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.
Judges:
Lord Drummond Young
Citations:
[2003] ScotCS 298, Times 20-Jan-2004
Links:
Statutes:
Adoption Act 1950 45, Adoption Act 1978 46 47
Citing:
Cited – J and J v C’s Tutor 1948
Adoptive parents tried to reduce an adoption order. They asserted an essential error induced by innocent misrepresentations made by those acting for the natural mother; it was averred by the pursuers that they had been incorrectly assured that a . .
Cited – Skinner v Carter 1948
An adoption order alters the status of the child concerned, who is the person primarily affected and interested. Consequently, in any proceedings for the revocation or annulment of an adoption order, the child must be represented. . .
Cited – Re B (Adoption: Setting Aside) CA 22-Mar-1995
Where the child’s natural mother did not receive service of the adoption petition and had no other knowledge that an attempt was being made to adopt the child; in that event it can be considered that there is a fundamental injustice to the natural . .
Cited – S v McC; W v W HL 1972
The distinction between the court’s ‘custodial’ and ‘protective’ jurisdictions was recognised. The case concerned the ordering of blood tests with a view to determining the paternity of a child involved in divorce proceedings. This was not a matter . .
Cited – Adair v Colville and Sons HL 1926
Where a fraud has been practised on the court, reduction is a remedy that is generally available. . .
Cited – Rex v Leeds City Justices, ex parte Gilmartin 1951
. .
Cited – S v McC; W v W HL 1972
The distinction between the court’s ‘custodial’ and ‘protective’ jurisdictions was recognised. The case concerned the ordering of blood tests with a view to determining the paternity of a child involved in divorce proceedings. This was not a matter . .
Cited – Re RA (Minors) 1974
An adoption order was set aside for a procedural irregularity. . .
Cited – Re F 1977
. .
Cited – Bain v Hugh LS McConnell Ltd 1991
The court discussed procedures to correct fundamental miscarriages of justice. . .
Cited – D v Grampian Regional Council HL 1995
The House discussed the nature of an adoption order: ‘The Act of 1978 provides a comprehensive code for adoption and it is perfectly clear that the whole procedure is intended to produce a permanent result for the adopted child. An adoption order . .
Cited – S v M 1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Scotland, Adoption
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188570