Essex County Council does not have a fixed amount of "debt" for all placenta or care orders; rather, they are ordered to pay specific costs or damages in individual cases based on judicial decisions. For instance, they were ordered to pay £12,000 in costs after a failed appeal regarding a care and placement order and £14,000 in legal costs to adopters after a judge deemed their actions unreasonable. Judges have criticized the council for acting unreasonably, providing misleading information, and failing to recognize strong cases against them in various family court matters.
Examples of Court Orders and Judicial Criticism
Cost Orders:A judge ordered Essex County Council to pay £12,000 towards the costs for a great-aunt who successfully appealed a care and placement order. The court found the council had failed to be even-handed in its presentation of the case and had not correctly recognized that the judgment could not justify the order made.
In another case, a judge ordered the council to pay £14,000 in legal costs to prospective adopters after finding the council had acted unreasonably in the proceedings.
Judicial Criticism:A judge stated the council had acted unreasonably throughout proceedings related to an adoption support package.
The Court of Appeal criticized the council for providing the judge with an uneven picture and failing to recognize that the judgment as drafted could not justify the care and placement order.
Why There Isn't a Single Debt Figure
Each family court case is unique, involving different circumstances and parties.
The court orders for "costs" are specific to the legal expenses and damages incurred in that individual case.
Judges make decisions on costs or awards based on the specific actions and conduct of the local authority within that particular case.
Therefore, instead of a collective debt, you will find individual court orders for costs or damages in specific cases where Essex County Council has been found to have acted in a manner that warrants a financial penalty by the court.
Essex County Council Ordered to Pay £14,000 Adopters Legal Costs – Judge Says They Acted Unreasonably
by Ridley & Hall in Care Proceedings & Adoption, Helen Jarvis, Nigel Priestley, Tracy Ling posted February 24, 2015.
Reading time: ~6 min read
An order that Essex County Council have been ordered to pay £14,000 legal costs to prospective adopters highlights the challenges facing couples wanting to adopt. The Essex adopters vitally needed an adoption support package designed for a very damaged child they wanted to adopt.
In a hard hitting judgement published this week, Her Honour, Judge Lynn Roberts said that Essex County Council had acted unreasonably:
I do consider that they have been unreasonable throughout.
I also am strongly of the view that if the proposed adopters had not secured expert legal advice one of two things would have happened: either the placement would have broken down because the appropriate support was not in place, or the adoption would have gone ahead but without the support which all now agree is necessary, which would have meant that K and his parents would continue to struggle.
It appears to me that the local authority were slow to recognise the extent of this child’s difficulties, the demands his care was making on the proposed adopters, the necessity for there to be comprehensive assessments of all of this, and to think creatively as to how this adoption could be made a success for this family.
There has been great delay throughout by the local authority
There has been a failure to focus and to accept that there needed to be a full assessment leading to a plan which was not a standard plan with add-ons, but one designed particularly for this child and this family.
Noel and Sharon P (their names have been changed to protect their identity) had been approved for adoption. They were offered K as a child whom they could adopt.
They needed to know about K’s family history and genetics. They had been told he had slight developmental delay. When they said they were prepared to adopt K, they headed to the adoption panel and learnt at the last moment there were going to be more genetic tests. The panel meeting was delayed. Assured that the condition he had been tested for had not been found, they pressed on.
He was signed off by the children’s hospital with the message that he was “a little behind in his speech”. Concerned about his initial response to them, Noel and Sharon were told that this was a normal attachment response. So they kept pressing for adoption.
K was placed with them in 2011. Since then he has been diagnosed as having severe global developmental delay, attachment disorder, learning difficulties, and severe mental health issues.
The judge commented :
“K was placed with the prospective adopters on 4th August 2011 at the age of 22 months. He is now 5 years old, he has a wide range of needs and he is a very challenging child to parent. It is accepted by all that at the time he was placed the extent of his difficulties had not been understood. As a result, the proposed adopters found themselves parenting a child with an array of problems, and Essex had not identified either the difficulties or the support which would be needed at an early stage.”
