Cosmetic window-dressing after the fact is too little too late and fuels criticism over draconian social engineering. Until mistakes over exaggerated risk are rectified properly by actually reunifying forcibly removed children with parents, invalid decisions cannot be rectified or remedied effectively enough.
In re P (A child) 2016
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/3.html
The Court of Appeal conclude that a Judge who made a Placement Order (thus authorising a child to be placed for adoption) had not conducted a sufficiently robust analysis of the relative merits of the placement options before making that decision. The Judge had set out in the judgment what he was required to do, but the Court of Appeal say that he didn’t actually do it.
That’s been an issue I’ve been concerned about for quite a while – I read all of the published judgments, and it seems to me that the complaints that the Court of Appeal made in Re B-S about ‘adoption is the last resort’ being a stock phrase of judicial window-dressing, a remark to be thrown into a judgment but with no real engagement with the principle and philosophy has just been replaced by Judges inserting into…
View original post 2,128 more words
