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:
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 . .
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

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.243093

Hand and Another v George: ChD 17 Mar 2017

Adopted grandchildren entitled to succession

The court was asked whether the adopted children whose adopting father, the son of the testator, were grandchildren of the testator for the purposes of his will.
Held: The claim succeeded. The defendants, the other beneficiaries were not entitled to inherit the part of their father’s estate that derived from the will. The court had to respect the claimants’ Convention right under article 14 in conjunction with article 8 of the Convention not to be discriminated against by the application of a legislative provision which caused the ambiguous reference in the testator’s will to his grandchildren to be construed as excluding them as his adopted grandchildren: ‘to apply the HRA in combination with the wording of the will is not, in my judgment, truly a retrospective application of the HRA. Following the coming into force of the HRA, if the question of whether a beneficiary in the will has children or not arises for consideration, that question must be addressed having regard to the HRA as well as having regard to the wording of the will. Under domestic legislation, the answer is that the adopted children are not included. But that must now be read in a way which is compliant with the rights that adopted children have not to be discriminated against by domestic legislation because of their adopted status.’

Rose J
[2017] EWHC 533 (Ch), [2017] WLR(D) 198, [2017] 3 WLR 559, [2017] 2 FLR 1565, [2017] WTLR 495, [2017] Ch 449
Bailii, WLRD
European Convention of Human Rights 8 14, Adoption of Children Act 1926, Adoption of Children Act 1949, Adoption Act 1976, Adoption and Children Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
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. . .
CitedLarkos v Cyprus ECHR 18-Feb-1999
The applicant had rented a house from the government, but was ordered to vacate the house following revocation of his tenancy. Because he had been a tenant of the government he was not, under domestic law, entitled to the security which he would . .
CitedMazurek v France ECHR 1-Feb-2000
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 14+P1-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+8; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial . .
CitedWilson v First County Trust (2) CA 2-May-2001
Rules under the Act which precluded a party from any recovery for non-compliance with its provisions were disproportionate, and a denial of the human right of the lender to a fair trial, and a declaration of incompatibility was made. A pawnbroker’s . .
CitedWilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent of its property . .
CitedPla and Puncernau v Andorra ECHR 13-Jul-2004
A will made by a widow in 1939, left certain property to her son Francesc-Xavier, as tenant for life, with a stipulation that he was to leave this inheritance to a son or grandson of a lawful and canonical marriage, failing which the estate was to . .
CitedFabris v France [GC] ECHR 7-Feb-2013
ECHR (Grand Chamber) Article 14
Discrimination
Difference in treatment of legitimate and illegitimate children for succession purposes: violation
Facts – The applicant was born in 1943 of a . .
CitedSecretary of State for Social Security v Tunnicliffe CA 1991
Staughton LJ explained the presumption against interpretation of a statute to have retrospective effect: ‘the true principle is that Parliament is presumed not to have intended to alter the law applicable to past events and transactions in a manner . .
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 . .
CitedHorsham Properties Group Ltd v Clark and Another ChD 8-Oct-2008
The court was asked whether section 101 of the 1925 Act infringes the Convention rights of residential mortgagors by allowing mortgagees to overreach the mortgagor by selling the property out of court, without first obtaining a court order either . .
CitedHorncastle and Others, Regina v SC 9-Dec-2009
Each defendant said they had not received a fair trial in that the court had admitted written evidence of a witness he had not been allowed to challenge. The witnesses had been victims, two of whom had died before trial. It was suggested that the . .
CitedRe Erskine 1948 Trust ChD 29-Mar-2012
The trust was created in 1948, and provided gifts over, which had now failed. The court considered the construction of the term ‘stautory next of kin’. The possible beneficiaries claimed through being adopted, arguing that at the date of the last . .
CitedAbbott v Minister for Lands PC 30-Mar-1895
(From the Supreme Court for New South Wales) When considering what was a ‘vested right’ for the purposes of applying the presumption against retrospectivity of statutes affecting such rights, to convert a mere right existing in the members of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Adoption, Human Rights

