Category: Adoption

YC v The United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Jul 2010

Statement of facts

Citations:

4547/10, [2010] ECHR 1228

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Cited by:

See Also – YC v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-Mar-2012
The court collated a number of different ways in which, in its previous judgments, it had sought to explain the requirements of necessity and proportionality in relation to adoption orders made against the wishes of the parents: ‘The Court . .
Statement of Facts – YC v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-Mar-2012
The court spelt out the stark effects of the proportionality requirement in its application to a determination that a child should be adopted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Adoption

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.424052

FL v Registrar General: FD 24 May 2010

The claimant sought disclosure of information held by the respondent as to the identities of her pre-adoptive natural parents.

Judges:

Roderic Wood J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3520 (Fam), [2011] 2 FCR 229, [2011] Fam Law 453, [2011] 2 FLR 630

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Adoption and Children Act 2002, Family Proceedings Adoption Rules 2005 105(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – X (Adopted Child: Access To Court File) FC 9-Sep-2014
The applicant’s father had been adopted. Both he and the adopting parents had since died. The applicant now sought disclosure of the records to reveal her the court record of her father’s adoption order.
Held: The order should be made. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, Information

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.430381

EB v France: ECHR 14 Mar 2007

A homosexual woman complained that she had not been allowed to adopt a child. Her application was rejected by the French administrative court on grounds based substantially upon her sexual orientation.
Held: The provision was an unlawful discrimination. The denial of adoption to a woman in a same sex relationship could not be justified: ‘The Court reiterates that, for the purposes of Article 14, a difference in treatment is discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification, which means that it does not pursue a ‘legitimate aim’ or that there is no ‘reasonable proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised’. Where sexual orientation is in issue, there is a need for particularly convincing and weighty reasons to justify a difference in treatment regarding rights falling within Article 8.’

Citations:

43546/02, [2007] ECHR 211

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 9

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – In re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
Cited – Rodriguez v Minister of Housing of The Government and Another PC 14-Dec-2009
Gibraltar – The claimant challenged a public housing allocation policy which gave preference to married couples and parents of children, excluding same sex and infertile couples.
Held: The aim of discouraging homosexual relationships is . .
Cited – Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) v Charity Commission for England and Wales and Another ChD 17-Mar-2010
The charity appealed against refusal of permission to amend its charitable objects as set out in the memorandum of association. The charity was successful as an adoption agency particularly in placing children who would otherwise have had difficulty . .
See Also – EB v France ECHR 22-Jan-2008
The claimant, a homosexual woman, complained that her homosexuality had meant her disqualification from adopting a child.
Held: There is no right to foster, but the provision was an unlawful discrimination. The denial of adoption to a woman in . .
See Also – EB v France ECHR 30-Sep-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Discrimination, Adoption

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.250431

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Re Judicial Review: CANI 27 Jun 2013

Judges:

Morgan LCJ, Girvan LJ and Coghlin LJ

Citations:

[2013] NICA 37

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, European Convention on Human Rights 8 14

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Adoption, Discrimination, Human Rights

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.513865

In Re B (A Minor) (Adoption Order: Nationality): HL 11 Mar 1999

When considering adoption of a child the whole range of benefits flowing from the adoption including the benefits of British nationality were to be allowed for, but adoption could properly be refused where the intention was to benefit an adult.

Citations:

Times 15-Mar-1999, Gazette 08-Apr-1999, [1999] 2 WLR 714, [1999] UKHL 11, [1999] 2 All ER 576

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Adoption Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.81708

South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust v FP: FDNI 1 Jun 2018

The applicant Trust applied for an Order dispensing with the mother’s consent to the proposed adoption of the child on the ground that such consent is being unreasonably withheld. The mother agrees that she is withholding consent but denies that such withholding is unreasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

Judges:

Sir Reg Weir

Citations:

[2018] NIFam 5

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Adoption

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.657777

Sahin v Germany: ECHR 11 Oct 2001

When considering the issues of an adoption against the wishes of the parents, there is an apparent difference of emphasis between saying that the child’s interests are of ‘paramount importance’, and saying that they merely ‘may, depending on their nature and seriousness’ override those of the parents: ‘The Court further recalls that a fair balance must be struck between the interests of the child and those of the parent and that in doing so particular importance must be attached to the best interests of the child which, depending on their nature and seriousness, may override those of the parent. In particular the parent cannot be entitled under article 8 of the Convention to have such measures taken as would harm the child’s health and development.’

Citations:

30943/96, (2001) 36 EHRR 765, [2002] 1 FLR 119, [2010] ECHR 585

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii, Hudoc Legal Summary

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – In re T (a Child) (Contact: Alienation: Permission to Appeal) CA 24-Oct-2002
After a judgment the parties sought to appeal.
Held: The judge had failed to make a finding on a critical issue in the case, namely whether or not the mother of the child concerned had ‘even if prompted only at a subconscious level, . .
Cited – F v M FD 1-Apr-2004
The court considered the ‘ongoing debate’ about the court’s role in contact disputes. ‘this case illustrates all too uncomfortably the failings of the system. There is much wrong with our system and the time has come for us to recognise that fact . .
Cited – ANS and Another v ML SC 11-Jul-2012
The mother opposed adoption proceedings, and argued that the provision in the 2007 Act, allowing a court to dispense with her consent, infringed her rights under Article 8 and was therefore made outwith the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Adoption

