About the Family Law Week blog
Showing posts with label adoption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label adoption. Show all posts
Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Permission to revoke placement orders & oppose adoption
Just to let you know that I have just updated my article on 4 Brick Court's website on the topic of revoking placement orders & opposing adoption to take account of a couple of cases this year on revoking placement orders.
Friday, 2 May 2008
Applications for leave to revoke placement orders
In Re F (A Child) [2008] EWCA Civ 439 the Court of Appeal has considered the effect of human rights on the interpretation of s 24 of the Adoption & Children Act 1989. The court declined to allow the appeal holding that a local authority had not acted unlawfully in placing a child for adoption when an application for leave to apply to revoke a placement order had been made but not yet heard by the court.
Wall LJ & Wilson LJ dismissed the appeal (Thorpe LJ dissenting) on the basis that the statutory wording was clear and unambiguous. However, they described the actions of the local authority (East Sussex County Council) in the case as a "travesty of good practice which the 2002 Act happens to permit" and "disgraceful" and "the worst I have ever encountered in a career now spanning nearly 40 years". They set out their views which have the approval of the President as to the practice to be followed by local authorities in future and suggest that those who do not observe the good practice recommended will be susceptible to judicial review.
The court recommended that those representing applicants for leave should invite local authorities to give an undertaking that they will take no steps to place (the child) with prospective adopters pending the hearing of the application & if such an undertaking is not given to apply without notice in the first instance to the county court for an order in those terms restraining placement.
Wall & Wilson LJJ concluded without hesitation that the county court has jurisdiction to grant injunctions restraining placement as a temporary, holding measure, until both sides could be before the court. The court could either then give directions for a swift hearing, or resolve the matter summarily.
Local authorities who become aware of applications for leave to apply should have reply promptly providing information as to the state of preparation of its plans and likely timescale for implementation and should themselves apply to the court, on short notice, for leave to place the child for adoption under section 24(5) of the 2002 Act.
Wall LJ & Wilson LJ dismissed the appeal (Thorpe LJ dissenting) on the basis that the statutory wording was clear and unambiguous. However, they described the actions of the local authority (East Sussex County Council) in the case as a "travesty of good practice which the 2002 Act happens to permit" and "disgraceful" and "the worst I have ever encountered in a career now spanning nearly 40 years". They set out their views which have the approval of the President as to the practice to be followed by local authorities in future and suggest that those who do not observe the good practice recommended will be susceptible to judicial review.
The court recommended that those representing applicants for leave should invite local authorities to give an undertaking that they will take no steps to place (the child) with prospective adopters pending the hearing of the application & if such an undertaking is not given to apply without notice in the first instance to the county court for an order in those terms restraining placement.
Wall & Wilson LJJ concluded without hesitation that the county court has jurisdiction to grant injunctions restraining placement as a temporary, holding measure, until both sides could be before the court. The court could either then give directions for a swift hearing, or resolve the matter summarily.
Local authorities who become aware of applications for leave to apply should have reply promptly providing information as to the state of preparation of its plans and likely timescale for implementation and should themselves apply to the court, on short notice, for leave to place the child for adoption under section 24(5) of the 2002 Act.
Thursday, 28 February 2008
Foster carers & adoption
As if to illustrate my point about the usefulness of the Community Care website, I was just about to summarise a case recently posted on the main website ( Re A ), only to find that Ed Mitchell, the site's solicitor, has beaten me to it. His excellent summary of Re A on a foster carer who applied for an adoption order. Saves me a job!
Thursday, 7 February 2008
Adoption : leave to apply
As an addition to the cases referred to in the earlier post on Adoption Resources, the Court of Appeal has granted an appeal to a foster carer who was refused leave to apply for an adoption order, in the case of Re A sub nom TL v Coventry City Council and taken the opportunity to comment on the principles which should be applied in a leave application: welfare is relevant but not paramount as is whether or not the applicant has a real prospect of success. The same principles should be applied in applications for leave to adopt as in applications for leave to apply to revoke a placement order and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Warwickshire CC v M was applied.
The text of this post has been added to the earlier post for completeness.
The text of this post has been added to the earlier post for completeness.
