Tag: Adoption

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 was not in the children’s interests for the report to be provided. Furthermore, confidentiality precluded any explanation of the reasons for that refusal. She applied to the court for leave to make an application for contact. The judge refused it. She appealed.
Held: She succeeded. The court balanced carefully on the one hand the right of an adoptive family to protection of confidentiality and their right to bring up the adopted child in the way that they thought appropriate, and the inappropriateness of enforcing informal arrangements which might no longer be appropriate and which therefore fell to the prospective adopters to terminate. On the other hand, for the applicant it was argued that if this decision was allowed to stand it meant that adoptive parents could effectively ignore any agreement entered into in the best interests of the child in question, and that that would in fact result in more contests and more difficulties in prospective applications. The court came down firmly in favour of the latter proposition. Guidelines were given on procedures for maintaining parental contact after adoption order. Reasons beyond ‘not in Child’s interest’ are to be given before contact may be withdrawn. Balcombe LJ: ‘I am not saying that it should never be open to adopters to change their minds and resile from an informal agreement made at the time of the adoption. But if they do so they should, as Butler-Sloss LJ said in In re T (A Minor) (Contact After Adoption) [1995] 2 FCR 537, 543 give their reasons clearly so that the other party to the arrangement, and if necessary the court, may have the opportunity to consider the adequacy of those reasons. Nor need adopters fear that their reasons, when given, will be subjected to critical legal analysis. The judges who hear family cases are well aware of the stresses and strains to which adopters in the position of Mr and Mrs H are subject and a simple explanation of their reasons in non-legal terms would usually be all that is necessary. In my judgment where adopters in the position of Mr and Mrs H simply refuse to provide an explanation for their change of heart, particularly where, as here, the contact envisaged – the provision of a report – is of a nature which is most unlikely to be disruptive of the children’s lives, it is not appropriate for the court to accept that position without more.’

Judges:

Balcombe LJ

Citations:

Times 08-Aug-1995, Independent 23-Aug-1995, [1996] Fam 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – In 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 said: ‘I am . .
Cited – Oxfordshire 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: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.82227

In Re T (A Minor) (Contact Order); In Re T (Adoption: Contact): CA 13 Jan 1995

A contact order which was not strictly necessary should not be made in adoption proceedings. Arrangements for contact should not be ‘imposed’ upon the adoptive parents but should be ‘left to their good sense so that they could be trusted to do what they believe to be in the best interests of their daughter.’ Butler-Sloss LJ indicated that the court could intervene in future and make an order if the adoptive parents were to behave unreasonably

Judges:

Butler-Sloss LJ

Citations:

Times 13-Jan-1995, [1995] 2 FLR 251

Statutes:

Adoption Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Oxfordshire 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.

Children, Adoption

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.82219

Frette 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 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.’

Citations:

36515/97, [2002] ECHR 156, [2003] 2 FLR 9, (2002) 38 EHRR 438, [2002] ECHR 156

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Frette v France ECHR 2002
There are certain grounds of factual difference which by common accord are not acceptable, without more, as a basis for different legal treatment, including sexual orientation: ‘. . the Contracting States enjoy a margin of appreciation in assessing . .

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v M HL 8-Mar-2006
The respondent’s child lived with the estranged father for most of each week. She was obliged to contribute child support. She now lived with a woman, and complained that because her relationship was homosexual, she had been asked to pay more than . .
Cited – Wilkinson v Kitzinger and Another FD 12-Apr-2006
The petitioner intended to seek a declaration as to her marital status. She and the respondent had married in a civil ceremony in British Columbia in 2003. She sought a declaration of incompatibility with regard to section 11(3) of the 1973 Act so . .
Cited – Wilkinson v Kitzinger and others FD 31-Jul-2006
The parties had gone through a ceremony of marriage in Columbia, being both women. After the relationship failed, the claimant sought a declaration that the witholding of the recognition of same-sex marriages recoginised in a foreign jurisdiction . .
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 – Gaughran 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Adoption, Discrimination

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.212864

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.

Judges:

Lech Garlicki P

Citations:

[2011] ECHR 844, (2012) 54 EHRR 2, [2011] Fam Law 924, [2011] 2 FLR 1236,

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8, Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 3(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .
See Also – 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. . .

Cited by:

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, Northern Ireland

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463635

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 mother. There was no statutory basis for the setting aside of an adoption order, despite there having been a fundamental mistake. The natural procdure is an appeal.

Citations:

Independent 22-Mar-1995, [1995] 2 Fam L R 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Re B (Adoption: Setting Aside) FD 10-May-1994
There is no provision for the annulment of an adoption order for mistake. . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Re B (Adoption: Setting Aside) FD 10-May-1994
There is no provision for the annulment of an adoption order for mistake. . .
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: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.85723

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

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

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

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 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

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

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 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 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 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:

Cited – Re 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

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:

Cited – Fitzpatrick 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

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

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:

Cited – Fitzpatrick 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

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 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 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 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

Re RA (Baby Relinquished for Adoption): FC 14 Oct 2016

Applications concerning RA, namely: i) An application for an adoption order issued by his current carers: ii) An application issued by RA’s maternal grandmother for leave to make an application for a Child Arrangements Order, and if granted, for a Child Arrangements Order; and further for leave to remove RA from the jurisdiction to reside with her, her husband, and an aunt (all in the same household) at their home in Latvia.
Further:
iii) Following the hearing of the applications listed above, and following the circulation of the draft judgment, but before the judgment was formally handed down, an application was issued by RA’s birth parents for leave to oppose the adoption application.

Judges:

Cobb J

Citations:

[2016] EWFC 47, [2017] 2 FLR 1271

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.570452

In re D (An Infant) (Adoption: Parent’s Consent): HL 1977

The father opposed adoption of a child by the mother and her new husband. The House was asked whether his opposition was unreasonable.
Held: Lord Wilberforce said: ‘What, in my understanding, is required is for the court to ask whether the decision, actually made by the father in his individual circumstances, is, by an objective standard, reasonable or unreasonable. This involves considering how a father in the circumstances of the actual father, but (hypothetically) endowed with a mind and temperament capable of making reasonable decisions, would approach a complex question involving a judgment as to the present and as to the future and the probable impact of these upon a child.’

Lord Wilberforce
[1977] AC 602
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Re 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 . .
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

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.243093