Application for permission to remove a child to India temporarily for the purpose of a wedding

The case is reported in Bailii here.

Joan represented the appellant mother in an appeal to the Court of Appeal which argued that it can be right to use s20 accommodation for the long-term care of a child and that in suitable cases it is not necessary for the local authority to hold a s31 order. Joan, led by Deidre Fottrell KC was successful in arguing that the court at first instance was wrong to conclude that a child should be placed in long-term care under a care order when it was clear that the parents had no intention of disrupting the placement and agreed that residential care was the best option for their child. Cases in which the courts criticised local authorities for the improper use of s20 were distinguished. The case is important as parents retain parental responsibility on an equal footing to the local authority if the child is accommodated under s20 rather than a s31 order being made, strengthening the parents’ ability to advocate for their child and putting the parents and local authority on an equal footing.

This point is made in the article written by Joan and Tatiana Rocha which examined the case of Re S and its implications for other similar cases: “Putting parents on a level playing field: when is s20 appropriate for the long-term care of a child?”  A copy of the article can be found on this link:

Joan Connell represented the children through their Children’s Guardian in a case in which the children’s mother had been murdered by their father. The court had to determine which of two family members, one paternal and one maternal, should care for the children throughout their minority and also issues of contact with the father in prison. The court also considered the legal principles to be applied in circumstances where a person found guilty of an offence refuses to accept the outcome of the criminal trial.

Joan Connell represented the respondent local authority in proceedings in which the Appellant Mother successfully appealed a refusal for an adjournment for six months at a final hearing. At the time of the final hearing L, was 7 months old. M was a recovering alcoholic who sought further time to demonstrate abstinence and insight into the concerns of the local authority regarding her honesty and ability to work with professionals in the event of a future relapse. The court at first instance refused the application for an adjournment and made care and placement orders. On appeal the final orders were set aside, the adjournment granted and the case set down for a further hearing. The President’s guidance in Re S Child [2014] EWHC was considered.

Joan Connell represented the Local Authority in the case: London Borough of Merton v SB & Ors [2017] EWFC B81.

Mark Twomey QC represented the Respondent Mother, who made a successful application for the transfer of care proceedings to Slovakia under the provisions of Article 15 of BIIR.

Application for permission to remove a child to India temporarily for the purpose of a wedding