Wednesday, 6 February 2008
Adoption Resources
There are a huge number of useful websites relevant to adoption in the UK which family lawyers may find useful. The links which follow will all open in a new window.
The Adoption Rules website maintained by the Ministry of Justice follows the CJR model and contains all the rules & practice directions as well as court forms, is fully searchable and kept up-to-date.
For an overview of the Adoption & Children Act 2002 and the main changes it introduced see this article by the Family Team at 4 Brick Court .
The main BAAF (British Association for Adoption & Fostering is packed full of useful materials such as news, research, links and guidance on legislation and has an adoption subsite .
There are various useful sites under the Every Child Matters main page: adoption training materials where you can download workbooks, trainer packs or register for e-learning & the main adoption platform page has links to legislation & practice guidance.
The President's Guidance on Adoption is available online as a pdf file.
The Court Service also publishes introductory booklets on adoption & intercountry adoption and you can download the adoption forms by searching for worktype adoption in the forms section.
The Adoption Information Line is allegedly the most popular adoption internet site in the UK. It certainly deserves to be and has a good database of information and articles about the law, practice and processes of adoption though it is not primarily aimed at lawyers.
The Post Adoption Centre is a long-standing charity providing a range of services related to adoption and another adoption support agency Family Futures provides services to adopted children and their families but also provides assessments in care proceedings, particularly on attachment.
The DCFS Intercountry Adoption site is a comprehensive resource for materials and legislation related to adoptions of foreign children (incoming to the UK).
Other sites include the Independent Review Mechanism is a panel to which would-be adopters can apply for a review of a decision to refuse to approve them as adopters & the Adoption Register is a national resource for linking children to prospective adopters.
Recent cases on adoption on the Family Law Week website include :
Re A : appeal granted to foster carer refused leave to apply to adopt;
Re C : a local authority did not have to make enquiries about extended family members where mother wanted the child, who was the result of a one-night stand, to be adopted.
Re L : a local authority did not have to pursue the natural father or maternal family in circumstances where mother would not give any information about his identity or whereabouts and did not want her family to know about the child.
Three cases on adoption versus special guardianship from 2007 are AJ ((child placed with paternal uncle & aunt who feared that the parents would not co-operate and that future litigation would be a burden – adoption preferred & upheld on appeal), S (applicant was foster carer with very good relationship with mother (who was likely to have ongoing relationship with the child) but who would have preferred adoption – SGO upheld by CA) and M-J (child placed with maternal half-sister – mother with history of drug abuse and recent relapse, not truly accepting need for permanence away from her – adoption preferred to SGO & s 91(14) & upheld on appeal).
In relation to leave applications, the Court of Appeal has granted an appeal to a foster carer who was refused leave to apply for an adoption order, in the case of Re A sub nom TL v Coventry City Council and taken the opportunity to comment on the principles which should be applied in a leave application: welfare is relevant but not paramount as is whether or not the applicant has a real prospect of success. The same principles should be applied in applications for leave to adopt as in applications for leave to apply to revoke a placement order and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Warwickshire CC v M was applied.
The Adoption Rules website maintained by the Ministry of Justice follows the CJR model and contains all the rules & practice directions as well as court forms, is fully searchable and kept up-to-date.
For an overview of the Adoption & Children Act 2002 and the main changes it introduced see this article by the Family Team at 4 Brick Court .
The main BAAF (British Association for Adoption & Fostering is packed full of useful materials such as news, research, links and guidance on legislation and has an adoption subsite .
There are various useful sites under the Every Child Matters main page: adoption training materials where you can download workbooks, trainer packs or register for e-learning & the main adoption platform page has links to legislation & practice guidance.
The President's Guidance on Adoption is available online as a pdf file.
The Court Service also publishes introductory booklets on adoption & intercountry adoption and you can download the adoption forms by searching for worktype adoption in the forms section.
The Adoption Information Line is allegedly the most popular adoption internet site in the UK. It certainly deserves to be and has a good database of information and articles about the law, practice and processes of adoption though it is not primarily aimed at lawyers.
The Post Adoption Centre is a long-standing charity providing a range of services related to adoption and another adoption support agency Family Futures provides services to adopted children and their families but also provides assessments in care proceedings, particularly on attachment.
