Dismissal of FPR 2010, Part 18 applications
23.At the final hearing, all those appearing before the court were essentially in agreement that the issue should no longer be addressed within proceedings under FPR 2010, Part 18 seeking bespoke declarations with respect to the validity of previous court orders made for each individual child. SCC therefore conceded that its applications for declaratory relief with respect to the wider cohort should be dismissed. The court was greatly assisted by the clarity of Ms Slarks’ submissions on behalf of the S of S which, in my view, accurately described the correct position in law. These are not adversarial proceedings between competing parties and, in circumstances where it is conceded that the applications should be dismissed, it is not necessary to take time in summarising the competing submissions of each party. I shall therefore turn to set out my reasons for dismissing the Part 18 applications, which, as I have indicated, are in large part based upon Ms Slarks’ submissions.
- 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?