accurately states the law
. An application for a placement order cannot properly be made by an adoption agency unless …” [emphasis added]The key point is that the error that led to the appeal being allowed in Re B was that of the recorder and not the local authority. It was the recorder who had become a ‘first actor’. The Court of Appeal’s concern was that, in so doing, the recorder had sought to by-pass or short-circuit the scheme laid down by Parliament. The reference by Wall LJ to Re P-B is also of note. In Re B the court gave reserved judgments and Wall LJ can thus be taken to be fully aware both of the obiter caveat in Arden LJ’s judgment in Re P-B and of her commentary upon it in Re B itself, both of which expressly exclude consideration of a case where the court acts in ignorance of any procedural breach by the adoption agency.
- Approved Judgment
- Introduction
- Summary of conclusion
- The Legal Context
- “Requirement to obtain information about the child
- MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CHILD'S HEALTH REPORT
- “21 Placement orders
- Dismissal of FPR 2010, Part 18 applications
- The validity of a placement order or an adoption order
- [2015] AC 1787
- Are existing placement or adoption orders vulnerable to challenge?
- On what basis may a placement order be set aside or revoked?
- [2008] EWCA 835
- I have reached the conclusion that the Recorder was wrong for the simple reason that
- Re P-B
- accurately states the law
- On what basis may an adoption order be set aside or revoked?
- “Is it open to this court in 2009 to set aside the adoption orders?
- simply make it impossible for this court to set aside the adoption orders even if, as Mr and Mrs Webster argue, they have suffered a serious injustice
- FPR 2010, Part 18
- Conclusion
- What needs to happen now?