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.166602

KR v Stirling Council: SCS 24 May 2016

The Court discussed the tests in section 83 for the granting of authority for adoption. They include a requirement that the court must be satisfied that the child has been, or is likely to be, placed for adoption.
Lord Drummond Young stated: ‘Thus section 84 imposes two critical conditions if a permanence order is to be made in a case where the natural parent does not consent. First, in terms of subsection (3), the court must consider that it would be better for the child that the order should be made than that it should not be made; that decision must be made in the light of the requirement of subsection (4) that the welfare of the child throughout childhood is to be the paramount consideration. Secondly, in terms of subsection (5)(c)(ii), the court must be satisfied that the child’s residence with the parent is, or is likely to be, seriously detrimental to his or her welfare. Of the two conditions, that in subsection (5)(c)(ii) is the more fundamental: it imposes a threshold test, in the sense that, if it is not satisfied, the court is not permitted to dispense with the parent’s consent. It is only if the test is satisfied that the court requires to go on to consider the welfare of the child … The critical point is that the requirements of subsection (5) set a threshold test, and unless that test is satisfied no permanence order can be made and any further consideration of the other provisions of section 84 is irrelevant.’
Lord Drummond Young added: ‘The threshold test is in our opinion a matter of fundamental importance, and we must express regret at the manner in which section 84 of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 is structured. In that section the fundamental threshold provision comes at the end, after the subsections dealing with the welfare of the child. It would clearly be more sensible to state the threshold test at an earlier point, before the welfare provisions, because the threshold test must be satisfied before any of the other provisions becomes relevant. As matters stand there is an obvious risk that the sheriff will fail to appreciate the fundamental importance of the criterion in subsection (5). That is what appears to have happened in the present case.’

Judges:

Lod Drummond Young

Citations:

[2016] ScotCS CSIH – 36, 2016 GWD 17-313, 2016 SCLR 557, 2016 SLT 689, 2016 Fam LR 108

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 80 83

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Re EV (A Child) SC 1-Mar-2017
Appeal from application for permanence order. EV had been in care from her birth. Her parents, each with long standing learning difficulties opposed the order.
Held: The Court allowed the parents’ appeals. The meeting of the threshold test was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.565688

In re A (A Child) (Child: Overseas adoption): CA 5 Feb 2009

Parents and the authority agreed that a proposed adoption by an uncle. The uncle lived in America, and could not come to the UK for the ten weeks required under the 2002 Act.
Held: The requirement of the Act that the child should have spent ten weeks with the adoptive parents at the home referred naturally to the home of the parents wherever that was – even if that was abroad. Rules against certain forms of adoption should not be interpreted so as to damage the interests of particular children.

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, Wall LJ, Moore-Bick LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 41

Links:

Bailii, Times

Statutes:

Adoption and Children Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280442

In re C (Minors) (Adoption): 1992

Citations:

[1992] 1 FLR 115

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust and Another v H and Another HL 12-Jul-2006
The House considered when adoption law would allow an adoption without the consent of the birth parent where there had been some continuing contact between that parent and the child.
Held: (Baroness Hale dissenting) The appeal against the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.243097

In re KLA (An Infant): 2000

Sir John MacDermott considered the purpose of freeing orders. The purpose was: ‘to find out if a child would be available for adoption before prospective adopters were found and their hopes frustrated if the adoption court ruled that consent was not being unreasonably withheld.’

Judges:

Sir John MacDermott

Citations:

[2000] NI 234

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Cited by:

Cited – Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust and Another v H and Another HL 12-Jul-2006
The House considered when adoption law would allow an adoption without the consent of the birth parent where there had been some continuing contact between that parent and the child.
Held: (Baroness Hale dissenting) The appeal against the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.243095

TW and JW v Aberdeenshire Council: SCS 5 Apr 2012

(Extra Division) The court rejected an argument that sections 84(3) and (4) had a particular core status. It said that subsections (3), (4) and (5) impose separate requirements, all of which have a bearing on whether a permanence order should be made. Lord Bonomy, giving the opinion of the court, stated at para 13:
‘It is . . difficult to envisage circumstances in which a court, faced with an application for a permanence order, would not first of all address the factors that arise under subsection (5)(c), in this case paragraph (c)(ii), and any other matters arising under subsection (5), always bearing in mind the requirement of subsection (4) to regard the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child throughout childhood as the paramount consideration, and only then consider the application of the ‘no order principle’ in subsection (3), again keeping subsection (4) in mind.’

Judges:

Lord Bonomy

Citations:

2013 SC 108, 2012 GWD 14-284, 2012 Fam LR 91, [2012] ScotCS CSIH – 37

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Re EV (A Child) SC 1-Mar-2017
Appeal from application for permanence order. EV had been in care from her birth. Her parents, each with long standing learning difficulties opposed the order.
Held: The Court allowed the parents’ appeals. The meeting of the threshold test was . .
Cited – Re EV (A Child) SC 1-Mar-2017
Appeal from application for permanence order. EV had been in care from her birth. Her parents, each with long standing learning difficulties opposed the order.
Held: The Court allowed the parents’ appeals. The meeting of the threshold test was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.452662

R and H v The United Kingdom: ECHR 23 Sep 2008

The claimants complained at the procedure used to free their child for adoption against their wishes.

Citations:

35348/06, [2008] ECHR 969

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

See Also – R And H v The United Kingdom ECHR 31-May-2011
The court considered arrangements for an adoption in Northern Ireland where the parent’s consent was withheld.
Held: For parental consent to be overriden there had to be shown an overriding need for the decision. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Adoption, Northern Ireland

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276684

MJ (Mother) and LB (Father) v Local Authority and others: CA 17 Jul 2008

The parents appealed against an adoption order saying that the authority had made an error in the procedure. The court at first instance had said that the error had been remedied by the effect of the hearing before him.
Held: The appeal succeeded. It was vital that adoption authorities comply with the requirements of the 2002 Act. When such an error was made there was no power such as was assumed by the recorder, and he should have remitted the case for reconsideration. The framework could not be by-passed or short-circuited.

