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:

CitedDown 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 AlsoA 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:

CitedPayne 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:

CitedAlexander 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:

CitedIn 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 . .
CitedA 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:

AppliedIn 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:

CitedRegina (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:

CitedAHE 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:

CitedWebster (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 Order): CA 14 Oct 1998

It is wrong to make an adoption order against the wishes of a father where he might have sought parental responsibility merely in order to relieve sense of insecurity within the new family. Such difficult matters should normally be heard in the High Court.

Citations:

Times 14-Oct-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81958

In Re F (Minors) (Adoption: Freeing Order): CA 4 Jul 2000

A judge had declined to make a freeing order, where it was clear that the children would not be returned to their parents, and the proposed adoption arrangements, which would split the children between two families, was opposed by the father on that ground. The judge felt that a reasonable parent could well oppose arrangements which would mean the children losing contact with each other. On appeal the judge’s order was overturned. The correct question to determine the reasonableness of an objection was, applying the evidence, and the current values of society, whether the advantages of adoption justified the overriding of the parent’s wishes.

Citations:

Times 04-Jul-2000, Gazette 07-Sep-2000

Statutes:

Adoption Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRe C (a Minor) (Adoption: Parental Agreement: Contact) CA 1993
Where adoption is to be considered against the will of the parent, the court should recognise when asking whether the opposition was unreasonable that the test is objective and supposes that this person is endowed with a mind and temperament capable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81878

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

In Re B (A Minor)(Adoption Order: Nationality): CA 16 Mar 1998

Any benefit of nationality obtained through an adoption is a side benefit, and is irrelevant to the substantive issues of the propriety of that adoption. An adoption undertaken principally for that purpose was wrong.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Apr-1998, Times 16-Mar-1998

Statutes:

Adoption Act 1976 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Adoption

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81713

In re G (a Child) (Care proceedings: Placement for Adoption): CA 14 Jul 2005

Grandparents appealed aganst an order of the judge releasing the care of the child to the local authority with a view to adoption.
Held: The findings of fact and reasoning were insufficiently well set out and the judge had given insufficient consideration to the right of a child to grow up within its family. The decision was set aside.

Citations:

Times 01-Aug-2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedIn re B (Appeal: Lack of Reasons) 2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.229648

Biddulph v Birmingham City Council, Biddulph B (Children) Mr and Mrs A: CA 28 Apr 2004

The children had been subject to an adoption order. They had been placed outside the jurisdiction for adoption. The parents appealed refusal of their application for revocation of the order. Initially places had been found for the four children together, and an urgent request made for permission. The judge had said that since they were not in care, no application was required. A placement together failed, and the authority had made other arrangements. That placement was and remained lawful. Section 20 was not to be read as restricted to a lawful placement.

Judges:

Lord Justice Thorpe Lord Justice Neuberger

Citations:

[2004] EWCA (Civ) 515, Times 10-Jun-2004

Statutes:

Adoption Act 1976 20(1)(b) 55 56

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.196057

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 commitment to traditional family structures did not however justify the difference. The rules were unlawful discrimination.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘the House is free to give, in the interpretation of the 1998 Act, what it considers to be a principled and rational interpretation to the concept of discrimination on grounds of marital status. For the reasons I have given earlier, I would declare that notwithstanding article 14 of the Order, the appellants are entitled to apply to adopt the child.’
He went on to point out that ‘Convention rights’, as defined in section 1 of the 1998 Act, were ‘domestic and not international rights’, and that the duty of domestic courts under section 2 of that Act was to ‘take into account’, rather than to regard themselves as bound by, decisions of the Strasbourg court, but that there were normally ‘good reasons why we should follow the interpretation adopted in Strasbourg’. However, different ‘considerations apply in cases in which Strasbourg has deliberately declined to lay down an interpretation for all member states, as it does when it says the question is within the margin of appreciation’. In such cases, ‘it is for the court in the United Kingdom to interpret [the relevant article or articles of the Convention] and to apply the division between the decision-making powers of courts and Parliament in the way which appears appropriate for the United .Kingdom’. He expanded on this by adding that ‘[t]he margin of appreciation is there for division between the three branches of government according to our principles of the separation of powers’.
Baroness Hale said that ‘lack of marital status is as much a ‘status’ for the purpose of article 14 as is the status of marriage itself.’
and ‘it is clear that the doctrine of the ‘margin of appreciation’ as applied in Strasbourg has no application in domestic law. The Strasbourg court will allow a certain freedom of action to member states, which may mean that the same case will be answered differently in different states (or even in different legal systems within the same state). This is particularly so when dealing with questions of justification, whether for interference in one of the qualified rights, or for a difference in treatment under article 14. National authorities are better able than Strasbourg to assess what restrictions are necessary in the democratic societies they serve. So to that extent the judgment must be one for the national authorities.’
Lord Hope said that even in an area of social and economic policy, falls within the constitutional responsibility of the courts: ‘Cases about discrimination in an area of social policy, which is what this case is, will always be appropriate for judicial scrutiny. The constitutional responsibility in this area of our law resides with the courts. The more contentious the issue is, the greater the risk is that some people will be discriminated against in ways that engage their Convention rights. It is for the courts to see that this does not happen. It is with them that the ultimate safeguard against discrimination rests.’
Orse – In re G (Adoption: Unmarried Couple)

