England and Wales

Alexandra Harris
{"title":"England and Wales","authors":"Alexandra Harris","doi":"10.1177/03085759221086567","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In April 2021 a case was heard in the Court of Appeal in which the applicant noticed that the local authority had applied for a placement order on the basis of an Agency Decision-Maker’s (ADM) decision that had not been made in accordance with the Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005. That case prompted a widespread review of cases where placement orders had been obtained by Somerset County Council and gave rise to an application in a group of cases in which children were in the process of being matched with prospective adopters. The application was for a declaration under Part 18 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 that the placement orders had been lawfully made, notwithstanding the accepted breach of the Regulations. The local authority agreed that they had breached Regulations 15 and 17. At the time of the ADM decision, the agency did not have a health report from the agency medical adviser, or advice that one was not required. In addition, the Child’s Permanence Report did not include a summary, written by the agency medical adviser, of the state of the child’s health. The court found that the breaches of the Regulations were not merely matters of form which could be easily rectified, but potentially of substance. In each case, the court reviewed the medical reports that had been available to the ADM at the time of decision, and subsequent medical reports. In each case, the court came to the conclusion that the ADM had sufficient medical information before her at the time of making the decision, and that the medical adviser would have been unlikely to recommend further examination. The declarations were therefore made that the decisions and the subsequent placement orders were lawfully made. The court also considered the appointment of the medical adviser, which is required by Regulation 9. There was no formal document setting out the terms of appointment, but the court was satisfied from correspondence made available that the medical adviser had been properly appointed and subject to appropriate supervision and training.","PeriodicalId":92743,"journal":{"name":"Adoption & fostering","volume":"188 1","pages":"88 - 90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Adoption & fostering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03085759221086567","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In April 2021 a case was heard in the Court of Appeal in which the applicant noticed that the local authority had applied for a placement order on the basis of an Agency Decision-Maker’s (ADM) decision that had not been made in accordance with the Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005. That case prompted a widespread review of cases where placement orders had been obtained by Somerset County Council and gave rise to an application in a group of cases in which children were in the process of being matched with prospective adopters. The application was for a declaration under Part 18 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 that the placement orders had been lawfully made, notwithstanding the accepted breach of the Regulations. The local authority agreed that they had breached Regulations 15 and 17. At the time of the ADM decision, the agency did not have a health report from the agency medical adviser, or advice that one was not required. In addition, the Child’s Permanence Report did not include a summary, written by the agency medical adviser, of the state of the child’s health. The court found that the breaches of the Regulations were not merely matters of form which could be easily rectified, but potentially of substance. In each case, the court reviewed the medical reports that had been available to the ADM at the time of decision, and subsequent medical reports. In each case, the court came to the conclusion that the ADM had sufficient medical information before her at the time of making the decision, and that the medical adviser would have been unlikely to recommend further examination. The declarations were therefore made that the decisions and the subsequent placement orders were lawfully made. The court also considered the appointment of the medical adviser, which is required by Regulation 9. There was no formal document setting out the terms of appointment, but the court was satisfied from correspondence made available that the medical adviser had been properly appointed and subject to appropriate supervision and training.
英格兰和威尔士
2021年4月,上诉法院审理了一个案件,其中申请人注意到,地方当局根据机构决策者的决定申请了安置令,而该决定没有按照2005年《收养机构条例》作出。该案件促使对萨默塞特郡议会已获得安置令的案件进行广泛审查,并在一组儿童正在与可能的收养人配对的案件中提出申请。该申请是根据2010年《家庭程序规则》第18部分声明安置令是合法作出的,尽管已承认违反了该规则。当地政府承认他们违反了第15条和第17条规定。在ADM作出决定时,该机构没有收到机构医疗顾问的健康报告,也没有收到不需要医疗顾问的建议。此外,《儿童的持久性报告》没有包括由工程处医疗顾问撰写的关于儿童健康状况的摘要。法院认为,违反《条例》不仅是形式问题,可以很容易地加以纠正,而且是潜在的实质问题。在每一起案件中,法院都审查了在作出决定时向ADM提供的医疗报告以及随后的医疗报告。在每个案件中,法院得出的结论是,ADM在作出决定时掌握了充分的医疗信息,医疗顾问不太可能建议进一步检查。因此,声明这些决定和随后的安置令是合法作出的。法院还审议了《条例》第9条所要求的医疗顾问的任命。没有正式文件规定任命条件,但法院从收到的信函中确信,医疗顾问得到了适当的任命,并受到了适当的监督和培训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信