T and Another v OCC and Another: FD 13 May 2010

Application by two women M and T to adopt a girl C who is 11 years old. The case raises three issues requiring determination by the court: first, whether M is to be regarded as the mother of C by reason of an adoption order made in Nicaragua; secondly whether M and T are to be regarded as a couple within the meaning of Section 50 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (the 2002 Act); and thirdly whether adoption is justified by the criteria of Section 1 of the 2002 Act.

Mr Justice Hedley
[2010] EWHC 964 (Fam), [2011] 1 FLR 1487, [2011] Fam Law 337
Bailii
England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.424940

A and S (Children) v Lancashire County Council: FD 17 Apr 2013

The children applied for their costs. They had been made subject of freeing orders on the application of the respondent, but had then successfully appealed against the orders, saying that their human rights had been infringed.

Peter Jackson J
[2013] EWHC 851 (Fam)
Bailii
Senior Courts Act 1981 51(1)
England and Wales

Adoption, Costs

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.472649

Y and Z (Separation of Siblings): FC 9 Dec 2020

‘The decision is that the siblings are to be placed for adoption together and are not to be separated. If, after about four months from today’s date, it has not been possible to find a suitable adoptive placement for the siblings together, then they should be placed separately with contact between them being at least six times a year. I intend to make a full care order for Y and a placement for each child provided that Brighton and Hove City Council changes its care plan as required. I am not making a defined contact order but might do so in the adoption proceedings.’

His Honour Judge Ahmed
[2020] EWFC B59
Bailii
England and Wales

Children, Adoption

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.671005

AMDK v NA: FD 6 Mar 2020

Application for the recognition, pursuant to common law, of an adoption order made in Uganda. As I will later describe, the child concerned was found abandoned on the roadside in Uganda in 2014. Despite extensive enquiries and investigation in Uganda at the time, the genetic parents or wider family of that child have never been ascertained.

Mr Justice Holman,
(Sitting Throughout In Public)
[2020] EWHC 1548 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.655224

Seddon v Oldham MBC (Adoption : Human Rights): FD 14 Sep 2015

The court was asked: ‘(1) Do rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (ECHR) survive the making of an adoption order?
(2) Did the coming into force in April 2014 of s. 51A Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002), which allows the court to make a post-adoption contact order, create or maintain an Art. 8 right as between a birth parent and an adopted child?
(3) Is s. 51A(4) ACA 2002, which requires a former parent to obtain the permission of the court before applying for contact with an adopted child, incompatible with the ECHR?
(4) Does a post-adoption letterbox service run by a public body give rise to Art. 8 rights as between a birth parent and an adopted child?’

Peter Jackson J
[2015] EWHC 2609 (Fam), [2015] WLR(D) 388
Bailii, WLRD

Adoption, Human Rights

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552784

Re M (Adoption: International Adoption Trade): FD 7 Mar 2003

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.

Munby J
[2003] 1 FLR 1111, [2003] EWHC 219 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedSingh v Entry Clearance Officer New Delhi CA 30-Jul-2004
The applicant, an 8 year old boy, became part of his Indian family who lived in England, through an adoption recognised in Indian Law, but not in English Law. Though the adoption was genuine, his family ties had not been broken in India. The family . .
CitedRegina (Charlton Thomson and Others) v Secretary of State for the Department of Skills and Education Admn 4-Jul-2005
The claimants complained of the respondent’s decision to suspend temporarily but without notice all further inter-country adoptions from Cambodia.
Held: There were proper concerns about a major humanitarian crisis for orphaned children and for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.200328

Re CB (A Child): CA 6 Aug 2015

P was the child of now separated women. P was born in the UK but taken by one parent to Pakistan. The other parent now appealed from refusal of her request for the court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction or wardship to support her application for contact for contact with P. The court considered whether, having left with her mother who had a settled intention of remaining in Pakistan, CB would lose he habitual residence here upon so leaving.
Held: The appeal failed. Hogg J had been entitled to hold that on leaving the UK, B had lost her English habitual residence. Although the attenuation, or even the ultimate loss, of her relationship with the appellant would be a real detriment to B, the circumstances were not so exceptionally grave as to justify exercise of the inherent jurisdiction by reference to her nationality.
Although there was no direct evidence to substantiate the appellant’s asserted inability to present her case to the courts of Pakistan, the court surveyed general material about the attitude of society there to same-sex relationships. The issue of sexual relations between women was unexplored territory in law, there was in Pakistan pervasive societal and state discrimination, social stigma, harassment and violence against both gay men and lesbian women, together with a lack of effective protection by the state against the activities of non-state actors. The Court proceeded on the unchallenged basis that courts in Pakistan would be unlikely to recognise that the appellant had any relationship with B which would entitle her to relief and that therefore she would have no realistic opportunity to advance her claim there.