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.581328

Soderback v Sweden: ECHR 28 Oct 1998

ECHR Sweden – adoption of a child granted to mother’s husband, without the consent of the natural father (Chapter 4, section 6, of the Parental Code)
ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
Not disputed that there existed certain ties between the applicant father and his daughter M. – in the light of this, and bearing in mind that the parties’ arguments centred on issue of compliance with Article 8, the Court proposed to proceed on the basis that it was applicable – on this assumption, the adoption order amounted to an interference with his right to respect for family life under Article 8-1.
Not doubted that adoption ‘in accordance with the law’ and pursued legitimate aim of protecting child’s rights and freedoms – it remained to be considered whether it was ‘necessary in a democratic society’.
While adoption in the present case, like the contested measures in the Johansen v. Norway case, had the legal effect of totally depriving the applicant of family life with his daughter, the context differed significantly – accordingly, it was inappropriate in the present case to apply the approach employed in the Johansen judgment.
Furthermore, during the period under consideration, the contacts between the applicant and the child had been infrequent and limited in character and when the adoption was granted he had not seen her for quite some time.
Moreover, when the adoption was granted by the District Court in December 1989, de facto family ties had existed between the mother and the adoptive father for five and a half years, until they married in January 1989, and between him and M. for six and a half years – the adoption had consolidated and formalised those ties.
Against this background, the decision fell within the margin of appreciation – given the aims sought to be achieved by allowing the adoption to go ahead, it could not be said that adverse effects on applicant’s relations with the child had been disproportionate.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).

24484/94, [1998] ECHR 103, [1999] 1 FLR 250, [1999] Fam LR 104, [1999] Fam Law 87, (2000) 29 EHRR 95, [1998] HRCD 958
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8
Human Rights
Cited by:
ApprovedIn re P (A Child) CA 15-Aug-2014
The court considered the proper approach to a proposed step-parent adoption. The step-father now appealed against refusal of an order.
Held: The application succeeded. When the adoption application was considered, the court had to be satisfied . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Adoption

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.165689

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 evidence and argument any adverse material which the tribunal may take into account when forming its opinion. This principle is lame if the party does not know the substance of what is said against him (or her), for what he does not know he cannot answer.’ and ‘It is a fundamental principle of fairness that a party is entitled to the disclosure of all materials which may be taken into account by the court when reaching a decision adverse to that party.’

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mustill, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
[1996] AC 593, [1995] UKHL 17, [1996] 1 FCR 205, [1995] 3 WLR 483, [1995] 4 All ER 385, [1995] 2 FLR 687, [1996] Fam Law 8
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromIn 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. . .

Cited by:
CitedRoberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
CitedChief Constable and Another v YK and Others FD 6-Oct-2010
cc_ykFD10
The court gave directions in Forced Marriage Protection order applications. An order had been made at the request of the police on behalf of A, and the court had declined to discharge it on A’s own application.
Held: Special advocates were not . .
CitedIn re A (A Child) SC 12-Dec-2012
A woman, X, had made an allegation in confidence she had been sexually assaulted as a child. The court was asked whether that confidence could be overriden to allow an investigation to protect if necessary a child still living with the man. Evidence . .
CitedBank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 1) SC 19-Jun-2013
Closed Material before Supreme Court
Under the 2009 order, the appellant Bank had been effectively shut down as to its operations within the UK. It sought to use the appeal procedure, and now objected to the use of closed material procedure. The Supreme Court asked itself whether it . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, Natural Justice

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.228360

Webster (the Parents) v Norfolk County Council and others: CA 11 Feb 2009

Four brothers and sisters had been adopted after the parents had been found to have abused them. The parents now had expert evidence that the injuries may have been the result of scurvy, and sought leave to appeal.
Held: Leave was refused. Cases involving the reversal of adoptions in the past had been brought far sooner after the event than this, and arose from procedural errors resulting in an unfairness. Here, though expert opinion now pointed in a different direction, the decisions had been made honestly and responsibly. It was no longer possible to reverse the decisions.