Judges:

Lord Justice Thorpe, Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Wall

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 835, Times 21-Aug-2008

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Adoption and Children Act 2002 22

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270871

Regina (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 child trafficking. This country had not been alone in suspending adoptions. The respondent did have power to withhold certificates of suitability. The decision was in conformity with the legislation, and was a proportionate and rational response in Human Rights terms. The discretion had been properly exercised.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1378 (Admin), Times 12-Aug-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Singh 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 . .
Cited – Pini and others v Romania ECHR 2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.229293

SB v X County Council, In re P (a Child), In Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent): CA 20 May 2008

The court asked ‘what is the proper test for dispensing with parental agreement to the making of a placement order under section 52(1)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (the 2002 Act)?’
Held: Any question of contact between the children and their family members was for the court and not the local authority to resolve. The word ‘requires’ in section 52(1)(b) ‘was plainly chosen as best conveying . . the essence of the Strasbourg jurisprudence.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Wall and Mr Justice Munby

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 535, Times 29-May-2008, [2008] 2 FLR 625

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Adoption and Children Act 2002 52(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Re 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 . .
Cited – Re 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, Human Rights

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.267920

London Borough of Greenwich v S and Others: FD 4 Apr 2007

‘This application concerns 4 siblings who have been in care for 5 years. Since March 2006 they have lived with their maternal great-aunt in Canada, Z (‘the aunt’). All parties wish for the children’s future to be secured with the aunt. After much investigation it is agreed that the best method to secure this is by a Convention adoption order in England. That cannot be achieved if, at a time of the order, they are no longer habitually resident in England. I am asked to rule on whether they are or are not so habitually resident.’

Judges:

Sumner j

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 820 (Fam), [2007] Fam Law 697, [2007] 2 FCR 141, [2007] 2 FLR 154

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.347371

Kearns v France: ECHR 10 Jan 2008

The claimant, whilst pregnant, travelled from Ireland to, and gave birth in France, to use their system of anonymous registration. She wanted the child adopted, and, following the birth, the system whereby she could request the return of the child within a two month period was twice explained to her. She was told that, after this period, the child would be available for adoption. She duly signed the relevant documents, and did not seek the return of the child within the two month period. However, some five months after she had signed the documents, she sought the return of the child. The child’s father had also begun proceedings in Ireland. The French Cour de Cassassion, overruling the local appeal court, made a full adoption order.
Held: There no breach of the mother’s rights under ECHR Article 8. The principal argument centred on the short time-scale for any change of mind permitted by the French legislation. As to this, the ECtHR said: ‘As regards the time limit prescribed by French law, the government pointed out that it had been reduced from three to two months by the Act of 5 July 1996, so that the child could quickly enjoy stable emotional relations within a new family and have the benefit of parental ties.

As it found in Odievre v France [2003] 1 FCR 621 at para 44, the court observes that it is confronted in the present case with interests that are not easily reconciled: those of the biological mother, the child and the adoptive family. There is also a general interest at stake (at para 45). In striking a balance between these different interests, the child’s best interests should be paramount.
In this connection, the court accepts the relevance of the arguments put forward by the government on the basis of studies by child-welfare professionals, which have stressed that it is in the child’s interests to enjoy stable emotional relations within a new family as quickly as possible. It further observes that the tribunal de grande instance held that psychological and legal stability should be sought for the child, ‘if only through the shortness of the time within which the natural parents may avail themselves of the appropriate procedures’.
Furthermore, while the two-month time limit may seem brief, it nevertheless appears sufficient to allow the biological mother time to reflect and to reconsider her decision to give the child up. The court is mindful of the psychological distress which the applicant must have experienced, but observes that she was 36 years old at the time, was accompanied by her mother and had two lengthy interviews with the social services after giving birth.
The court lastly notes that in a recent case (VS v Germany (App no 4261/02) (admissibility decision, 22 May 2007)), concerning a minor who had consented to the adoption of her child, it found that the German authorities had not overstepped their margin of appreciation, although under German law, consent to adoption is irrevocable except in the event of a declaration of nullity, which had not been sought in that particular case.
Having regard to the margin of appreciation which states must be afforded in view of the diversity in legal systems and traditions and in practice (see Odievre v France [2003] 1 FCR 621 at para 49, and Evans v UK [2007] 2 FCR 5 at para 77), the court considers that the time limit prescribed by the French legislation seeks to strike a balance and to ensure sufficient proportion between the competing interests (ibid; see also, conversely and mutatis mutandis, Mizzi v Malta [2006] 1 FCR 256).
Moreover, in the circumstances of the case, the action brought by the third party before the Irish authorities has no bearing on the conclusion reached by the court.

Judges:

Bostjan M. Zupancic, P

Citations:

35991/04, [2008] ECHR 1, [2008] 2 FCR 19, 24 BHRC 49, (2010) 50 EHRR 33, [2008] Fam Law 309, [2008] 1 FLR 888

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – YC v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-Mar-2012
The court spelt out the stark effects of the proportionality requirement in its application to a determination that a child should be adopted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Adoption

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264340

In re C (a Child) (Care proceedings: Care plan); Regina (C) v Waltham Forest London Borough Council: Admn 28 Mar 2002

An application was made to put a child in care. The local authority created a care plan involving placing the child for adoption with a Jewish family. The mother wanted to have the child placed with long term foster parents, with some continuing contact. The guardian also had reservations about the scheme, because of the different religious background of the proposed adopters. An application for judicial review of the authority’s plan was presented.
Held: The correct procedure to challenge the care plan, was to make application within the care proceedings. The application for judicial review had added a six month delay. The proposed plan would be approved. The proposed adopters were committed to the child being brought up respectful of her origins.