Sir James Munby P, Black, Vos LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 888, [2016] 2 WLR 487, [2015] WLR(D) 364, [2015] Fam Law 1339
Bailii, WLRD
Adoption and Children Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromLondon Borough of Merton v LB FD 19-Dec-2014
The court considered applications in the case of a proposed adoption of a child LB. The mother, Latvian, and the Latvian authorities opposed the application, saying that the child’s future should be settled in Latvia. CB had been taken into care . .
See AlsoLB v London Borough of Merton and Another CA 1-May-2013
. .

Cited by:
CitedRe B (A Child) SC 3-Feb-2016
Habitual Residence of Child not lost
(Orse In re B (A Child) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening)) The Court considered the notion of habitual residence. The British girl with same sex parents had been taken to Pakistan, and her mother here sought her return. The . .
CitedRe B (A Child) SC 3-Feb-2016
Habitual Residence of Child not lost
(Orse In re B (A Child) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening)) The Court considered the notion of habitual residence. The British girl with same sex parents had been taken to Pakistan, and her mother here sought her return. The . .
CitedIn Re N (Children) SC 13-Apr-2016
The Court considered whether the future of two little girls, aged four and two years, should be decided by the courts of this country or by the authorities in Hungary. Both children were born in England and lived all their lives here. But their . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, International

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551020

A Local Authority v XYZ (No 2): FC 3 Jul 2015

Care proceedings and an application for a placement order in relation to a young boy, Y. He is coming up to seven months old.

Moor J
[2015] EWFC 70
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoA Local Authority v XYZ (No 1) FC 1-Jul-2015
Care proceedings and an application for a placement order in relation to a young boy, Y, six months old. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Adoption

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551003

London Borough of Merton v LB: FD 19 Dec 2014

The court considered applications in the case of a proposed adoption of a child LB. The mother, Latvian, and the Latvian authorities opposed the application, saying that the child’s future should be settled in Latvia. CB had been taken into care under section 20 after findings of lack of care.

Moylan J
[2014] EWHC 4532 (Fam)
Bailii
Children Act 1989 20
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoLB v London Borough of Merton and Another CA 1-May-2013
. .

Cited by:
Appeal fromRe CB (A Child) CA 6-Aug-2015
P was the child of now separated women. P was born in the UK but taken by one parent to Pakistan. The other parent now appealed from refusal of her request for the court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction or wardship to support her application . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, International

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549759

Re S (A Child): CA 15 May 2015

Mother’s appeal against the making of a placement order in respect of her son, D, almost 2 years of age. D, the youngest of her ten children, was removed for a second time from the mother’s care and not returned but had supervised and positive contact with his mother. His two oldest siblings were in long term foster care. His seven immediate elder siblings had all been adopted.

Kitchin, Macur LJJ, Sir Bernard Rix
[2015] EWCA Civ 489
Bailii
England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546828

Zaiet v Romania: ECHR 24 Mar 2015

ECHR Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Annulment of adoption order, 31 years after its issue and at the request of the adoptee’s sister: violation
Facts – The applicant was adopted at the age of 17. Her adoptive mother had another adopted daughter. Following the death of the mother, in 2003 the two sisters were jointly granted title to land which had previously been unlawfully expropriated from their family. Pursuant to an action brought by the applicant’s sister, in 2004 a county court declared the applicant’s adoption null and void. This decision was upheld on appeal in 2005.
Law – Article 8: The annulment of the adoption order, 31 years after it had been issued and 18 years after the death of her adoptive mother, amounted to an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her family life. According to the law in force at the material time, after an adoptee obtained full legal capacity, only he or she could seek annulment of the adoption. However, the appeal court did not raise this objection during the proceedings. It was thus doubtful whether the measure applied by the authorities had been in accordance with the law. Moreover, the annulment of the applicant’s adoption did not serve the interests of either the adopted child or the adoptive mother. The main consequence of the annulment was the disruption of the applicant’s family tie with her already deceased mother and the loss of her inheritance rights to the benefit of her sister. Taking into account that the annulment proceedings had been brought by the latter in order to keep the inherited land for herself, it was doubtful whether the impugned decisions pursued a legitimate aim.
As to whether the measure had been necessary in a democratic society, the Court recalled that where the existence of a family tie had been established the State must in principle enable it to be maintained. Splitting up a family was an interference of a very serious order and had to be supported by sufficiently sound and weighty considerations, not only in the interests of the child but also with respect to legal certainty.
In the present case, the domestic courts had annulled the applicant’s adoption on the ground that its only aim had been the furtherance of the patrimonial interests of the adoptive mother and the applicant, not to ensure a better life for the applicant. However, the legal provisions governing adoption were primarily aimed at benefiting and protecting children. In this context, the annulment of an adoption was not envisaged as a measure against the adopted child and could not be interpreted in the sense of disinheriting an adopted child. Moreover, under the domestic law only the adopted child could challenge the validity of the adoption after obtaining full legal capacity. If subsequent evidence revealed that a final adoption order was based on fraudulent or misleading evidence, the interests of the child should remain paramount in establishing a process to deal with any damage caused to the adoptive parent as a result of the wrongful order. Therefore, the domestic courts’ decision had not been supported by relevant and sufficient reasons justifying such interference with the applicant’s family life.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
The Court also found, unanimously, a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Article 41: EUR 30,000 in respect of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

