Search

The article discusses cases related to long-term accommodation and adoption decisions. Article discusses that the Court of Appeal clarifies that section 20 (s20) accommodation can be appropriate for children, and there is no restriction on the length of time a child can be accommodated, and which may reduce the need for care proceedings in cases where s20 accommodation is suitable and parents provide informed consent.

The article discusses a court case concerning adoption of an infant named "Q" that was opposed by his biological father. The case occurred when the judge obliged F, father of Q, not to reveal information concerning Q nor communicate the family of his wife M, which was opposed by F due to claims that he and his family cared for Q that needed protection. The judge decided that the care Q had by F & M needed adoption by the couple whom she was assigned by the court.

The article discusses a court case addressed to the British Court of Appeal Civil Division on the problems on the adoption of T from the mother M, who was charged of abusing the siblings of T.

The article shows a court case addressed to the British High Court Family Division concerning adoption of the orphan named "PW." The case happened when PW was seeking court approval to appeal the adoption order and extend it to 51 years when she was 23 years old since the demise of her adoptive mother. The High Court declined permission since the adoption order was made in compliance to the Adoption Act 1958.

The article discusses a court case of parents Mr. and Mrs. B appealing to provide foster care to a child named A. The case occurred when a social worker who was taking care of A would not suggest placement of the child through a special guardianship unless the couple were set to live at a home away from where they and their extended family lived. The British Court of Appeal granted Mr. and Mrs. B the right to foster the child due to lack of clarity by the court order on child placement.