Judges:

Justice Wilson

Citations:

Times 18-Apr-2002

Statutes:

Local Authority Social Services Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Judicial Review, Adoption

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.169836

RAP v Serial No. 52/2006 and Oxfordshire County Council and others; In re P (A Child) (Adoption proceedings): CA 27 Jun 2007

When the court had an application by a parent for leave to defend adoption proceedings after the making of the placement order, the court had to make a two stage decision. First, the court had to identify whether there had been a sufficient change of circumstances, and then to consider what would be indicated by the welfare of the child.

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, Wall LJ, Hedley LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 616, Times 28-Jun-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Adoption and Children Act 200247

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253707

In re S (A Child) (a Child) (Special guardianship order); DO (Adopter) v LP (Mother) PH (Father), Bury Metroplitan Borough Council, GN (Guardian): CA 6 Feb 2007

The prospective adopter appealed an order appointing a special guardian.
Held: The judge had had the power to make such an appointment of its own motion provided only that the authority provided the necessary report.

Judges:

Thorpe, Wall, Tuckey LJJ

Citations:

Times 09-Feb-2007, [2007] EWCA Civ 54

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 14A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248363

In re K (Children): CA 27 Jul 2005

The mother appealed an order that her younger son be placed in care and freed for adoption. Hers and her children’s lives had been chaotic. Nevertheless she complained that she had not been given the opportunity to demonstrate her ability to care for her son. She sought an assessment under s38(6). The judge had concluded ‘I was left with the feeling of a superficial picture of how she functions and of a lady who simply does not understand the consequences of her impulsive and irresponsible behaviour and the way in which this impacts upon the welfare of the children. I accept the evidence which clearly demonstrates that D would be at risk of harm to his development if he were cared for by his mother.’
Held: There was no evidence of any harm having come to her son. However her personality difficulties demonstrated a substantial risk. The mother was well intentioned but impulsive. The judge’s conclusion was supported by the evidence, and would not be set aside.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 961

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 38(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re J (a Minor) (Abduction: Custody rights) HL 1-Jul-1990
On 21 March 1990 the mother removed the child, aged two, from Australia, where he had been habitually resident, to England with the intention of permanently residing here. She did so without the knowledge of the father who also resided in Australia . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Adoption

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.229088

Cases of Pini And Bertani And Manera And Atripaldi v Romania: ECHR 22 Jun 2004

The making of an adoption order was sufficient to establish an Article 8 right to respect for family life notwithstanding the fact that the children had never moved to live with the adopters. Protection of the right to family life pre-supposes the factual existence of family life.

Citations:

78030/01, [2004] ECHR 275, 78028/01, [2005] Fam Law 697, 40 EHRR 13, (2005) 40 EHRR 13, [2005] 2 FLR 596

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Webster (the Parents) v Norfolk County Council and others CA 11-Feb-2009
Four brothers and sisters had been adopted after the parents had been found to have abused them. The parents now had expert evidence that the injuries may have been the result of scurvy, and sought leave to appeal.
Held: Leave was refused. . .
Cited – A v P (Surrogacy: Parental Order: Death of Applicant) FD 8-Jul-2011
M applied for a parental order under the 2008 Act. The child had been born through a surrogacy arrangement in India, which was lawful there, but would have been unlawful here. The clinic could not guarantee a biological relationship with the child. . .
Cited – A v P (Surrogacy: Parental Order: Death of Applicant) FD 8-Jul-2011
M applied for a parental order under the 2008 Act. The child had been born through a surrogacy arrangement in India, which was lawful there, but would have been unlawful here. The clinic could not guarantee a biological relationship with the child. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Adoption

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230509

Essex County Council v X and Y and A and B (By Their Guardian Ad Litem, Ms Kennet): FD 8 Aug 2005

Care orders had been made and the care plans looked to adoption. Once the children had been placed with foster parents, contact was withheld. The parents appealed.
Held: The judge had recognised that the proper place for children with their parents, and had made the decision only after careful thought. There had been considerable publicity adverse to the authority’s actions. However: ‘The tragedy in this case, so it seems to me, is that the parents are unable, even when the most concentrated and intensive support is deployed to assist them, to adequately manage the day to day care of their children. Neither is blameworthy. But each has limitations which cannot be set to one side when considering the children’s needs. There is a naivety and innocence about them, the mother in particular, which I found disarming. But she was quite unable to focus her answers for the most part upon the question she had been asked, concentrating as she did upon the issues which bothered her most. The father found it impossible to provide an answer to the question as to how he would feel if he gave up work. ‘ The parents’ decision to withhold consent to adoption was in the circumstances unreasonable, and heir consent would be dispensed with: ‘the welfare of the children demands that they be placed for adoption as soon as possible. A reasonable parent would recognise that his / her child’s welfare was the decisive factor in the equation and would put to one side self interest and desire.’

Judges:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Pauffley

Citations:

[2005] EWHC B16 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption, Children

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229276

Re S: FC 29 Aug 2014

F sought to extend the time for appeal and to appeal against the decisions of the Magistrates to make a final Care Order and to make a Placement Order in respect of his son.

Judges:

Hudson HHJ

Citations:

[2014] EWFC B154

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Adoption

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.540377

Article 39, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Education: CA 24 Nov 2020

Appeal against an order dismissing the appellant’s claim for judicial review by which it sought to challenge the Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 introduced by the Secretary of State for Education in response to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Amendment Regulations introduced a range of temporary amendments to ten statutory instruments governing the children’s social care system.
Held: The Secretary of State had been under an obligation to consult several interested parties and bodies. The amendments had substantial effects. He had failed to satisfy this requirement, but the regulations having now expired, a declaration only was sufficient.