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Mance

Citations:

[2008] UKHL 38, Times 23-Jun-2008, [2008] UKHRR 1181, [2008] Fam Law 977, [2008] 2 FCR 366, [2009] 1 AC 173, [2008] NI 310, [2008] 24 BHRC 650, [2008] 2 FLR 1084, [2008] HRLR 37, [2008] 3 WLR 76

Links:

Bailii, HL

Statutes:

Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (SI 1987/2203(NI 22)) 13, Human Rights Act 1998 1(1), European Convention on Human Rights 14

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

CitedVon Lorang v Administrator of Austrian Property 1927
Viscount Haldane said: ‘[T]he marriage gives the husband and wife a new legal position from which flow both rights and obligations with regard to the rest of the public. The status so acquired may vary according to the laws of different . .
CitedJames and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1986
The claimants challenged the 1967 Act, saying that it deprived them of their property rights when lessees were given the power to purchase the freehold reversion.
Held: Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property. Allowing a . .
CitedPM v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Jul-2005
A father complained that tax deductions which were granted to married fathers but not to unmarried fathers were discriminatory. He had paid maintenance for his daughter, but was not allowed to set the payments off against his income tax in the way . .
CitedCarson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Reynolds v Same HL 26-May-2005
One claimant said that as a foreign resident pensioner, she had been excluded from the annual uprating of state retirement pension, and that this was an infringement of her human rights. Another complained at the lower levels of job-seeker’s . .
CitedHooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 5-May-2005
Widowers claimed that, in denying them benefits which would have been payable to widows, the Secretary of State had acted incompatibly with their rights under article 14 read with article 1 of Protocol 1 and article 8 of the ECHR.
Held: The . .
CitedFrette v France ECHR 26-Feb-2002
A single homosexual man complained that the respondent state had made it impossible for him to adopt a child.
Held: The claim was within the ambit of article 8 as regards respect for family life, but the court dismissed the claim under article . .
CitedDu Toit and Vos v Minister for Welfare and Population Development 10-Sep-2002
(South African Constitutional Court) Prospective adoptive parents were a same-sex couple who challenged laws preventing them from adopting. The court said: ‘In their current form the impugned provisions exclude from their ambit potential joint . .
CitedEB 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 . .
CitedRegina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
CitedIn re McKerr (Northern Ireland) HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had been shot by soldiers of the British Army whilst in a car in Northern Ireland. The car was alleged to have ‘run’ a checkpoint. The claimants said the investigation, now 20 years ago, had been inadequate. The claim was brought under . .
CitedRegina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
CitedRegina v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Pro-life Alliance HL 15-May-2003
The Alliance was a political party seeking to air its party election broadcast. The appellant broadcasters declined to broadcast the film on the grounds that it was offensive, being a graphical discussion of the processes of abortion.
Held: . .
CitedT, Petitioner IHCS 1997
The House discussed the duties of a court in adoption cases: ‘There can be no more fundamental principle in adoption cases than that it is the duty of the court to safeguard and promote the interests of the child. Issues relating to the sexual . .
CitedBellinger v Bellinger HL 10-Apr-2003
Transgender Male to Female not to marry as Female
The parties had gone through a form of marriage, but Mrs B had previously undergone gender re-assignment surgery. Section 11(c) of the 1973 Act required a marriage to be between a male and a female. It was argued that the section was incompatible . .
CitedBurden and Burden v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Dec-2006
Sisters,Together always not Discriminated Against
(Grand Chamber) The claimants were sisters who had lived together all their lives and owned property jointly. They complained that the Inheritance Tax regime treated them worse than it would a married couple, and was discriminatory.
Held: . .
CitedBelfast City Council v Miss Behavin’ Ltd HL 25-Apr-2007
Belfast had failed to license sex shops. The company sought review of the decision not to grant a licence.
Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The refusal was not a denial of the company’s human rights: ‘If article 10 and article 1 of . .
CitedMarckx v Belgium ECHR 13-Jun-1979
Recognition of illegitimate children
The complaint related to the manner in which parents were required to adopt their own illegitimate child in order to increase his rights. Under Belgian law, no legal bond between an unmarried mother and her child results from the mere fact of birth. . .
CitedS, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper HL 22-Jul-2004
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints
The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life.
Held: The parts of DNA used for testing . .
CitedKarner v Austria ECHR 24-Jul-2003
A surviving same-sex partner sought a right of succession to a tenancy (of their previously shared flat). Interveners ‘pointed out that a growing number of national courts in European and other democratic societies require equal treatment of . .
CitedPretty v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2002
Right to Life Did Not include Right to Death
The applicant was paralysed and suffered a degenerative condition. She wanted her husband to be allowed to assist her suicide by accompanying her to Switzerland. English law would not excuse such behaviour. She argued that the right to die is not . .
CitedGhaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
CitedHandyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .

