Application for judicial review of decision to place child for adoption pursuant to a placement order. The chronology was that: (a) on 3 August 2009 Brent’s adoption and permanency panel approved the match of the child with prospective adopters; (b) on or before 17 August 2009 Brent ratified the decision to place the child with them; (c) on 17 August 2009 the child first met the adopters; (d) introductory meetings continued for the next four day (e) on 21 August 2009 the mother’s solicitor notified Brent that she proposed to apply for leave to revoke the placement order; and (f) on 24 August 2009, unaware of the notification, the social workers caused the child to move to live with the adopters.
Held: Review was refused. Placement of a child for adoption is not defined in the Act, but W had been placed with the adopters on 17 August 2009 and so any application for leave to revoke made by the mother on 21 August 2009 would have been too late. The placement had occurred on 17 August because such was the date ‘when all the relevant legal formalities had been concluded and the introductions process began’. He had observed that: ‘the introductions process is not a process that takes place before the child in question has been placed for adoption: it is the first step in the relationship between the child and the prospective adopters after the child has been ‘placed for adoption’ by the authority.’
Coulson J
[2010] EWHC 175 (Admin), [2010] 1 FLR 1914, [2010] PTSR CS31, [2010] Fam Law 454
Bailii
Adoption and Children Act 2002
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Coventry City Council v PGO and Others CA 22-Jun-2011
The children had been placed with short term fosterers. On adopters being found, the fosterers themselves applied to adopt the children. The court was asked whether a county court judge had power to injunct the authority not to remove the children . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 June 2021; Ref: scu.396649