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 1577

Links:

Bailii, Judiciary Summary, Judiciary

Statutes:

Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Adoption, Children, Administrative

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.656304

In re R (a Child) (Adoption: Contact): CA 18 Aug 2005

The child was placed for adoption. In the period before adoption, contact with her family continued. The prospective adopters said that this was unsettling.
Held: It would be unusual to make an order for contact against the wishes of the proposed adopters. Their wishes were not unreasonable, and the order reducing contact was upheld.

Judges:

Wall LJ

Citations:

Times 15-Sep-2005

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 10(9)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In Re T (Minors) (Adopted Children: Contact) CA 8-Aug-1995
A half-sister had been assured that when her half-sister was adopted she would be given annual reports as to her progress. No report was provided. When she enquired and complained, she was told that the adopters had changed their minds and that it . .
Cited – In re J (Leave to issue application for residence order) 2003
An application was made by a family member (a grandparent) to be joined as a party to care proceedings.
Held: A court should not dismiss such an application without proper inquiry. . .
Cited – In re H (Children) CA 2003
The maternal grandmother sought permission to intervene in care proceedings to put herself forward as the carer of her young grandchild. The local authority and the guardian objected to the intervention. The judge had refused it. The grandmother . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.230063

In re F (Minors) (Adoption: Natural parents): CA 17 Oct 2006

The porposed adopters appealed an order requiring notice to be given to the natural parents before the final adoption order could be made.
Held: The freeing order had been made under the 1976 Act. Accordingly under the transitional provisions there was no requirement to notify the natural parents even though the final adoption order would fall to be made under the 2003 Act.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward and Lord Justice Wall

Citations:

Times 16-Nov-2005

Statutes:

Adoption and Children Act 2002, Adoption Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.247645

Pla and Puncernau v Andorra: ECHR 13 Jul 2004

A will made by a widow in 1939, left certain property to her son Francesc-Xavier, as tenant for life, with a stipulation that he was to leave this inheritance to a son or grandson of a lawful and canonical marriage, failing which the estate was to pass to the children and grandchildren of the testatrix’s daughters. She died in 1949. In 1995 Francesc-Xavier made a will in favour of his wife, but in a codicil he left the assets inherited under his mother’s will to his wife for life and then to their adopted son Antoni, who was born in 1966 and adopted by them, in Spain, in 1969. The assets were described in the report as real estate. Francesc-Xavier died in 1996.
Two great-granddaughters of the testatrix applied to the Tribunal des Batlles to have the codicil declared void. That Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that the case was governed by the testatrix’s intention determined by the terms of her will, that there was no statutory or constitutional provision relating to adopted children at that time in Andorra, that customary law was derived partly from Roman law under which adopted children ranked equally with natural-born children, and accordingly the testatrix, by making no express exclusion of adopted children, should not be taken to have excluded them by implication. I understand that legislation was introduced in 1958 putting adopted children on an equality, but that this did not affect the matter.
The great-granddaughters appealed, and in 2000 the High Court of Justice allowed the appeal and set aside the codicil in its entirety. It agreed that the matter was governed by the testatrix’s expressed intention when she made her will, and that Antoni could not rely on the legislation of 1958. But it was significant that in the first half of the 20th century adoption was virtually unknown in Andorra, that provisions of Roman law ‘could not easily be transposed’ to Andorran families living at that time, that in any event the relevant Spanish legislation (under which Antoni had been adopted) gave an adopted child rights of inheritance from his or her adoptive parents but not from more remote family members; so that, by not explicitly including adopted children, the testatrix should not be taken to have intended to include her son’s adopted son.
Antoni and his mother made two attempts to have this ruling annulled by the national courts in Andorra, but those attempts failed. They then brought the claim in the ECHR, saying that the appeal court had acted in breach of articles 8 and 14 by allowing the appeal from the decision of the Tribunal, and they maintained that the case should be governed by private law in the light of Andorran law in force in 1996, when Francesc-Xavier died, and the Convention. The ECHR took the relevant national legislation to be that in force in 1939 and 1949 (rather than 1996).
The government of Andorra took a preliminary point that no relevant ‘family life’ was affected because Antoni had been adopted 20 years after the testatrix had died, but the ECHR ruled unanimously that inheritance by children and grandchildren does fall within the scope of article 8, The Court was divided on the main issue, with a majority concluding that Antoni’s rights under articles 8 and 14 had been infringed, but with two members of the court, namely Judge Bratza and Judge Garlicki, dissenting. The majority began by pointing out that previous cases of this kind before the ECHR had concerned the discriminatory effect of statutes in various member states, whereas the instant case related to the interpretation or construction of a testamentary disposition. They went on to record the principle that domestic law should normally be determined by the domestic courts, all the more so with a disposition such as a will. ‘Accordingly . . an issue of interference with private and family life could only arise under the Convention if the national courts’ assessment of the facts or domestic law were manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary or blatantly inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Convention.’
The majority went on to find that the decision of the appeal court was blatantly inconsistent with the Convention: ‘In the present case the Court observes that the legitimate and canonical nature of the marriage contracted by the first applicant’s father [Francesc-Xavier] is indisputable. The sole remaining question is therefore whether the notion of ‘son’ in [the testatrix’s] will extended only, as the [appeal court] maintained, to biological sons. The Court cannot agree with that conclusion of the Andorran appellate court. There is nothing in the will to suggest that the testatrix intended to exclude adopted grandsons. The Court understands that she could have done so, but as she did not the only possible and logical conclusion is that this was not her intention.
‘The [appeal court’s] interpretation of the testamentary disposition, which consisted in inferring a negative intention on the part of the testatrix and concluding that since she did not expressly state that she was not excluding adopted sons this meant that she did intend to exclude them, appears over contrived and contrary to the general legal principle that where a statement is unambiguous there is no need to examine the intention of the person who made it.
Admittedly, the Court is not in theory required to settle disputes of a purely private nature. That being said, in exercising the European supervision incumbent on it, it cannot remain passive where a national court’s interpretation of a legal act, be it a testamentary disposition, a private contract, a public document, a statutory provision or an administrative practice appears unreasonable, arbitrary or, as in the present case, blatantly inconsistent with the prohibition of discrimination established by Article 14 and more broadly with the principles underlying the Convention.
In the present case the [appeal court’s] interpretation of the testamentary disposition in question had the effect of depriving the first applicant [Antoni] of his right to inherit under his grandmother’s estate and benefiting his cousin’s daughters in this regard. Furthermore, the setting aside of the codicil of 3 July 1995 also resulted in the second applicant [Antoni’s mother] losing her right to the life tenancy of the estate assets left her by her late husband.
Since the testamentary disposition, as worded by [the testatrix], made no distinction between biological and adopted children it was not necessary to interpret it in that way. Such an interpretation therefore amounts to the judicial deprivation of an adopted child’s inheritance rights.’
‘The Court reiterates that the Convention, which is a dynamic text and entails positive obligations for states, is a living instrument, to be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions and that great importance is attached today in the Member States of the Council of Europe to the question of equality between children born in and children born out of wedlock as regards their civil rights. Thus, even supposing that the testamentary disposition in question did require an interpretation by the domestic courts, that interpretation could not be made exclusively in the light of the social conditions existing when the will was made or at the time of the testatrix’s death, namely in 1939 and 1949, particularly where a period of 57 years had elapsed between the date when the will was made and the date on which the estate passed to the heirs. Where such a long period has elapsed, during which profound social, economic and legal changes have occurred, the courts cannot ignore these new realities. The same is true with regard to wills : any interpretation should endeavour to ascertain the testator’s intention and render the will effective, while bearing in mind that ‘the testator cannot be presumed to have meant what he did not say’ and without overlooking the importance of interpreting the testamentary disposition in the manner that most closely corresponds to domestic law and to the Convention as interpreted in the Court’s case law.’