Cited by:

CitedAge UK, Regina (On the Application of) v Attorney General Admn 25-Sep-2009
Age UK challenged the implementation by the UK of the Directive insofar as it established a default retirement age (DRA) at 65.
Held: The claim failed. The decision to adopt a DRA was not a disproportionate way of giving effect to the social . .
CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SCS 8-Jan-2010
The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2009 Act by judicial review. The Act would make their insured and themselves liable to very substantial unanticipated claims for damages for pleural plaques which would not previousl or otherwise . .
CitedJohns and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Derby City Council and Another Admn 28-Feb-2011
The claimants had acted as foster carers for several years, but challenged a potential decision to discontinue that when, as committed Christians, they refused to sign to agree to treat without differentiation any child brought to them who might be . .
CitedNicklinson v Ministry of Justice and Others QBD 12-Mar-2012
The claimant suffered locked-in syndrome and sought relief in a form which would allow others to assist him in committing suicide. The court considered whether the case should be allowed to proceed rather than to be struck out as hopeless.
CitedMoohan and Another v The Lord Advocate SC 17-Dec-2014
The petitioners, convicted serving prisoners, had sought judicial review of the refusal to allow them to vote in the Scottish Referendum on Independence. The request had been refused in the Outer and Inner Houses.
Held: (Kerr, Wilson JJSC . .
CitedMathieson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 8-Jul-2015
The claimant a boy of three in receipt of disability living allowance (‘DLA’) challenged (through his parents) the withdrawal of that benefit whilst he was in hospital for a period of more than 12 weeks. He had since died.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedNicklinson and Another, Regina (on The Application of) SC 25-Jun-2014
Criminality of Assisting Suicide not Infringing
The court was asked: ‘whether the present state of the law of England and Wales relating to assisting suicide infringes the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether the code published by the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to . .
CitedSG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 18-Mar-2015
The court was asked whether it was lawful for the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation imposing a cap on the amount of welfare benefits which can be received by claimants in non-working households, equivalent to the net median earnings . .
CitedGaughran v Chief Constable of The Police Service of Northern Ireland (Northern Ireland) SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked as to to the right of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to retain personal information and data lawfully obtained from the appellant following his arrest for the offence of driving with excess alcohol.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedSteinfeld and Another v Secretary of State for Education CA 21-Feb-2017
Hetero Partnerships – wait and see proportionate
The claimants, a heterosexual couple complained that their inability to have a civil partnership was an unlawful discrimination against them and a denial of their Article 8 rights. The argument that the appellants’ case did not come within the ambit . .
CitedSteinfeld and Keidan, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for International Development (In Substitution for The Home Secretary and The Education Secretary) SC 27-Jun-2018
The applicants, an heterosexual couple wished to enter into a civil partnership under the 2004 Act, rather than a marriage. They complained that had they been a same sex couple they would have had that choice under the 2013 Act.
Held: The . .
CitedBrewster, Re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) SC 8-Feb-2017
Survivor of unmarried partner entitled to pension
The claimant appealed against the rejection of her claim to the survivor’s pension after the death of her longstanding partner, even though they had not been married. The rules said that she had to have been nominated by her partner, but he had not . .
CitedTigere, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 29-Jul-2015
After increasing university fees, the student loan system was part funded by the government. They introduced limits to the availability of such loans, and a student must have been lawfully ordinarily resident in the UK for three years before the day . .
CitedMichalak v General Medical Council and Others SC 1-Nov-2017
Dr M had successfully challenged her dismissal and recovered damages for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. In the interim, Her employer HA had reported the dismissal to the respondent who continued their proceedings despite the decision in . .
CitedHuman Rights Commission for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland : Abortion) SC 7-Jun-2018
The Commission challenged the compatibility of the NI law relating to banning nearly all abortions with Human Rights Law. It now challenged a decision that it did not have standing to bring the case.
Held: (Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson . .
CitedMcLaughlin, Re Judicial Review SC 30-Aug-2018
The applicant a differently sexed couple sought to marry under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, but complained that they would lose the benefits of widowed parent’s allowance. Parliament had decided to delay such rules to allow assessment of reaction . .
CitedMcLaughlin, Re Judicial Review SC 30-Aug-2018
The applicant a differently sexed couple sought to marry under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, but complained that they would lose the benefits of widowed parent’s allowance. Parliament had decided to delay such rules to allow assessment of reaction . .
CitedCrowter and Others, Regina (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Health And Social Care Admn 23-Sep-2021
Foetus has no Established Human Rights
The Claimants sought a declaration that section 1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967, as amended, is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’), as well as some other remedies. The claimant had Down’s Syndrome, and complained the . .
CitedDA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 15-May-2019
Several lone parents challenged the benefits cap, saying that it was discriminatory.
Held: (Hale, Kerr LL dissenting) The parents’ appeals failed. The legislation had a clear impact on lone parents and their children. The intention was to . .
CitedDA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 15-May-2019
Several lone parents challenged the benefits cap, saying that it was discriminatory.
Held: (Hale, Kerr LL dissenting) The parents’ appeals failed. The legislation had a clear impact on lone parents and their children. The intention was to . .
CitedRR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 13-Nov-2019
Housing benefit regulations had been found unlawful and were amended. The Court now considered what payments should have been made before the amendments came into effect.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and RR’s housing benefit entitlement is to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, Human Rights, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.269988

