The House of Lords have decided that acquisition of British Nationality is a real benefit which the court must consider under Section 6 of the 1976 Act and, provided real parental responsibility was to be exercised by the adopters, should not be subject to public policy requirements. No further comment is made as each such case will usually be suitable for transfer to the High Court.

This case makes interesting reading both for its facts and, in particular, for the Judge's observations on how courts may react when, in issues of child welfare, the cultural assumptions and customs of minority ethnic communities conflict with those of the majority culture.

A direction under Section 37 should only be made where "...it appeared that it might be appropriate to make a public law order". The court expressly approved the approach of Wall J in RE CE (SECTION 37 DIRECTION) [1995] 1 FLR 26 and thus the guidance offered by the Children Act Advisory Committee in its Guide to Best Practice.

The Court of Appeal (by a majority) held that the court could, acting of its own motion under Section 10 of the Act, make a residence order in favour of foster parents who were themselves disqualified by Section 9(3) from applying for leave to seek such an order for themselves. The Court of Appeal recognised that this was a difficult point and emphasised that the making of any such order "....would be a most exceptional order".

Here the Court of Appeal hold that where such applications are being heard together, that for the care order should be considered first so that the test in Section 1 of the 1989 Act takes precedence over that in Section 6 of the 1976 Act.

The court also draws attention to two problems of practice:

• the need for the court to appreciate the division of responsibility between the court and the local authority and for the court to insist on the one and not trespass on the other; and
• the need for caution in evaluating and weighing evidence in child welfare cases given by adult psychiatrists in support of their vulnerable patient: whose needs are really being considered?

In those (no doubt unusual) cases where a parent needed leave to remove from the jurisdiction before being able to apply for permission to enter a new country, and so could not make the usually required detailed proposals about home, education and contact etc, it was open to the court to grant conditional leave thus allowing the other parent to restore the case if the matters the subject of conditional leave had not been satisfactorily resolved. The judge added these words of caution:

This case serves as a reminder of the right of the Guardian ad Litem both in respect of the ‘threshold criteria' and any proposed order to advance submissions in conflict with those agreed between the local authority and (usually) the parents. However, at p 314, Wall J has this to say:

This case contains a valuable review of the rules and procedures involved in terminating (or considering so doing) the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem by reasons of complaint against him in a case. It is of some particular interest to those concerned with the role and functions of the Designated Family Judge.