Citations:

69498/01, [2004] ECHR 334, (2006) 42 EHRR 25, [2004] 2 FCR 630

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Cited – Larkos v Cyprus ECHR 18-Feb-1999
The applicant had rented a house from the government, but was ordered to vacate the house following revocation of his tenancy. Because he had been a tenant of the government he was not, under domestic law, entitled to the security which he would . .

Cited by:

Cited – Re Erskine 1948 Trust ChD 29-Mar-2012
The trust was created in 1948, and provided gifts over, which had now failed. The court considered the construction of the term ‘stautory next of kin’. The possible beneficiaries claimed through being adopted, arguing that at the date of the last . .
Judgment – Pla and Puncernau v Andorra ECHR 8-Aug-2011
Execution – The court was asked to interpret a testamentary provision and as to the right of an adopted son to inherit from his grandmother under her will.
When a child is adopted under a full adoption procedure, the child is in the same legal . .
Cited – Hand and Another v George ChD 17-Mar-2017
Adopted grandchildren entitled to succession
The court was asked whether the adopted children whose adopting father, the son of the testator, were grandchildren of the testator for the purposes of his will.
Held: The claim succeeded. The defendants, the other beneficiaries were not . .
Cited – Khurshid Mustafa And Tarzibachi v Sweden ECHR 8-Jun-2011
The Strasbourg court considered a claim by applicants who had been evicted by a court order at the suit of their landlords, who had determined their tenancy for installing a satellite dish in breach of covenant.
Held: This infringed the . .
Cited – McDonald v McDonald and Others SC 15-Jun-2016
Her parents had bought a house and granted tenancies to their adult daughter (the appellant), who suffered a personality disorder. They became unable to repay the mortgage. Receivers were appointed but the appellant fell into arrears with the rent. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Wills and Probate, Adoption

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198704

FAS v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: CA 5 Oct 2015

The appellant had sought adoption of a young person aged 18 of Pakistani nationality. The court rejected her application, saying it was an attempt to subvert immigration controls.

Judges:

Briggs, Macur, Sales LJJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 951, [2015] Fam Law 1449, [2015] WLR(D) 396, [2016] 2 FLR 1035, [2016] 1 WLR 407, [2016] 2 All ER 251, [2016] 1 FCR 191

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Adoption and Children Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption, Immigration

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.553047

Alexander Cameron (Ap) v Ian Macintyre Gibson, As Executor Dative of the Late Dugald Macintyre and Another: SCS 2 Dec 2003

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:

Bailii, ScotC

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

In re B (a Minor) (Adoption: Natural parent): HL 17 Dec 2001

The parents of a child were not married. The mother stated and had maintained her disinterest in the child from birth, and the father had been caring for the child. The local authority looked to find a fostering place with a view to adoption. The father sought to adopt the child by himself, since this was the only way of making sure that his relationship with the child would not later be disturbed if the mother changed her mind. The Act required an adoption order in favour of one natural parent to the exclusion of the other only to be made for some proper reason.
Held: The Court of Appeal should only interfere with a first instance judgment as to the facts where such a judgement was plainly wrong. There was no indication of the judge having misdirected herself. Since the Act required the court to balance the competing interests, it already took account of the Article 8 rights of the mother and child. The order in favour of the father should stand.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Millett and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Citations:

Times 18-Dec-2001, [2001] UKHL 70

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Adoption Act 1976 15

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – G v G (Minors: Custody Appeal) HL 25-Apr-1985
The House asked when a decision, on the facts, of a first instance court is so wrong as to allow it to be overturned on appeal.
Held: The epithet ‘wrong’ is to be applied to the substance of the decision made by the lower court. ‘Certainly it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, Human Rights

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167065

Johansen v Norway: ECHR 7 Aug 1996

The court had to consider a permanent placement of a child with a view to adoption in oposition to the natural parents’ wishes.
Held: Particular weight should be attached to the best interests of the child, which may override those of the parent: ‘These measures were particularly far-reaching in that they totally deprived the applicant of her family life with the child and were inconsistent with the aim of reuniting them. Such measures should only be applied in exceptional circumstances and could only be justified if they were motivated by an overriding requirement pertaining to the child’s best interests.’