In Re B (Minor: Adoption): CA 23 Mar 2001

Where in adoption proceedings, the experts advising the court including the guardian ad litem, and an experienced child psychiatrist had indicated opposition to the proposed adoption, it could not be said that the natural father was unreasonable to oppose the adoption. Since it could not proceed without this consent, or his opposition disposed of as unreasonable, the adoption could not proceed. The court had given insufficient weight to the father’s human right to respect for family life.

Citations:

Times 23-Mar-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption, Human Rights

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.81722

In re S (a Child: Adoption): CA 7 Oct 2008

The mother sought an order to revoke a placement order.
Held: Her appeal succeeded. The judge had erred turning a pragmatic approach into a reckless one, in that he had failed to distinguish between a prospective adopter as required by the Act, and a potential adopter as in this case.

Judges:

Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Keene and Mr Justice Hedley

Links:

Times

Statutes:

Adoption and Children Act 2002 18(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.280415

In re H (a Minor): 1986

Citations:

[1986] Fam 121

Cited by:

CitedIn Re K (A Minor) (Adoption Order: Nationality) CA 22-Apr-1994
The child was born in Sierra Leone. Her mother died, and her aunt had adopted her in Sierra Leone in 1991. She came to England where a further adoption order was obtained only a few days short of her eighteenth birthday when the court made an order . .
CitedIn Re K (A Minor) (Residence Order) CA 26-Nov-1998
The father had been denied access to his child in India. The child had been brought back to England through wardship proceedings. He resisted an application by the mother to take the child to India for a temporary stay. The mother appealed an order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Adoption

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.241336

Re RA (Minors): 1974

An adoption order was set aside for a procedural irregularity.

Citations:

(1974) Fam Law 182

Cited by:

CitedAlexander 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 . .
CitedWebster (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: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.194028

Re D (Minors): CA 6 Dec 1994

The Guardian ad litem had been wrong to promise confidentiality to a child. Such confidentiality could only be within the discretion of the judge.

Citations:

Independent 06-Dec-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.85748

In re L (An Infant): CA 1962

That a proposed adoption of a child would be in the child’s best interests is not necessarily an indication that the parent’s opposition to the adoption is unreasonable: ‘A reasonable mother surely gives great weight to what is better for the child. Her anguish of mind is quite understandable; but still it may be unreasonable for her to withhold consent. We must look and see whether it is reasonable or unreasonable according to what a reasonable woman in her place would do in all the circumstances of the case.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

(1962) 106 SJ 611

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDown 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: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.243098

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.