After K was placed pressure was applied by Essex on Noel and Sharon to file the application for adoption. Social workers were changed. There was talk of a support plan but no assessment was carried out that complied with the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
In 2013 they finally gave in and applied for K’s adoption without an adequate support plan.
Noel and Sharon consulted adoption law specialists, Ridley & Hall, to challenge the county council.
Under pressure from their solicitors and the court, Essex eventually accepted they could not do the assessment. They paid for an independent expert team to do it.
The report came up with proposals; a key message was that if this placement failed, K’s prospects were extremely bleak. There was more negotiation between the lawyers. Eventually an agreed plan was finally put before the court 16 months after the adoption application had been filed and over 3 years after K had been placed with his new family.
Three years later, in November 2014, the adoption order was finally made. The parents have just had their adoption celebration at Chelmsford County Court.
Commenting, Nigel Priestley, Senior Partner at Ridley & Hall in Huddersfield, said, “Many people must wonder why it took so long. Less committed couples would have thrown in the towel years ago.
“Noel and Sharon’s story is one that many adopters will sadly recognise and relate to. Sharon was meant to be going back to part time working but in 6 months K had 28 separate medical appointments. Caring for him is a full time job.”
Noel commented, “Essex didn’t understand how the pressure from K’s behaviour was building and Sharon became seriously ill. We realised we needed legal representation. An inadequate support plan was prepared. It did not begin to address K’s complex needs. The adoption application was adjourned. Then another support plan appeared again without a proper assessment of K.
“We tried to negotiate changes to the plan. Social services and the independent reviewing officer said that this was the final version. There could be no additional support.
“We were told we would have to legally challenge Essex County Council to get any other support. They were hopeless.
“The approach of the local authority was a disgrace. They viewed the case as being a battle they intended to win. We had to seek specialist legal representation because nothing else would change the county council’s attitude. They fought us all the way. When we asked the judge for an order that the council contribute to our costs, they told the judge she shouldn’t make them do it.
“We are delighted by the judge’s decision to make Essex pay towards our costs.”
Nigel Priestley commented, “The government want more adoptions. They want to see hard to place children finding homes in loving families. If other local authorities act like Essex it will be impossible for this key policy to succeed. Why should adopters have to fight for support and risk their own money in this way?”
“There is no legal aid for contests over support plans. The costs in this case ran to five figures before Essex were told to pay. They tried to persuade the judge that they weren’t responsible. These costs were incurred to enable K to be cared for in a loving adoptive family.
“The local authority knew that they would have to find a specialist foster placement or residential home for K if this placement failed. Essex attitude was inexplicable.”
Nigel Priestley writes a column for Adoption UK magazine. Ridley & Hall are one of the country’s leading adoption law specialists. For any legal advice regarding adoption, please contact our specialist service, the Adoption Legal Centre on 0843 8866386.