Citations:

17383/90, (1997) 23 EHRR 33, [1996] ECHR 31

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – AHE Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v A and Others (By Their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor), The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority B, B QBD 26-Feb-2003
An IVF treatment centre used sperm from one couple to fertilise eggs from another. This was discovered, and the unwilling donors sought a paternity declaration.
Held: Section 28 did not confer paternity. The mistake vitiated whatever consents . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others HL 24-Feb-2005
The appellants were teachers in Christian schools who said that the blanket ban on corporal punishment interfered with their religious freedom. They saw moderate physical discipline as an essential part of educating children in a Christian manner. . .
Cited – EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimant challenged the respondent’s decision to order the return of herself and her son to Lebanon.
Held: The test for whether a claimant’s rights would be infringed to such an extent as to prevent their return home was a strict one, but . .
Cited – Payne v Payne; P v P CA 13-Feb-2001
No presumption for Mother on Relocation
The mother applied for leave to return to New Zealand taking with the parties’ daughter aged four. The father opposed the move, saying that allowing the move would infringe his and the child’s right to family life. He had been refused residence.
Cited – R And H v The United Kingdom ECHR 31-May-2011
The court considered arrangements for an adoption in Northern Ireland where the parent’s consent was withheld.
Held: For parental consent to be overriden there had to be shown an overriding need for the decision. . .
Cited – ANS and Another v ML SC 11-Jul-2012
The mother opposed adoption proceedings, and argued that the provision in the 2007 Act, allowing a court to dispense with her consent, infringed her rights under Article 8 and was therefore made outwith the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Cited – YC v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-Mar-2012
The court spelt out the stark effects of the proportionality requirement in its application to a determination that a child should be adopted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children, Adoption

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165440

In re M (a Minor) (Care order: Freeing Application): CA 18 Dec 2003

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.

Judges:

Ward, Carnwath LJJ

Citations:

Times 02-Jan-2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – In re D (Simultaneous applications for care order and freeing order) 1999
The judge considering two applications for a care order and an adoption order had confused the proper order of issues to be considered, and that error contaminated his decision. The two should be dealt with in sequence. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, Children

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.190150

Re S (Freeing for Adoption): CA 2002

If parliament always foresaw what possibilities might arise, courts would never have anything to interpret.

Judges:

Arden LJ

Citations:

[2002] 2 FLR 681, [2002] EWCA Civ 798

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – AHE Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v A and Others (By Their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor), The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority B, B QBD 26-Feb-2003
An IVF treatment centre used sperm from one couple to fertilise eggs from another. This was discovered, and the unwilling donors sought a paternity declaration.
Held: Section 28 did not confer paternity. The mistake vitiated whatever consents . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.182939

In Re D (Minors) (Adoption Reports: Confidentiality): CA 8 Dec 1994

A guardian ad litem’s promise of confidentiality to a child can broken by a court, and the guardian must be careful in making such promises.

Citations:

Times 08-Dec-1994

Statutes:

Adoption Rules 1984 53(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Re D (Minors) (Adoption Reports: Confidentiality) HL 1-Sep-1995
The House considered whether it was right for a tribunal to see and rely upon papers not disclosed to the parties. Lord Mustill said: ‘a first principle of fairness that each party to a judicial process shall have an opportunity to answer by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Adoption

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.81831

Gunn-Russo v Nugent Care Society and Secretary of State for Health: Admn 20 Jul 2001

The applicant had been adopted as a child, and sought disclosure of the adoption records. The 1983 regulations gave a discretion to the Society, which had acted as adoption agency, to disclose information. The internal report to the society failed to analyze the appropriateness of the society’s policy, nor to examine the individual circumstances of the applicant’s case. She complained that the society had unlawfully fettered its own discretion.
Held: A balance has to be struck between disclosure and maintaining a confidence. Even so both the policy and the claimant’s own circumstances were to be reconsidered. Judicial review granted.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Scott Baker

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 566

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998, Children Act 1975 25, Adoption Agencies Regulations 1983 15(2)(a), Adoption Act 1976 1

Cited by:

Cited – Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd QBD 7-Feb-2006
The trust, operators of Ashworth Secure Hospital sought from the defendant journalist disclosure of the name of their employee who had revealed to the defendant matters about the holding of Ian Brady, the Moors Murderer, and in particular medical . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, Human Rights

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140351

Regina v Secretary of State for Health and Another ex parte C (Minors) (Kent County Council Intervening): QBD 11 Nov 1998

Regulations which had removed the discretion of the Local Authority to place children with a carer who had a relevant conviction, were not ultra vires even though it created a situation where the best interests of the child might not always be served.

Citations:

Times 11-Nov-1998, Gazette 25-Nov-1998

Statutes:

Children (Protection from Offenders) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1997 1997/2308

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87723

In Re A (A Minor) (Adoption: Contact Order): CA 24 Jun 1993

A contact order had been properly granted with an order freeing the child for adoption. Butler-Sloss LJ: ‘The effect of an order freeing a child for adoption is to extinguish parental responsibility of those previously endowed with it and thus to bring to an end the relationship between the child and his natural family (see Adoption Act 1976, section 12(3)). The child is in a sort of adoptive limbo and parental responsibility is assumed by the adoption agency, in this case, the local authority (section 18(5)). The parents become former parents, sections 18(5), 19 and have no right to make an application under section 8 of the Children Act 1989.’