Judges:

Peter Jackson J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 851 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Senior Courts Act 1981 51(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHB v PB FD 9-Jul-2013
Claim for costs against third party local authority, Croydon LBC after four day private law fact finding hearing. F said that M had fabricated illnesses both in herself and the child leading to the LA being asked to prepare a report. That report . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, Costs

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.472649

In re W (A Minor) (Adoption Agency: Wardship): 1990

The court considered the requirments for adoption of a child subject to wardship.

Citations:

[1990] Fam 156

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRe A Ward of Court FD 4-May-2017
Ward has no extra privilege from Police Interview
The court considered the need to apply to court in respect of the care of a ward of the court when the Security services needed to investigate possible terrorist involvement of her and of her contacts. Application was made for a declaration as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Adoption

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.588167

Regina v Derbyshire County Council, ex parte T: CA 1990

The court upheld the decision of Swinton Thomas J to grant certiorari to quash the decision of a local authority to move a child to prospective adopters without informing the child’s parents and in an attempt to prevent them making an application to the court for the revocation of a freeing order previously made in relation to the child.

Citations:

[1990] Fam. 164

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedIn re F (A Child) (Placement Order); C v East Sussex County Council (Adoption) CA 1-May-2008
The father sought to revoke a freeing order. He said that the social workers had conspired to exclude him from the process. The child was born of a casual relationship, and at first he was unaware of the proceedings. On learning of them he sought to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.271031

T, Petitioner: IHCS 1997

The House discussed the duties of a court in adoption cases: ‘There can be no more fundamental principle in adoption cases than that it is the duty of the court to safeguard and promote the interests of the child. Issues relating to the sexual orientation, lifestyle, race, religion or other characteristics of the parties involved must of course be taken into account as part of the circumstances. But they cannot be allowed to prevail over what is in the best interests of the child.’

Citations:

1997 SLT 724

Cited by:

CitedIn 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Adoption

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.270011

Kuijper v Netherlands: ECHR 3 Mar 2005

The court considered provisions allowing the adoption of a child against the wishes of the parents. The parents complained that the procedure was not in accordance with law because it lacked legal certainty.
Held: The claim failed. A measure of vagueness in the law is inevitable if excessive rigidity is to be avoided, and legislation may have to avoid excessive rigidity if it is to keep pace with changing circumstances.
‘As regards the applicant’s argument that the Arts 1:228 and 3.13 of the Civil Code and their application in practice fell short of the requirement of foreseeability, the Court considers that it is a logical consequence of the principle that laws must be of general application that the wording of statutory provisions is not always precise. The need to avoid excessive rigidity and to keep pace with changing circumstances means that many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague. However clearly drafted a legal provision may be, its application in practice involves an inevitable element of judicial interpretation and assessment of facts, which do not by itself make a legal provision unforeseeable in its application. On many occasions and in very different spheres the Court has held that it is in the first place for the national authorities, and in particular the courts, to construe and apply the domestic law (see, for example, Winterwerp v Netherlands (1979) 2 EHRR 387 at [46]; Iglesias Gil v Spain (2005) 40 EHRR 3 at [61]; and Slivenko v Latvia: (2004) 39 EHRR 24 at [105]).
Accordingly, an issue of foreseeability could only arise under the Convention if the national courts’ assessment of the facts or domestic law was manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary.’

Citations:

(2005) 41 EHRR SE 266, 64848/01

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedANS 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: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.240052

Re C (A Minor) (Adoption Order: Conditions): HL 1988

The House considered the question of conditions to be applied to any continued contact with a child after adoption. Lord Ackner said: ‘The cases rightly stress that in normal circumstances it is desirable that there should be a complete break, but that each case has to be considered on its own particular facts. No doubt the Court will not, except in the most exceptional case, impose terms or conditions as to access to members of the child’s natural family to which the adopting parents do not agree. To do so would be to create a potentially frictional situation which would be hardly likely to safeguard or promote the welfare of the child. Where no agreement is forthcoming the court will, with very rare exceptions, have to choose between making an adoption order without terms or conditions as to access, or to refuse to make such an order and seek to safeguard access through some other machinery, such as wardship. To do otherwise would be merely inviting future and almost immediate litigation.’