[2009] EWCA Civ 59
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Adoption and Children Act 2002 67(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedLadd v Marshall CA 29-Nov-1954
Conditions for new evidence on appeal
At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for . .
CitedIn Re F (R) (An Infant) 1970
An adoption order was set aside for an irregularity. . .
CitedCarson and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 4-Nov-2008
(Grand Chamber) Pensioners who had moved abroad complained that they had been excluded from the index-linked uprating of pensions given to pensioners living in England.
Held: This was not an infringement of their human rights. Differences in . .
CitedNorfolk County Council v The Parents and BC (By her Child’s Guardian) FD 29-Jun-2007
. .
CitedCases of Pini And Bertani And Manera And Atripaldi v Romania ECHR 22-Jun-2004
The making of an adoption order was sufficient to establish an Article 8 right to respect for family life notwithstanding the fact that the children had never moved to live with the adopters. Protection of the right to family life pre-supposes the . .
CitedRe RA (Minors) 1974
An adoption order was set aside for a procedural irregularity. . .
CitedAiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’) HL 1986
Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now . .
CitedRe Webster (A Minor) FD 23-Feb-2007
. .
CitedRe H (Freeing Orders: Publicity) CA 2005
Wall LJ said: ‘Cases involving children are currently heard in private in order to protect the anonymity of the children concerned. However, the exclusion of the public from family courts, and the lack of knowledge about what happens in them, easily . .
CitedNorfolk County Council v Webster and others FD 17-Nov-2006
There had been care proceedings following allegations of physical child abuse. There had been a residential assessment. The professionals accepted the parents’ commitment to their son, but also found that they were unreliable. It was recommended . .
CitedRe S (Minors)(Care Order: Appeal); Dyfed County Council v S, Re S (Discharge of Care Order) CA 6-Sep-1995
Discharge of care order is the appropriate procedure not an appeal after very long time. The court considered its approach in admitting new evidence on appeal in family law cases: ‘The willingness of the family jurisdiction to relax the ordinary . .
CitedIn re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, Human Rights

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.282608

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 adoption was dismissed. The judge’s opinion had been expressed strongly but he had expressed the law accurately, and applied it. His decision was within the range of proper decisions.
Baroness Hale pointed out that the United Kingdom is unusual in Europe in permitting the total severance of family ties without parental consent.

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell
[2006] UKHL 36
Bailii
Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 18(1)
Northern Ireland
Citing:
CitedIn 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 . .
CitedRe 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 . .
CitedYousef v The Netherlands ECHR 5-Nov-2002
In ‘judicial decisions where the rights under article 8 of parents and of a child are at stake, the child’s rights must be the paramount consideration.’ . .
CitedG v G (Minors: Custody Appeal) HL 25-Apr-1985
The House asked when a decision, on the facts, of a first instance court is so wrong as to allow it to be overturned on appeal.
Held: The epithet ‘wrong’ is to be applied to the substance of the decision made by the lower court. ‘Certainly it . .
CitedRe G (Children) CA 20-May-2002
. .
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 . .
CitedIn re E (A Minor) (Care Order: Contract) CA 1994
The court considered the benefits to a child of continuing parental contact while the child remained in care.
Simon Brown LJ said: ‘I recognise of course that the threshold criteria for a care order under section 31 of the 1989 Act require the . .
CitedP, C and S v United Kingdom ECHR 2002
The local authority had obtained the issue of an Emergency Protection Order under the 1989 Act to remove a child at birth.
Held: Where the possibility of harm arose from the mother introducing something into the child’s system (such as a . .
CitedK And T v Finland ECHR 27-Apr-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings; Costs and expenses . .
CitedIn 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. . .
CitedIn 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 . .
CitedIn re E (Minors) (Adoption: Parental Agreement) 1990
Aa application for a freeing order was premature. . .
CitedIn re KLA (An Infant) 2000
Sir John MacDermott considered the purpose of freeing orders. The purpose was: ‘to find out if a child would be available for adoption before prospective adopters were found and their hopes frustrated if the adoption court ruled that consent was not . .
CitedIn re C (Minors) (Adoption) 1992
. .
CitedIn 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. . .
CitedIn 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.243080