Blog
Archives
Select Month
September 2025 (4)
August 2025 (3)
July 2025 (3)
June 2025 (3)
May 2025 (10)
April 2025 (6)
March 2025 (4)
February 2025 (6)
January 2025 (2)
December 2024 (2)
November 2024 (4)
September 2024 (2)
August 2024 (1)
July 2024 (1)
June 2024 (2)
May 2024 (3)
April 2024 (1)
March 2024 (5)
February 2024 (3)
January 2024 (4)
December 2023 (4)
November 2023 (2)
October 2023 (7)
August 2023 (2)
July 2023 (7)
June 2023 (3)
May 2023 (4)
April 2023 (5)
March 2023 (7)
February 2023 (5)
January 2023 (7)
December 2022 (2)
November 2022 (6)
October 2022 (6)
September 2022 (3)
August 2022 (5)
July 2022 (6)
June 2022 (1)
May 2022 (4)
April 2022 (4)
March 2022 (4)
February 2022 (4)
December 2021 (1)
November 2021 (3)
October 2021 (4)
September 2021 (3)
August 2021 (1)
June 2021 (3)
May 2021 (2)
April 2021 (2)
March 2021 (2)
February 2021 (8)
January 2021 (3)
December 2020 (4)
November 2020 (1)
October 2020 (1)
September 2020 (2)
August 2020 (3)
July 2020 (1)
June 2020 (4)
May 2020 (5)
April 2020 (8)
March 2020 (8)
February 2020 (1)
January 2020 (3)
December 2019 (1)
November 2019 (2)
October 2019 (3)
September 2019 (3)
August 2019 (1)
July 2019 (9)
June 2019 (1)
May 2019 (1)
April 2019 (2)
March 2019 (4)
February 2019 (5)
January 2019 (1)
November 2018 (2)
October 2018 (6)
September 2018 (4)
August 2018 (5)
July 2018 (3)
June 2018 (10)
May 2018 (12)
April 2018 (8)
March 2018 (8)
February 2018 (2)
January 2018 (7)
December 2017 (3)
November 2017 (4)
October 2017 (4)
September 2017 (8)
August 2017 (5)
July 2017 (5)
June 2017 (1)
May 2017 (5)
April 2017 (3)
March 2017 (3)
February 2017 (7)
January 2017 (3)
December 2016 (6)
November 2016 (7)
October 2016 (3)
September 2016 (4)
August 2016 (6)
July 2016 (4)
June 2016 (7)
May 2016 (7)
April 2016 (3)
March 2016 (9)
February 2016 (3)
January 2016 (7)
December 2015 (4)
November 2015 (8)
October 2015 (13)
September 2015 (6)
August 2015 (4)
July 2015 (12)
June 2015 (10)
May 2015 (10)
April 2015 (12)
March 2015 (12)
February 2015 (8)
January 2015 (10)
December 2014 (7)
November 2014 (9)
October 2014 (12)
September 2014 (8)
August 2014 (1)
July 2014 (5)
June 2014 (8)
May 2014 (8)
April 2014 (10)
March 2014 (9)
February 2014 (13)
January 2014 (8)
December 2013 (11)
November 2013 (8)
October 2013 (8)
September 2013 (9)
August 2013 (6)
July 2013 (8)
June 2013 (8)
May 2013 (6)
April 2013 (7)
March 2013 (8)
February 2013 (5)
January 2013 (10)
December 2012 (3)
October 2012 (3)
July 2012 (4)
June 2012 (5)
May 2012 (3)
April 2012 (4)
March 2012 (8)
February 2012 (6)
January 2012 (2)
December 2011 (2)
November 2011 (12)
October 2011 (1)
September 2011 (6)
August 2011 (1)
July 2011 (7)
June 2011 (1)
May 2011 (3)
April 2011 (4)
March 2011 (4)
February 2011 (1)
January 2011 (1)
November 2010 (3)
October 2010 (6)
September 2010 (1)
August 2010 (2)
July 2010 (3)
June 2010 (1)
May 2010 (2)
April 2010 (1)
March 2010 (4)
February 2010 (1)
January 2010 (2)
December 2009 (3)
November 2009 (1)
October 2009 (4)
September 2009 (1)
August 2009 (3)
April 2009 (1)
February 2009 (1)
January 2009 (1)
November 2008 (1)
October 2008 (2)
September 2008 (3)
June 2008 (1)
May 2008 (2)
Posts by Category
Select category
Adam Fletcher (50)
Adoption breakdown (16)
Adoption Legal Centre (11)
Adoption Process (7)
adoptive parents (9)
Alison Mason (27)
Alistair McKinlay (2)
Andrew Gullett (1)
Ashley Sowerby (4)
Auctions (2)
Ava Krajniewski (1)
Care fees planning (2)
Care orders (19)
Care Proceedings & Adoption (51)
Charity (19)
Child abduction (3)
Child care (33)
Children (44)