Judges:

Lord Ackner

Citations:

[1988] 2 FLR 159, [1989] AC 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedIn re R (A Child) CA 18-Aug-2005
An application was made for continued contact after a proposed adoption. The mother was young and had herself lost her family and taken into care when very young.
Held: Her request for permission to appeal failed. Wall LJ ‘I am reasonably . .
CitedDown 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 . .
CitedOxfordshire County Council v X and Others CA 27-May-2010
The LA, the guardian and adoptive parents appealed against an order that they should provide to the parents an annual photograph of the child. They contended that an image should only be made available to be viewed at the authority’s offices . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.230247

Lawson v Registrar General: 1956

An application was made for disclosure by the Registrar of his records so that an adopted child could be contacted and informed of a significant legacy to which she would be entitled.
Held: Disclosure of such records was severely restricted, but could be made where it would be in the child’s best interests. This would be one such category of case.

Citations:

(1956) 105 LJ 204

Cited by:

CitedRe H (Adoption: Disclosure of Information ) 1995
An application was made by the sister of an adopted child for disclosure of the records held in order to allow her to make contact and to warn her of the fact that she might have an inherited genetic disease.
Held: The jurisdiction to grant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, Administrative

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.230135

D v Registrar General: 1997

The court considered the procedure to be followed in applications for disclosure to other family members of information held by the Registrar to allow them to contact the adopted child.

Citations:

[1997] 2 FLR 240

Statutes:

Adoption Act 1976 50

Cited by:

CitedX (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

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.230137

Re D (a minor) (adoption order: validity): 1991

The grant of an injunction during the continuance of a wardship does not of itself entitle a child to a continuing injunction after reaching adulthood.

Citations:

[1991] Fam 137

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedX, A Woman Formerly Known As Mary Bell v Stephen O’Brien, News Group Newspapers Ltd MGN Ltd QBD 21-May-2003
An injunction effective against the world, was granted to restrain any act to identify the claimant in the media, including the Internet. She had been convicted of murder when a child, and had since had a child herself. An order had been granted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.199556

In re W (An Infant): HL 1971

The court considered the reasonability of parental disagreement in applications for adoption: ‘Two reasonable parents can perfectly reasonably come to opposite conclusions on the same set of facts without forfeiting their title to be regarded as reasonable. The question in any given case is whether a parental veto comes within the band of possible reasonable decisions and not whether it is right or mistaken. Not every reasonable exercise of judgment is right, and not every mistaken exercise of judgment is unreasonable. There is a band of decisions within which no court should seek to replace the individual’s judgment with his own.’ and ‘. . the test is reasonableness and not anything else. It is not culpability. It is not indifference. It is not failure to discharge parental duties. It is reasonableness, and reasonableness in the context of the totality of the circumstances. But, although welfare per se is not the test, the fact that a reasonable parent does pay regard to the welfare of his child must enter into the question of reasonableness as a relevant factor. It is relevant in all cases if and to the extent that a reasonable parent would take it into account. It is decisive in those cases where a reasonable parent must so regard it.’

Judges:

Lord Hailsham LC

Citations:

[1971] AC 682

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

DistinguishedRe M (A Minor) (Care Orders: Threshold Conditions) HL 7-Jun-1994
The father had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the child’s mother. Application was made for the child to be made subject to a care order. The father appealed refusal of an order.
Held: When an application was made on the . .
CitedMalekshad v Howard De Walden Estates Limited CA 23-May-2001
The applicant sought the leasehold enfranchisement of two leasehold properties. They were contained in separate leases, but the property had been treated as one for some time. A part of one property extended under part of the other. The claim was . .
CitedDown 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 . .
CitedRe C (a Minor) (Adoption: Parental Agreement: Contact) CA 1993
Where adoption is to be considered against the will of the parent, the court should recognise when asking whether the opposition was unreasonable that the test is objective and supposes that this person is endowed with a mind and temperament capable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.182988

Re B (Adoption: Setting Aside): FD 10 May 1994

There is no provision for the annulment of an adoption order for mistake.

Citations:

Independent 10-May-1994, [1995] 1 Fam L R 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed toRe 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 by:

Appeal fromRe 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.85722

In Re W (A Minor) (Adoption: Homosexual Adopter): FD 21 May 1997

There is no rule of law against adoption of a child by a single person living within a homosexual relationship. The court must always look to the best interests of the child in question. The court recognised the couple as constituting a family: ‘The family in question comprises two women living together in lesbian relationship.’

