The CA dismissed a Father’s appeal against the refusal of his application for a parental responsibility order and against the making of a s.91(14) order. Useful guidance was given on the importance of considering whether appropriate safeguards could be put in place to allow a father to obtain parental responsibility without compromising the care and security of the child.
A Father’s appeal against care and adoption orders was allowed and the matter remitted for re-hearing. The CA again emphasising the importance of fully balanced analysis following the judgments in Re B.
Following the Supreme Court judgments in Re B the court took the opportunity when allowing a Mother’s second appeal against the making of care orders to address the more rigorous standards of judicial scrutiny required in undertaking the balancing exercise as to whether a public law order is necessary. When considering the welfare checklist the court must consider the effects both positive and negative of all potential care alternatives i.e. the positives and negatives of long-term foster care as well as the positives and negatives of a return to parental care. So that the capacity of the local authority as a corporate parent is considered alongside the capacity of the parents. An important judgment to have to hand if representing parents in care proceedings.
The court addressed the question as to whether the lawful removal of a child from the US became a wrongful removal following a successful appeal against the order which had allowed removal. The court held that this did not render a lawful removal unlawful and thus the child in question, who had been brought to the UK had acquired habitual residence here. The length of time (12 months) for the US appeal was a relevant factor. The court holding that once there has been a lawful departure, annulled 12 months later by a successful appeal only Article 18 (and in an English context the inherent jurisdiction) could provide a remedy for the successful appellant.
The court made a wasted costs order against the LB Croydon as a result of serious and sustained failures in their preparation of s.37 reports in a case of alleged fabricated illness. LB Croydon had not been a party to the proceedings.