work was integral and central, two reasons what Karen placement orders were made. And they found that base of the court were not prepared to be satisfied that leaf should be granted in the second stances that there's recently been deep presidents guidance on listing, final hearings and adoption cases which is worth reading. This is off 11th of April 2018. On it particularly is off assistance so far as the position with when one is dealing with contest adoption cases, the listing of the matter, the timing off parents been given the opportunity to attend and to be given opportunity to challenge, and also, if the application alito opposing us is unsuccessful, the minimum period doom which decor cannot grant the adoption older needs to then list a matter for final adoption. Hearing thereafter serve a very important, too. Have a read through that. Finally, there wants to Georgie Attention. Case of re doubly. This was a 2016 case on what this highlight is the fact that even though here the child concerned had been placed with prospective adopters on had been with them for some 17 months, even though they had been a positive assessment of paternal family who had unidentified very late in the proceedings and have not put themselves forward sooner. This in itself did not justify the child not being adopted on the Stepford Hard to return to birth family. The court took the view that the criteria on the Section one subsection four off the adoption Children at 2002 and particular sub paragraph F specifically requires the court to take into account the relationship the child has not only with birth family or members of the original birth family, and coming to plans for adoption but also with any other person on any other person, does include any relationship with the child has with prospective adopters. On under fax here, the court found that given the chartered formed a substantial relationship with the prospective doctors. The court felt that leave under six on the facts of that case would not be granted to oppose the making of the adoption order on that has actually now Bean set out within statute. And in fact, the Children and Social Work Act of 2017 brought in specifically the provision on the 31st October 2000 and 17 so that when it comes to plants for adoption, their core does have a duty not to have regard to relationship with the church, which the child may have with a prospector. Doctors in those circumstances, in coming to a decision as to whether or not leave to oppose, should be granted in the circumstances they can see. It's a very important part which doesn't need to have regard to when it comes to plans for adoption, so pulling it together, you can see that the case law has developed quite considerably over the last five or six years in relation to one, I believe, to revoke placement orders on, and secondly, in relation to the case law that's developed in relation to leave to oppose the making of adoption orders and you can see some of the more recent cases re W in particular, and the Children and Social Work Act of 2017 are really pulling this together and so far as the position with the relationship. That chart also has with adopters on Burnison that against relationship. But the child may have or potentially may have with birth family when it comes to applications for adoption. Hope that's been of a useful session for you. Can I thank you very much indeed for listening today and I speak to next time. Thank you very much. Bye for now.
Webinar
Notes
Quiz 
3062 Users
171 Courses
157 Reviews