Chloe Aston (1)
Chloe Flynn (1)
Clare Wilson (2)
Cohabitation agreements (13)
Commercial Law (2)
Commercial property (14)
Community care (36)
Contentious probate (52)
Conveyancing (2)
Court of Protection (29)
David Amies (7)
David Wilson (10)
Daxa Patel (13)
Deborah Kaye (2)
Dementia Action Alliance (8)
Dispute Resolution (7)
Divorce (52)
Domestic Violence (18)
Elaine Davis (2)
Elderflower Advice (2)
Elderly Abuse (9)
Emergency protection orders (3)
Emma Hopkins Jones (4)
Emma Pearmaine (6)
Ernestas Motiejunas (2)
Estates (8)
Family & Matrimonial (115)
Financial Abuse (10)
Financial Abuse (17)
Fostering (7)
Gareth Jones (8)
Grandparents Legal Centre (33)
Grandparents rights (32)
Hannah Pedley (2)
Helen Dandridge (45)
Helen Jarvis (32)
Helen Moody (8)
Helen Moody (6)
Helen Webster (35)
Hilary Sisson (25)
Holly Thurlbeck (3)
Inheritance & will disputes (72)
Inheritance Tax (12)
James Clarkson (23)
James Cook (13)
James Urquhart-Burton (14)
Jane Munden (3)
Janet Watson (11)
Jill Waddington (45)
Johanna Allen (36)
John Royle (9)
Karen Roberts (5)
Kate Hames (2)
Kim Noble (6)
Kinship Care (72)
Lasting Power of Attorney (3)
Laura Hamilton (1)
Laura Milburn (6)
Litigation (3)
Liz Wallis (20)
Loreena Walker (3)
Loreena Walker (3)
Louisa Wardle (1)
Lucy Pickles (2)
Lynsey Bashforth (5)
Maaria Sharif (3)
Mark Thornton (7)
Mediation (14)
Medical Negligence (9)
Meena Kumari (21)
Melanie Hartley (4)
Michael George (7)
Missing People (19)
Mortgages and remortgages (3)
Naha Ahmed (4)
Natalie Stephenson-Quayle (11)
News (175)
Newsletter (30)
Nicki Butterworth (2)
Nigel Priestley (100)
Non-Accidental Injury (2)
Personal Injury (1)
Peter Kearney (14)
Placement orders (10)
Powers of Attorney (31)
Prenuptial agreements (3)
Press Coverage (20)
Probate & Estate Administration (42)
Rebecca Kershaw (8)
Reclaiming care home fees (1)
Residence orders (7)
Residential property (37)
Ridley & Hall (53)
Ridley & Hall Solicitors (208)
Road Traffic Accidents (1)
Ruky Mahboob (5)
Samantha Hirst (33)
Samantha Sanders (18)
Sarah Brown (7)
Sarah Young (151)
Shad Mpande (1)
Shahida Karim (9)
Shelley Harper (3)
Sibling Care (1)
Solar panels (1)
Sophie Aldridge (12)
Special Guardianship Orders (12)
Stamp Duty Land Tax (2)
Sue Cash (12)
Supervision orders (1)
Tracey Armitage (1)
Tracy Ling (38)
Trust disputes (14)
Trusts (23)
Uncategorized (32)
Unmarried couples (7)
Vicky Medd (68)
Victoria Jones (5)
Victoria Maude (21)
Victoria Ridge (5)
Will Disputes (50)
Will Nicholson (5)
Wills (106)
Yasmin Ahmad (1)
Yasmin Ahmad (2)
Yasmin Walker (4)
Zarqa Farouq (2)
Zoe Butt (2)
Contact Us Today
New Enquiries Freephone
0800 860 62 65 Existing Clients info@ridleyandhall.co.uk
New Enquiries Freephone
0800 860 62 65 Existing Clients info@ridleyandhall.co.uk Huddersfield Office
Queens House, 35 Market Street,
Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, HD1 2HL
Tel: 01484 538 421 Leeds Office
Yorkshire House, Greek Street
Leeds LS1 5SH
Tel: 0113 487 1066 Pontefract Office
First Floor, 1B Low Gate, South Elmsall,
Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 2SG
Tel: 01977 649922 Barnsley Office
35 Church Street,
Barnsley S70 2AP
(Car park available at the rear of the building on Eastgate)
Tel: 01226 213434
About Us
University Of Huddersfield Legal Clinic
Our Community Partners
Environmental Policy
Dementia Friendly Firm
Blog
Careers
Contact Us
Affiliated Services
Privacy Policy
Complaint Policy
Equality and Diversity Policy
Legal Notice
Compliance
Data Processing Terms
Client Charter
© 2025 Ridley & Hall Solicitors | VAT Registration No: 184839909 | Privacy Policy | Equality and Diversity Policy |
Live Chat