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.’
Balcombe LJ
Times 08-Aug-1995, Independent 23-Aug-1995, [1996] Fam 34
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedIn 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 . .
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 . .
CitedOxfordshire County Council v X and Others CA 27-May-2010
oxford_xCA10
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2021; 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
Butler-Sloss LJ
Times 13-Jan-1995, [1995] 2 FLR 251
Adoption Act 1976
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedOxfordshire County Council v X and Others CA 27-May-2010
oxford_xCA10
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2021; 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.’
36515/97, [2002] ECHR 156, (2002) 38 EHRR 438, [2003] 2 FLR 9, [2002] ECHR 156
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Citing:
See AlsoFrette 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:
CitedSecretary 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 . .
CitedWilkinson 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 . .
CitedWilkinson 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 . .
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 . .
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 May 2021; 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.
Lech Garlicki P
[2011] ECHR 844, (2012) 54 EHRR 2, [2011] Fam Law 924, [2011] 2 FLR 1236,
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 3(1)(a)
Human Rights
Citing:
CitedJohansen 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 AlsoR 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:
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.
Updated: 19 April 2021; 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.
Independent 22-Mar-1995, [1995] 2 Fam L R 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRe B (Adoption: Setting Aside) FD 10-May-1994
There is no provision for the annulment of an adoption order for mistake. . .

Cited by:
Appealed toRe B (Adoption: Setting Aside) FD 10-May-1994
There is no provision for the annulment of an adoption order for mistake. . .
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 April 2021; 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.
Times 15-Mar-1999, Gazette 08-Apr-1999, [1999] 2 WLR 714, [1999] UKHL 11, [1999] 2 All ER 576
House of Lords, Bailii
Adoption Act 1976
England and Wales

Updated: 16 February 2021; 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.
35348/06, [2008] ECHR 969
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited by:
See AlsoR 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. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 February 2021; 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.
Thorpe, Wall, Tuckey LJJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 54, Times 09-Feb-2007
Bailii
Children Act 1989 14A
England and Wales

Updated: 01 February 2021; 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.
Lord Drummond Young
[2003] ScotCS 298, Times 20-Jan-2004
Bailii, ScotC
Adoption Act 1950 45, Adoption Act 1978 46 47
Citing:
CitedJ 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 . .
CitedSkinner 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. . .
CitedRe 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 . .
CitedS 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 . .
CitedAdair v Colville and Sons HL 1926
Where a fraud has been practised on the court, reduction is a remedy that is generally available. . .
CitedRex v Leeds City Justices, ex parte Gilmartin 1951
. .
CitedS 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 . .
CitedRe RA (Minors) 1974
An adoption order was set aside for a procedural irregularity. . .
CitedRe F 1977
. .
CitedBain v Hugh LS McConnell Ltd 1991
The court discussed procedures to correct fundamental miscarriages of justice. . .
CitedD 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 . .
CitedS v M 1999
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 January 2021; 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.
Times 08-Dec-1994
Adoption Rules 1984 53(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromRe 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 December 2020; Ref: scu.81831

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.’
Butler-Sloss LJ
Times 24-Jun-1993, [1993] 2 FLR 645
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 December 2020; 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.
60148/00, Times 21-Jun-2006, [2006] ECHR 606
Worldlii, Bailii
Human Rights