44958/05 – Legal Summary, [2015] ECHR 419
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8.1

Human Rights, Adoption, Family

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.546120

SM (Algeria) v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section: CA 4 Nov 2015

The Entry Clearance Officer appealed from a decision that a child assigned to be under guardianship under the Islamic ‘kefalah’ system in her own country was to be treated on the basis that she did fall within the definition of ‘extended family member’ under regulation 8. The case was therefore returned to the Secretary of State for her to exercise the discretion conferred upon her by regulation 12(2)(c).
Held: The ECO’s appeal succeeded. The real question was not whether S fell within the definition of ‘family member’ in regulation 7 or the definition of ‘extended family member’ in regulation 8. Rather, it was whether she was a ‘direct descendant’ within the definition of ‘family member’ in article 2.2(c) of the Citizens Directive; or alternatively whether she fell within ‘any other family members, . . , who, in the country from which they have come, are dependants or members of the household of the Union citizen having the primary right of residence . . ‘ in article 3.2(a). The Directive permitted Member States to restrict the forms of adoption which they would recognise for the purpose of article 2.2(c). Not having been adopted in a manner recognised by UK law, S could not fall within that article; and that being so, those restrictions could not be undermined by recognising that she might fall within article 3.2(a).

Laws, Kitchin, Christopher LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 1109, [2016] Imm AR 239, [2015] CN 1756
Bailii
Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1003)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromIM240192005 (Unreported) AIT 12-Feb-2007
Reconsideration of the appeal of the appellant, a citizen of India, against the decision of the respondent on 12 March 2004 refusing her entry clearance to the United Kingdom as an adoptive child.
Held: The case was ordered to be reviewed. . .
CitedMN (India) v Entry Clearance Officer (New Delhi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Feb-2008
The Court set out four avenues for entry to the UK provided by the Rules in respect of a child adopted or intended to be adopted from abroad. . .

Cited by:
Appal from (CA)SM (Algeria) v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section SC 14-Feb-2018
The Court was asked two questions, first as to its jurisdiction according to the meaning of an ‘EEA Decision’ within the 2006 Regulations, and second as to the position under the Directive of a child who is a third country national but has been . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Adoption, European

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.554279

Re R (A Child): CA 16 Dec 2014

The mother appealed agaiinst a decision that her child, already subject of a care order, should be released for adoption. She asserted that the judge had failed to conduct the welfare analysis in a manner which was compatible with the guidance

Sir James Munby P, McFarlane, Floyd LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1625
Bailii
England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539988

MN (India) v Entry Clearance Officer (New Delhi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 5 Feb 2008

The Court set out four avenues for entry to the UK provided by the Rules in respect of a child adopted or intended to be adopted from abroad.

Lord Justice Ward,
Lord Justice Keene,
And,
Lord Justice Wilson
[2008] EWCA Civ 38, [2010] 2 FLR 87
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedSM (Algeria) v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section CA 4-Nov-2015
The Entry Clearance Officer appealed from a decision that a child assigned to be under guardianship under the Islamic ‘kefalah’ system in her own country was to be treated on the basis that she did fall within the definition of ‘extended family . .
CitedSM (Algeria) v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section SC 14-Feb-2018
The Court was asked two questions, first as to its jurisdiction according to the meaning of an ‘EEA Decision’ within the 2006 Regulations, and second as to the position under the Directive of a child who is a third country national but has been . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Adoption

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.264102

In re P (A Child): CA 15 Aug 2014

The court considered the proper approach to a proposed step-parent adoption. The step-father now appealed against refusal of an order.
Held: The application succeeded. When the adoption application was considered, the court had to be satisfied that each parent or guardian of the child either consented to the making of the adoption order, or that that individual’s consent should be dispensed with. In determining whether or not to dispense with parental consent, the child’s welfare throughout his or her lifetime had to be the court’s paramount consideration.

