The Local Authority v M & Ors
[2024] EWFC 70 (B)
Wakefield Metropolitan District Council v A & Ors
25 November 2024
[2024] EWFC 345 (B)
Family Court
Three kids needed a home. Their foster carers wanted to adopt them, but the local council refused because of the cost, even though it would have been cheaper! The court said the council was being silly and ordered the adoption, because the kids' happiness is more important than money.
Key Facts
- •Three siblings (X, Y, Z) are subject to care proceedings.
- •Y and Z have been in foster care with Mr. and Mrs. H since March 2024.
- •Mr. and Mrs. H expressed interest in becoming special guardians.
- •Local authority initially refused adequate financial support for special guardianship.
- •Local authority initially sought care and placement orders, later conceding long-term foster care was appropriate.
- •Significant cost difference between long-term foster care and special guardianship (£657,000 more for foster care).
- •Local authority's position deemed Wednesbury unreasonable due to financial motivations overriding children's best interests.
- •Local authority ultimately agreed to fund special guardianship.
- •X's placement and contact with her father were also determined.
Legal Principles
Children Act 1989: paramount consideration of the child's welfare.
Children Act 1989
Wednesbury unreasonableness: a decision is unreasonable if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Outcomes
Special guardianship orders granted for Y and Z.
Mr. and Mrs. H are the most suitable carers; financial concerns of the local authority were deemed unreasonable and not in the children's best interests.
Fortnightly contact ordered between X and her father.
To maintain familial bonds and address X's loneliness and dysregulation, while remaining subject to review.