It seems a concurrency or foster to adopt placement fell apart, recorded as it was in the Daily Mail The story was picked up from what I can see by the Guardian and Metro, it sounds almost implausible but this is the reality of taking on a child without a placement order- there is a risk.
When concurrency was first put forward as an option a lot of judges weren't happy because they felt that it pre-empted their decision making, it was treated as a done deal. This case I suppose and one back in July proves it isn't a done deal, but the anguish must be unbearable for that couple.
I do think that Munby needs to work on how he phrases things but in essence he appears to have said,,,
Sir Munby ruled that a child’s ties to its family should only be broken in exceptional circumstance, adding: ‘Without wishing to belittle or diminish all they have done for the boy, this is a case where there has been an unexceptional period of time caring for an unexpected child in an unexceptional case.’
Please or to access all these features
Please
or
to access all these features
Here are some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on adoption.
Adoption
"Adopters" have to hand back baby who has lived with them since a day old
1 reply
incywincybitofa · 26/09/2015 22:37
OP posts:
Please create an account
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.