Moore-Bick, McFarlane, Briggs LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1174, [2014] WLR(D) 381
Bailii, WLRD
Adoption and Children Act 2002 47(2), European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Citing:
ApprovedSoderback v Sweden ECHR 28-Oct-1998
ECHR Sweden – adoption of a child granted to mother’s husband, without the consent of the natural father (Chapter 4, section 6, of the Parental Code)
ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
Not disputed that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, Human Rights

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.536352

Z v Y (Revocation of Adoption Order): FD 31 Mar 2021

Application by the biological father, (‘Z’), under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to revoke an adoption order in relation to X, now aged 4 years. The other parties to the application, namely the local authority, the adopters and the children’s guardian all oppose the application.

Mrs Justice Theis DBE
[2021] EWHC 1153 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.663795

FAS v Bradford Metropolitan District Council and Another: FD 13 Mar 2015

Application by FAS to adopt her first cousin once removed, MW. The application sought a convention adoption order, which is misconceived as Pakistan, MW’s homeland, is not a party to the Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Inter-country Adoption. It has therefore been treated as an application for a mainstream adoption and Holman J granted leave under section 42(6) Adoption and Children Act 2002 (‘ACA’) for the adoption application to proceed.

Mostyn J
[2015] EWHC 622 (Fam), [2015] WLR(D) 128
Bailii, WLRD
Adoption and Children Act 2002 42(6)
England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.544301

re G (A Child): CA 8 Apr 2014

McFarlane LJ said: ‘In most child care cases a choice will fall to be made between two or more options. The judicial exercise should not be a linear process whereby each option, other than the most draconian, is looked at in isolation and then rejected because of internal deficits that may be identified, with the result that, at the end of the line, the only option left standing is the most draconian and that is therefore chosen without any particular consideration of whether there are internal deficits within that option.
The linear approach, in my view, is not apt where the judicial task is to undertake a global, holistic evaluation of each of the options available for the child’s future upbringing before deciding which of those options best meets the duty to afford paramount consideration to the child’s welfare.
A further concern about the linear model is that a process which acknowledges that long-term public care, and in particular adoption contrary to the will of a parent, is ‘the most draconian option’, yet does not engage with the very detail of that option which renders it ‘draconian’ cannot be a full or effective process of evaluation. Since the phrase was first coined some years ago, judges now routinely make reference to the ‘draconian’ nature of permanent separation of parent and child and they frequently do so in the context of reference to ‘proportionality’. Such descriptions are, of course, appropriate and correct, but there is a danger that these phrases may inadvertently become little more than formulaic judicial window-dressing if they are not backed up with a substantive consideration of what lies behind them and the impact of that on the individual child’s welfare in the particular case before the court. If there was any doubt about the importance of avoiding that danger, such doubt has been firmly swept away by the very clear emphasis in Re B on the duty of the court actively to evaluate proportionality in every case.
In mounting this critique of the linear model, I am alive to the fact that, of course, a judgment is, by its very nature, a linear structure; in common with every other linear structure, it has a beginning, a middle and an end. My focus is not upon the structure of a judge’s judgment but upon that part of the judgment, indeed that part of the judicial analysis before the written or spoken judgment is in fact compiled, where the choice between options actually takes place. What is required is a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared, side by side, aga

Sullivan, McFarlane, Lewison LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 432
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedIn re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening) HL 11-Jun-2008
Balance of probabilities remains standard of proof
There had been cross allegations of abuse within the family, and concerns by the authorities for the children. The judge had been unable to decide whether the child had been shown to be ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ as a consequence. Having . .
CitedIn re Dellow’s Will Trusts; Lloyd’s Bank v Institute of Cancer Research ChD 1964
Husband and wife, having made mutual wills each leaving their estate to the other, had been found dead in their home from coal gas poisoning. The court asked what was required to displace the presumption that the husband, the older of the two, had . .
CitedRe B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) SC 12-Jun-2013
B had been removed into care at birth. The parents now appealed against a care order made with a view to B’s adoption. The Court was asked as to the situation where the risks were necessarily only anticipated, and as to appeals against a finding of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523623

Re S (Placement Order: Revocation): CA 7 Oct 2008

The circuit judge had been wrong to hold that a child placed with foster parents who were actively considering whether to apply to adopt him had been placed with them for adoption. Thorpe LJ said clearly that a child could not be said to be placed with the foster carers for adoption until the local authority had approved the match of the child with them and had resolved to leave him with them in their fresh capacity as prospective adopters.

Thorpe LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1333, [2009] 1 FLR 503, [2009] PTSR CS9, [2009] Fam Law 100
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCoventry City Council v PGO and Others CA 22-Jun-2011
The children had been placed with short term fosterers. On adopters being found, the fosterers themselves applied to adopt the children. The court was asked whether a county court judge had power to injunct the authority not to remove the children . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Adoption

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.341650