Updated: 18 December 2020; Ref: scu.242869

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

[2000] 1 FLR 665
European Convention on Human Rights
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.
Gazette 08-Mar-01, [2001] Fam 473, [2001] EWCA Civ 166, (2001) 165 JP 195, [2001] HRLR 28, (2001) 165 JPN 466, [2001] 1 FCR 425, [2001] UKHRR 484, [2001] 2 WLR 1826, [2001] 1 FLR 1052, [2001] 1 Cr App R 36, [2001] Crim LR 842

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.417808

Re F: 1977

[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 . .
[2003] ScotCS 298, Times 20-Jan-04

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; 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.
Thorpe LJ
[1999] 2 FLR 49
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. . .
    Times 02-Jan-04

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2020; 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.
Times 11-Apr-1994, Ind Summary 04-Apr-1994, [1994] 3 WLR 327
Adoption Act 1976 50, Adoption Act 1950
England and Wales

Updated: 07 December 2020; 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.
References: [1990] Fam 156
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is 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 . .
    (, [2017] EWHC 1022 (Fam), [2017] WLR(D) 312, )

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; 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.’
References: Times 21-May-1997, Gazette 18-Jun-1997, [1998] Fam 58
Judges: Singer J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd HL 28-Oct-1999
    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 . .
    (Times 02-Nov-99, Gazette 10-Nov-99, , , [1999] 3 WLR 1113, [2001] 1 AC 27, [1999] UKHL 42, [1999] 4 All ER 705)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.82264

In re C (A child) (Adoption: Local Authority duty): CA 23 Nov 2007

When a single mother decided to place her child for adoption, there was no duty on the local authority or adoption agency to ask the father or her extended family whether alternative long term care arrangements might be found for the child.
References: Times 05-Dec-2007
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.263551

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.
References: Times 20-Aug-1996, 1997 SLT 724
Statutes: Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd HL 28-Oct-1999
    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 . .
    (Times 02-Nov-99, Gazette 10-Nov-99, , , [1999] 3 WLR 1113, [2001] 1 AC 27, [1999] UKHL 42, [1999] 4 All ER 705)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; 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.
References: Times 11-Nov-1998, Gazette 25-Nov-1998
Statutes: Children (Protection from Offenders) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1997 1997/2308

Last Update: 21 November 2020; 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.
References: Times 20-Feb-1998, Gazette 11-Mar-1998
Statutes: Children (Protection from Offenders) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1997 (1997 No 2308)

Last Update: 21 November 2020; 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.
References: Times 13-Feb-2001

Last Update: 21 November 2020; 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.
References: Times 19-Jul-2000

Last Update: 21 November 2020; 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.
References: Times 20-Jan-1999, Gazette 10-Feb-1999

Last Update: 21 November 2020; 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.
References: Times 27-Jun-2000
Statutes: Adoption Act 1976 16(1)

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.82068

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.
References: Gazette 22-Jun-2000, Times 07-Jun-2000, Gazette 15-Jun-2000
Statutes: Adoption Act 1976 56

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.81961

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.
References: Times 26-May-2000
Statutes: Adoption Act 1976

Last Update: 21 November 2020; 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.
References: Times 08-Jan-2001
Statutes: Children Act 1989, Adoption Act 1976

Last Update: 21 November 2020; 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.
References: Times 26-Oct-1998, Gazette 25-Nov-1998
Statutes: Adoption Act 1976 18(6)

Last Update: 21 November 2020; 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.
References: [2016] EWFC 47, [2017] 2 FLR 1271
Links: Bailii
Judges: Cobb J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 27 October 2020; Ref: scu.570452

QS v RS and Another (No 3): FD 10 Oct 2016

The court was asked to consider the validity of the adoption of a child abroad when at the time of the adotion the adoptive parents did not meet the requirements for domicile.
References: [2016] EWHC 2470 (Fam)
Links: Bailii
Judges: MacDonald J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 24 October 2020; Ref: scu.570171