“47. Contrary to the judge’s judgment, there was no evidence that L had suffered attachment damage. On the contrary, the Children’s Guardian had observed L to be well attached to the foster carer and therefore able to make secure attachments in the future. Whilst delay is always inimical to a child’s interests, there is nothing in L’s history or life experiences to date to suggest that her position is any different to any other child of 6 months. The sooner L (in common with all children in her position) is settled with a permanent primary carer the better. However, the generally accepted critical period for forming long term secure attachments would not have been be fatally compromised in L’s case to such that delay had, in her interests to be, to all intents and purposes, the determining factor. This was particularly so in circumstances where it was common ground that adopters could be identified quickly following the making of a placement order (and indeed following the making of the placement order now challenged, prospective adopters were identified within a matter of weeks).”
I have to say that when I first read Re P (A child) 2018 I thought it was of limited interest and value and incredibly fact-specific, but I am aware that this is not how it is being viewed by some, and therefore felt it might warrant a blog post.
This is a Court of Appeal decision from an original decision from Her Honour Judge Probyn (who used to sit in my local area, and whom I like)
At the time of the final hearing, the child was 7 months old. There were two older children who had been removed as a result of mother’s alcoholism and findings that the mother had told significant lies during those proceedings.
The mother, who had been a long-standing alcoholic, was seeking an extension of the proceedings for six months. HHJ Probyn refused that and made a Placement Order, mother appealed. It is…
View original post 2,235 more words