Judges:

Butler-Sloss LJ

Citations:

Times 24-Jun-1993, [1993] 2 FLR 645

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust and Another v H and Another HL 12-Jul-2006
The House considered when adoption law would allow an adoption without the consent of the birth parent where there had been some continuing contact between that parent and the child.
Held: (Baroness Hale dissenting) The appeal against the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.81619

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?’

Judges:

Peter Jackson J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 2609 (Fam), [2015] WLR(D) 388

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption, Human Rights

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.552784

In Re G (A Minor) (Adoption Freeing Order): HL 24 Apr 1997

A freeing order can be revoked, even though a re-assumption of sole parental responsibility by the mother would still not be appropriate.

Citations:

Times 07-May-1997, Gazette 04-Jun-1997, [1997] 2 FCR 289, [1997] UKHL 16, [1997] AC 613, 1997] 2 All ER 534, [1997] 2 FLR 202, [1997 Fam Law 596

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Adoption Act 1976 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135201

A 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.

Judges:

Moor J

Citations:

[2015] EWFC 69

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Adoption

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.551002

Singh and Other v United Kingdom: ECHR 8 Jun 2006

The claimants were an Indian couple resident in the UK. They sought to adopt a child from India, but immigration officers refused entry for the child.
Held: The court struck the case from the list after the respondent paid the claimant damages and costs after a friendly settlement. The child was now living with them.

Citations:

60148/00, Times 21-Jun-2006, [2006] ECHR 606

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Adoption

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.242869

In Re A (Adoption: Mother’s Objections): 2000

Citations:

[2000] 1 FLR 665

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Payne v Payne; P v P CA 13-Feb-2001
No presumption for Mother on Relocation
The mother applied for leave to return to New Zealand taking with the parties’ daughter aged four. The father opposed the move, saying that allowing the move would infringe his and the child’s right to family life. He had been refused residence.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, Human Rights

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.417808

Re F: 1977

Citations:

[1977] Fam 165

Cited by:

Cited – Alexander Cameron (Ap) v Ian Macintyre Gibson, As Executor Dative of the Late Dugald Macintyre and Another SCS 2-Dec-2003
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.194026

In Re WM (Adoption: Non-Patrial): FD 1997

The court considered whether it was possible to make an adoption order notwithstanding that the applicants had separated as a couple.
Held: In making the order the court took into account the following: (a) the advantage to the child of becoming a child of the family from an emotional and social perspective, (b) the financial advantage to the child under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (c) the protection of the child’s inheritance rights under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

Judges:

Johnson J

Citations:

[1997] 1 FLR 132

Statutes:

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In re A (A Minor) FD 8-Jul-2011
An application was made in care proceedings for an order restricting publication of information about the family after the deaths of two siblings of the child subject to the application. The Sun and a local newspaper had already published stories . .
Cited – A v P (Surrogacy: Parental Order: Death of Applicant) FD 8-Jul-2011
M applied for a parental order under the 2008 Act. The child had been born through a surrogacy arrangement in India, which was lawful there, but would have been unlawful here. The clinic could not guarantee a biological relationship with the child. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.441951

In re D (Simultaneous applications for care order and freeing order): 1999

The judge considering two applications for a care order and an adoption order had confused the proper order of issues to be considered, and that error contaminated his decision. The two should be dealt with in sequence.

Judges:

Thorpe LJ

Citations:

[1999] 2 FLR 49

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – In re M (a Minor) (Care order: Freeing Application) CA 18-Dec-2003
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Adoption

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.190239

In re C (Adoption: Religious observance): 2002

Citations:

[2002] 1 FLR 1119

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (S) v Haringey London Borough Council QBD 13-Nov-2003
The applicant sought a writ of habeas corpus in respect of her four children who had been removed by the police, and were residing with the local authority under interim care orders. She said they were held against their wills.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188376

Re H; Re G (Adoption: Consultation of Unmarried Fathers): CA 2001

Not every natural father has a right to respect for his family life with regard to every child of whom he may be the father (see also McMichael v United Kingdom (1995) 20 EHRR 205). The application of Art 8(1) will depend upon the facts of each case.’

Citations:

[2001] 1 FLR 646

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – AHE Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v A and Others (By Their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor), The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority B, B QBD 26-Feb-2003
An IVF treatment centre used sperm from one couple to fertilise eggs from another. This was discovered, and the unwilling donors sought a paternity declaration.
Held: Section 28 did not confer paternity. The mistake vitiated whatever consents . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182941

In Re F (R) (An Infant): 1970

An adoption order was set aside for an irregularity.

Citations:

[1970] 1 QB 385

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Webster (the Parents) v Norfolk County Council and others CA 11-Feb-2009
Four brothers and sisters had been adopted after the parents had been found to have abused them. The parents now had expert evidence that the injuries may have been the result of scurvy, and sought leave to appeal.
Held: Leave was refused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.282610

In Re X (A Minor) (Adoption Details: Disclosure): CA 11 Apr 1994

After an adoption order had been made, the local authority asked for an order to prevent the details of the adoptive parents being entered on the register. The were concerned that the natural mother would use the register to find the child and cause disruption.
Held: The court allowed the authority’s appeal. Though the court had no power to edit any entry on the register, it could make an order requiring the registrar to seek the approval of the court before any disclosure was made.

Citations:

Times 11-Apr-1994, Ind Summary 04-Apr-1994, [1994] 3 WLR 327

Statutes:

Adoption Act 1976 50, Adoption Act 1950

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82302

In Re J (A Minor) (Adoption: Appointment of Guardian ad Litem): CA 19 Mar 1999

In contested adoption proceedings the choice of guardian ad litem was entirely a matter for the judge. A guardian with good and long standing knowledge of the child would not be set aside for allegations of bias rejected by the judge.

Citations:

Times 19-Mar-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Adoption

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81952