swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Adoption - From: 2002 To: 2002
This page lists 8 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
In re C (Adoption: Religious observance) [2002] 1 FLR 1119
2002
Adoption
1 Citers
Re S (Freeing for Adoption) [2002] 2 FLR 681; [2002] EWCA Civ 798
2002
CA
Arden LJ
Adoption
If parliament always foresaw what possibilities might arise, courts would never have anything to interpret.
1 Citers
C, Re Freeing for Adoption [2002] NIFam 1
12 Jan 2002
FdNI
Northern Ireland, Adoption
[ Bailii ]
Frette v France 36515/97; [2002] ECHR 156; (2002) 38 EHRR 438; [2003] 2 FLR 9; [2002] ECHR 156
26 Feb 2002
ECHR
Human Rights, Adoption, Discrimination
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 14 in conjunction with article 8, on margin of appreciation grounds. The claimant succeeded on a separate complaint of a breach of article 6. There was the legitimate aim of protecting the interests of children at a time when child psychiatrists and psychologists were divided in their opinions of the effects of being adopted by homosexual parents. Article 14 " . . complements the other substantive provisions of the Convention and its Protocols. It has no independent existence since it has effect solely in relation to 'the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms' safeguarded by those provisions."
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
In re C (a Child) (Care proceedings: Care plan); Regina (C) v Waltham Forest London Borough Council Times, 18 April 2002
28 Mar 2002
Admn
Justice Wilson
Children, Judicial Review, Adoption
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.
Local Authority Social Services Act 1970
AW To Have Two Children Freed for Adoption
4 Apr 2002
ScSf
Sheriff IC Simpson
Adoption
[ ScotC ]
Re G (Children) [2002] EWCA Civ 1012
27 May 2002
CA
Children, Adoption
[ Bailii ]
Re X (Children) Unrep, 31 May 2002
30 May 2002
CA
President, Buxton LJ, Hale LJ
Children, Adoption
Foster carers of children wanted to adopt them without the parents knowing their identity, using the confidential serial number approach. The parents had been led to believe that the children had been placed with a different family for adoption and wanted to continue to have contact with the children. The irony was that their preference had been for the children to stay with the original foster family. The judge decided that the parents should not be told the adopters' identity. The Court of Appeal considered the difficulties which this would give their representatives, who were aware of the true position and decided that the judge could not be said to be plainly wrong. Passing criticism was made of the local authority in not seeking orders giving them permission to refuse contact and free the children for adoption and for deceiving the parents in the first place. The Court of Appeal could only hope that some compromise could be reached by the time the adoption application came on for hearing.