Judges:

Singer J

Citations:

Times 21-May-1997, Gazette 18-Jun-1997, [1998] Fam 58

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedFitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd HL 28-Oct-1999
Same Sex Paartner to Inherit as Family Member
The claimant had lived with the original tenant in a stable and long standing homosexual relationship at the deceased’s flat. After the tenant’s death he sought a statutory tenancy as a spouse of the deceased. The Act had been extended to include as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, Human Rights

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.82264

In Re M (Minors) (Adoption: Disclosure): FD 29 Jul 1999

Where a local authority was acting as an adoption agency, it should provide in its report to the adoption panel, the views of the guardian ad litem where these were known to them. If the guardian had not come to a conclusion, that fact should be stated since it was a negative fact of direct relevance.

Citations:

Times 29-Jul-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.82031

In Re B (Minors) (Contact): CA 3 Feb 1993

The Judge had a discretion to look again at the natural mother’s case before making an adoption order. In order to minimise delay in any case, and to facilitate efficient decision-making, the court could, exercising its wide judicial discretion, consider the application for leave to apply for an order revoking the placement order on a reasonably limited evidential basis.

Judges:

Butler-Sloss LJ

Citations:

Gazette 03-Feb-1993, [1994] 2 FLR 1

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 1 34(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedIn re F (A Child) (Placement Order); C v East Sussex County Council (Adoption) CA 1-May-2008
The father sought to revoke a freeing order. He said that the social workers had conspired to exclude him from the process. The child was born of a casual relationship, and at first he was unaware of the proceedings. On learning of them he sought to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.81723

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

Statutes:

Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Adoption, Children, Administrative

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.656304

Re G (A Child): CA 8 Nov 2017

Father’s appeal from the dismissal of his application under section 47(5) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 for leave to oppose the making of an adoption order in respect of his child.

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 2638

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620144

DL and Another v London Borough of Newham: Admn 27 May 2011

The Claimants sought judicial review of i) the decision of the Defendant to give them a notice under section 35(2) of the 2002 Act, the effect of which was to require them to return K to the Defendant, and ii) the decision of the Defendant not to return K to their day to day care with a view to his adoption by them. The Claimants’ ultimate aim was to adopt K.

Judges:

Charles J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1127 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Adoption and Children Act 2002 35(2), Human Rights Act 1998 3, European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption, Human Rights

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.440229

T Petitioner: OHCS 20 Aug 1996

A homosexual sought an adoption order. He intended to raise the child with his male partner. The relationship was readily described as constituting a family. But as for an heterosexual couple the existence of children was not a necessary factor for entitling the couple to qualify as a family. The couple would qualify by themselves, just as they would continue to do after the adopted child had grown up and started an independent life. There was no principle against an adoption by a male homosexual to be brought up by a male couple.

Citations:

Times 20-Aug-1996, 1997 SLT 724

Statutes:

Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978

Cited by:

CitedFitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd HL 28-Oct-1999
Same Sex Paartner to Inherit as Family Member
The claimant had lived with the original tenant in a stable and long standing homosexual relationship at the deceased’s flat. After the tenant’s death he sought a statutory tenancy as a spouse of the deceased. The Act had been extended to include as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, Scotland

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.89685

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

Adoption

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.87723

Lincolnshire County Council v R-J and Others, X and Another Intervening: FD 20 Feb 1998

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply when considering the freedom of a couple to adopt a child; a caution for an offence of Actual Bodily Harm to child was a bar to adoption.

Citations:

Times 20-Feb-1998, Gazette 11-Mar-1998

Statutes:

Children (Protection from Offenders) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1997 (1997 No 2308)

Adoption

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83072

In Re R (A Child) (Adoption: Duty to Investigate): FD 13 Feb 2001

Where a mother decided to give up her child for adoption, and was against the involvement of members of her family, there was no right in the family to receive information nor duty on Social Services to tell them about the adoption. There was no explicit right under the Human Rights Convention nor statutory provision which would impose such a duty, and there were clear circumstances where the passing on of such information to an extended family could cause actual harm.

Citations:

Times 13-Feb-2001

Adoption, Human Rights

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82131

In Re R (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Teenage Mother): FD 19 Jul 2000

There is no general rule that the baby of a young teenage mother should be adopted. Nevertheless it would not be right to concentrate on the interests of the mother as a child. The unborn child must be given equal consideration, and a twin-track approach to planning must be used. Where appropriate suitable adopters could be identified before the child’s birth, although this must not pre-empt the decision of the court. An interim placement of the child should be determined on evidence as a matter of urgency after the child’s birth.

