“3. There’s however, some sort of credit for parents BEFORE placement orders
As Mr Feehan helpfully observed in his closing submissions, it is all very well to purport to undertake a balancing exercise, but a balance has to have a fulcrum and if the fulcrum is incorrectly placed towards one or other end of that which is to be weighed, one side of the analysis or another will be afforded undue, automatic weight. Taking that point up from where Mr Feehan left it, in proceedings at the stage prior to making a placement for adoption order the balance will rightly and necessarily reflect weight being afforded to any viable natural family placement because there is no other existing placement of the child which must be afforded weight on the other side of the scales. Where, as here, time has moved on and such a placement exists, and is indeed the total reality of the child’s existence, it cannot be enough to decide the overall welfare issue simply by looking at the existence of the viable family placement and nothing else.”
This time I’m going to deal with Placement Orders and Adoption Orders – and largely of course what the Courts are looking for when deciding whether to approve a care plan of adoption rather than placement with a family member.
I expect to be changing this page a LOT. Adoption law is changing faster at the moment than Justin Beiber’s views about Instagram.
Quick sidetrack. I like dinosaurs.
Of course I do. That’s surprised none of you, I suspect. I would actually go to a real world Jurassic Park if they built one. I would actually go to a real world Jurassic Park like the one in the last movie where 42% of the guests were eaten to bits. I wouldn’t care. Sign me up, I’m going. Every day I pass Thomson’s window and sigh that there’s still no Jurassic Park brochures.
One of the first dinosaurs found, in fossil…
View original post 6,630 more words