southgate solicitors

We're here to help you

Send your details to us and we will call you back to take further information about your matter.

We're here to help you

Send your details to us and we will call you back to take further information about your matter.

Grandmother appeals decision that grandson should be adopted 

A grandmother has successfully appealed against a decision that her two-year-old grandson should be placed for adoption rather than be taken in by her. 

The boy had been removed from his parents at birth and had been in foster care all his life. His grandmother had put herself forward as carer from the outset.  

However, the local authority had assessed her negatively in March 2020 because of concerns about her health, her home conditions, her smoking and the history of her own parenting.  

The Family Court heard evidence that the grandmother had received positive assessments from two separate social worker visits, although neither went as far as recommending her as a foster carer for her grandson.  

There was a concern that she would not be able to protect him from his parents’ toxic relationship. In September and October 2020, the grandmother had called the police twice after seeing aggressive behaviour by the father towards the mother.  

The judge found a difficulty with the grandmother’s loyalty to her daughter and concluded that the only option that would meet the boy’s welfare needs was adoption.   

That decision has been overturned by the Court of Appeal.  

It noted that the judge had ‘telescoped’ the process. He had ruled out the grandmother as carer because he found that she would be incapable of protecting the child from a risk of harm from his parents.  

However, there were other matters that had not been taken into account.   

The grandmother’s home conditions were now satisfactory, she had stopped smoking, and had the support of her younger daughter and husband whose child had grown up in her home without incident.  

The boy’s parents now lived a long way away, and there were protective orders that might be made to keep them from contacting the boy.  
An urgent rehearing of the case was ordered.

Case Citation: Court of Appeal (Civil Division)  [2022] EWCA Civ 896 [2022] 6 WLUK 369  Judge King LJ; Peter Jackson LJ; Popplewell LJ   

If you would like more information or advice about the issues raised in this article, or any aspect of family law please contact our expert legal team on 02080040065, by email at hello@southgate.co.uk or using the form below.

The contents of this article are general information only. The information in this article is not legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this article was published. Readers should not act on the basis of the information included and should obtain independent expert advice from qualified solicitors such as those within our firm.

We're here to help you

Send your details to us and we will call you back to take further information about your matter, or you can click the number below.

We're here to help you

Send your details to us and we will call you back to take further information about your matter, or you can click the number below.