Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Nottinghamshire County Council v Mother & Ors

[2023] EWHC 3512 (Fam)
Mom and Dad are in jail. Because of past abuse and violence, the court decided the younger two kids should be adopted to give them a stable home. The oldest child is doing well with her dad, but she won't be able to see her mom much to make sure the younger kids get adopted.

Key Facts

  • Three children (C1, C2, C3) are involved; C1 is 10, C2 is 4, and C3 is 3.
  • The mother (M) and father of C2 and C3 (F1) are both imprisoned; F1 for life (murder), M for manslaughter.
  • Father of C1 (F2) is seeking a Prohibited Steps Order (PSO) to prevent M from removing C1.
  • M is seeking contact with C1.
  • The Local Authority (LA) is seeking placement orders for C2 and C3.
  • There is a history of domestic abuse by F1 towards M, witnessed by C1.
  • The murder of V1 (wife of F1's cousin) involved M encouraging F1 to violence.
  • Various relatives and friends have been considered as potential carers for C2 and C3 but were deemed unsuitable.
  • C1 is currently living with F2 and doing well.

Legal Principles

The child's welfare is the paramount consideration.

Children Act 1989, s.1; Adoption and Children Act 2002, s.1(2)

Consent to adoption can be dispensed with if the child's welfare requires it.

Adoption and Children Act 2002, s.52(1)(b)

The test for severing the parent-child relationship is strict; 'nothing else will do'.

Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33

All realistic options must be considered.

Re B-S (Adoption: Application of s.47(5)) [2013] EWCA Civ. 1146

Lies must be assessed for their impact on the child's welfare.

Re K (Children: Placement Orders) [2020] EWCA (Civ) 1503

Article 8 ECHR rights (family life) must be considered, with child's rights prevailing.

Yusuf v The Netherlands

Outcomes

Placement orders granted for C2 and C3.

No other realistic option met their needs for stability and a loving home within a reasonable timeframe. Long-term foster care was deemed unsuitable due to inherent instability and lack of guarantee for sibling contact.

PSO granted to prevent M from removing C1.

To protect C1's stability and security.

s.91(14) order granted.

To filter future applications by M regarding contact with C1.

No contact order for C1 with M at this stage.

To protect C1's stability and consider F2's concerns about prison visits, although future contact outside prison may be considered.

C1's contact with M will be severely restricted if C2 and C3 are adopted.

To maximize the chance of prospective adopters accepting sibling contact.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.