swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Adoption - From: 2003 To: 2003
This page lists 7 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Dundee City Council v J E for Freeing for Adoption
20 Jan 2003
ScSf
Sheriff I.D. Dunbar
Scotland, Adoption
[ ScotC ]
Re M (Adoption: International Adoption Trade) [2003] 1 FLR 1111; [2003] EWHC 219 (Fam)
7 Mar 2003
FD
Munby J
Adoption
A baby was for all practical purposes waved through immigration control because it had been adopted, with judicial sanction, in the United States of America and the adoption was accordingly recognised in this country. The adoption was a disaster for the child.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Appeal From Sheriffdom of South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway at Stranraer By Dumfries and Galloway Council for an Order Freeing for Adoption [2003] ScotCS 139
6 May 2003
SCS
Lord Johnston and Lord Osborne and Lord Weir
Scotland, Adoption
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
Alexander Cameron (Ap) v Ian Macintyre Gibson, As Executor Dative of the Late Dugald Macintyre and Another [2003] ScotCS 298; Times, 20 January 2004
2 Dec 2003
SCS
Lord Drummond Young
Scotland, Adoption
An adoption order had been made, but at the time, the adopted child was over the maximum age. Application was made to set it aside. Held: Adoption orders could not be set aside save for where some fraud could be demonstrated to have been practised on the court. The applicant had been adopted as he reached 21 years of age in 1950, but without him being informed. The result had been as intended to disinherit him from his brother's estate. The issue of his age was a mistake as to fact. Though the circumstances leading to the adoption without the claimant's consent suggested fraud. If established a reduction might be made, but the claimant required yet to prove that it was not his signature.
Adoption Act 1950 45 - Adoption Act 1978 46 47
1 Cites
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
A and Another v Essex County Council [2003] EWCA Civ 1848; Times, 22 January 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 1881
17 Dec 2003
CA
Lady Justice Hale Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Scott Baker
Adoption, Professional Negligence
The claimant sought damages. The respondent had acted as an adoption agency but had failed to disclose all relevant information about the child. Held: Any such duty extended only during the period where the child was with the prospective adopters pending their decision on adoption. Hale LJ: "Whenever the question of a common law duty of care arises in the context of the statutory functions of a public authority, there are three potential areas of inquiry: first, whether the matter is justiciable at all or whether the statutory framework is such that Parliament must have intended to leave such decisions to the authorities, subject of course to the public law supervision of the courts; second, whether even if justiciable, it involves the exercise of a statutory discretion which only gives rise to liability in tort if it is so unreasonable that it falls outside the ambit of the discretion; third in any event whether it is fair just and reasonable in all the circumstances to impose such a duty of care. The considerations relevant to each of these issues overlap and it is not always possible to draw hard and fast lines between them."
The general adoption process is not in law a matter of contract, and contractual analysis cannot be applied to it.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
In re M (A Minor) (Care Order: Simultaneous Application for Freeing Order) Gazette, 05 February 2004; [2003] EWCA Civ 1874
18 Dec 2003
CA
Lords Justice Ward, Mantell and Carnwath
Adoption, Children
The local authority sought both a care order and a freeing order. Held: The applications ought to be treated as two separate applications.
In re M (a Minor) (Care order: Freeing Application) Times, 02 January 2004
18 Dec 2003
CA
Ward, Carnwath LJJ
Adoption, Children
Where a local authority sought both a care order and an order freeing the child for adoption, the court must be careful to distinguish between the applications. The care application should be dealt with first.
1 Cites