Citations:

Times 19-Jul-2000

Children, Adoption

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82134

In Re R (A Minor) (Inter-Country Adoptions: Practice): FD 20 Jan 1999

The court set down procedures to be followed in inter-country adoptions which were intended to remove the considerable deal and temptation to suppress the truth currently characterising such proceedings. The present system created injustice for the child.

Citations:

Times 20-Jan-1999, Gazette 10-Feb-1999

Adoption

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82137

In Re N (A Minor) (Adoption: Foreign Guardianship): FD 27 Jun 2000

Somebody who had been appointed guardian of a child by a foreign court but which order was recognised here, had sufficient standing to be the person entitled to give consent to an adoption or whose consent could be dispensed with. The Act should be read to give a wider construction as to the person able to give consent, and the authorities interpreted accordingly.

Citations:

Times 27-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Adoption Act 1976 16(1)

Adoption, Child Support

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82068

In Re P (Minors) (Adoption: Freeing Orders): FD 25 Jul 1994

A judge should not order continued contact after the making of freeing orders which were made without the consent of the mother.

Citations:

Times 25-Jul-1994, [1994] 2 FLR 1000

Statutes:

Adoption Act 1976 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDown 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: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82101

In Re J (Minor) (Isle of Man: Adoption): FD 7 Jun 2000

Because the Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom under the Act, proceedings for an adoption of a child from the Isle of Man were an inter-country adoption, and so had to be commenced in the High Court. There was, however, nothing to prevent the High Court transferring the case to the County Court in appropriate situations. The need arose even though the Act envisaged a child subject to a freeing order being placed with a Manx couple with a view to adoption.

Citations:

Gazette 22-Jun-2000, Times 07-Jun-2000, Gazette 15-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Adoption Act 1976 56

Adoption, Children, International

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81961

In Re K (A Minor) (Adoption Order: Nationality): CA 22 Apr 1994

The child was born in Sierra Leone. Her mother died, and her aunt had adopted her in Sierra Leone in 1991. She came to England where a further adoption order was obtained only a few days short of her eighteenth birthday when the court made an order for his adoption. The result was to confer British Naionality on him.
Held: The acquisition of Britsih Nationality on an adoption could normally be set aside only if the order was successfully appealed or otherwise failed. The court would be reluctant to deprive the Home Secretary of his right to enter an appeal. Express language would have to have been used to withdraw that right. The acquisition of nationality rights is not a relevant or proper purpose for the making of an adoption order. When carrying out the balancing factor deciding the need for adoption, the court was not to take into account benefits which might flow from the acquisition of Nationality. Where a child was nearly an adult, the benefits other than from nationality were minimal. The appeal was allowed.

Judges:

Neil LJ, Balcombe LJ, Hobhouse LJ

Citations:

Times 26-Apr-1994, Independent 27-May-1994

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981 1(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedIn re H (a Minor) 1986
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, Immigration

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81970

In Re J (A Minor) (Adoption: Freeing Order): FD 26 May 2000

The 1976 Act did not revoke any of the court’s inherent powers. A court could therefore revoke an order freeing a child for adoption under its own powers, and notwithstanding that no application in that behalf had been made by the mother. A change in the proposed care plan made it more appropriate for a child to continue to reside with foster parents without adoption.

Citations:

Times 26-May-2000

Statutes:

Adoption Act 1976

Adoption

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81953

In Re H (A Child) (Adoption Disclosure): In Re G (A Child) (Adoption Disclosure): FD 8 Jan 2001

There is no necessity that a father without parental rights must be notified of and heard in adoption proceedings. It was a question for each case, and in circumstances where a mother might justifiably refuse to disclose the identity of the natural father, in order to preserve confidentiality, adoption might proceed without the father being identified. Unless the situation was urgent, it would be appropriate for the authority in such circumstances to apply to the court for directions. The right of the father under the Children Act to apply for parental responsibility did not make him a parent under the Adoption Act. The court did however have the discretion to involve the father. He should be informed unless, for good reasons, it was inappropriate.

Citations:

Times 08-Jan-2001

Statutes:

Children Act 1989, Adoption Act 1976

Children, Adoption

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81916

In Re C (A Minor) (Adoption – Freeing Order): FD 26 Oct 1998

The court can in exceptional circumstances exercise its inherent jurisdiction to revoke a freeing order on the application of the mother even though she had said she had no wish to be involved in the child’s future. A statutory lacuna was creating orphans.

Citations:

Times 26-Oct-1998, Gazette 25-Nov-1998

Statutes:

Adoption Act 1976 18(6)

Adoption

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81776