Grandmother wins appeal over being grandson’s foster carer

September 18, 2018

A judge had underestimated the powers of a grandmother who is fighting a legal battle to become her grandchild’s foster carer.

 

That was the decision of the Court of Appeal in a case involving the welfare on an 18-month old baby.

 

The baby had been in foster care since birth because the parents could not care for him. The judge at the initial hearing held that the best outcome for the child would be a placement with the grandmother.

 

However, the local authority's fostering panel refused to approve her application to become a family and friends foster carer, which was required for the placement to be lawful.

 

The panel reconsidered that decision at the judge's request but maintained its position. The judge then made a placement order for adoption in line with the local authority’s recommendations. The order was stayed for four weeks to allow the grandmother to apply for judicial review of the panel's decision.

 

The grandmother challenged the ruling and the Court of Appeal has now found in her favour. It held that the judge had erred in making the placement order at the stage she did.

 

She had underestimated the grandmother’s powers and should not have accepted the local authority's unchanged position without calling it to account for its unconvincing response to her careful assessment of risk and welfare.

 

By staying the order to allow for judicial review proceedings, she was acknowledging that the court's resources were exhausted, when they were not. She effectively accepted that the question of placement was one for the local authority rather than the court, which it was not.

 

The judge should have re-evaluated the remaining options for the baby’s future. By not doing that, she boxed herself in. Had she looked at matters afresh, she would have realised that the baby was being sent for adoption because of a non-court body's decision.

 

Such outcome was unprecedented in modern times.

 

The judge's further investigations would have led her to better understand who was ultimately directing the local authority's thinking and to achieve effective engagement with them until the issue was satisfactorily resolved.

 

The matter was remitted to be reheard by a different judge.

 

Please contact our expert legal team on 0208 004 0065, by email at hello@southgate.co.uk or using the form below if you would like more information or advice about the issues raised in this article, or any aspect of family law.

 

Case Citations: [2018] EWCA Civ 650RE T (A CHILD) (2018)CA (Civ Div) (McFarlane LJ, Peter Jackson LJ, Newey LJ)

Share on Facebook
Tweet
Please reload

What We Offer You

Expert

Solicitors

Price

Promise

Skype

Meetings

Free

Chat

Out of Hours

Appointments

Quick

Responses

No Hidden

Fees

Modern

Service

Expedited

Services

Law Society

Accreditation

Do you need to discuss your family law matter with a solicitor?
Call us now or send an enquiry below to discuss your options!

86 Crown Lane, London, N14 5EN - Tel: 0208 004 0065 - Fax: 0208 090 6155 - hello@southgate.co.uk

southgate solicitors is a trading name of Southgate Solicitors Limited Company No: 10575376 - Registered Office in England at 86 Crown Lane, London, N14 5EN

We are authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority No: 636415

All prices displayed are inclusive of VAT.

VAT No: 263804305

Privacy Terms of Use - Complaints Process

  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon
  • Instagram Social Icon