The DCFS Intercountry Adoption site is a comprehensive resource for materials and legislation related to adoptions of foreign children (incoming to the UK).
Other sites include the Independent Review Mechanism is a panel to which would-be adopters can apply for a review of a decision to refuse to approve them as adopters & the Adoption Register is a national resource for linking children to prospective adopters.
Recent cases on adoption on the Family Law Week website include :
Re A : appeal granted to foster carer refused leave to apply to adopt;
Re C : a local authority did not have to make enquiries about extended family members where mother wanted the child, who was the result of a one-night stand, to be adopted.
Re L : a local authority did not have to pursue the natural father or maternal family in circumstances where mother would not give any information about his identity or whereabouts and did not want her family to know about the child.
Three cases on adoption versus special guardianship from 2007 are AJ ((child placed with paternal uncle & aunt who feared that the parents would not co-operate and that future litigation would be a burden – adoption preferred & upheld on appeal), S (applicant was foster carer with very good relationship with mother (who was likely to have ongoing relationship with the child) but who would have preferred adoption – SGO upheld by CA) and M-J (child placed with maternal half-sister – mother with history of drug abuse and recent relapse, not truly accepting need for permanence away from her – adoption preferred to SGO & s 91(14) & upheld on appeal).
In relation to leave applications, the Court of Appeal has granted an appeal to a foster carer who was refused leave to apply for an adoption order, in the case of Re A sub nom TL v Coventry City Council and taken the opportunity to comment on the principles which should be applied in a leave application: welfare is relevant but not paramount as is whether or not the applicant has a real prospect of success. The same principles should be applied in applications for leave to adopt as in applications for leave to apply to revoke a placement order and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Warwickshire CC v M was applied.
Thursday, 15 November 2007
Revoking Placement Orders & Opposing Adoption: the leave stage
The recently reported case of Warwickshire County Council v M [2007] EWCA Civ 1084 is not going to make things easier for would be applicants who wish to challenge adoption applications or apply for permission to apply for a revocation of a placement order.
It is difficult to see from this case (albeit the decision was obviously based on the facts of the particular case) how an application for permission to revoke is ever going to meet the high standard of ‘arguable case’ which Wilson LJ has prescribed in Warwickshire.
An updated article considering this case and the related case of
Re P (on leave to oppose adoption applications) can be found on 4 Brick Court's website .
It is difficult to see from this case (albeit the decision was obviously based on the facts of the particular case) how an application for permission to revoke is ever going to meet the high standard of ‘arguable case’ which Wilson LJ has prescribed in Warwickshire.
An updated article considering this case and the related case of
Re P (on leave to oppose adoption applications) can be found on 4 Brick Court's website .
Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Does the father have the right to know?
From the Guardian on 8.11.07:
A mother's decision to put a child conceived during a one-night stand
up for adoption has turned into a legal dilemma over parental rights
and responsibilities.
The woman, 20, has told the court of appeal she does not want anyone
to know the identity of the father, a work colleague. However, her
local authority believes her family and the father should be
approached to see if they are willing and able to look after the baby girl, who is now 17 weeks old.
A county court has already ordered that the woman's parents and the father should know. Yesterday three appeal court judges were asked to reverse that order. The local authority is preparing to take the child into care after receiving a report that she was "abandoned" by the mother at the hospital where she was born.
Eleanor Hamilton QC, representing the mother, said she had not told
her parents or the father about her pregnancy because she did not want them to know. "This girl was unable to bring herself to tell the
parents and drove herself to hospital in the dead of night to have the child.
"She is a perfectly ordinary girl in a job she loves, who is living
her own life. That should be taken into account by the court." Ms Hamilton said the mother lived away from her parents.
Although the parents now know about the child, she has consistently refused to name the father. Ms Hamilton said: "It was, on the account given by the mother, a one-night stand with a fellow employee while
both were on the rebound having broken up with long-term partners.
"He is now back with his fiancee, continuing with that relationship,
and has no idea she has given birth to a child."
Judith Rowe QC, representing the baby's legal guardian, said that if
the woman's family could not help or were unsuitable, then the father and his family would be approached. Ms Rowe said the local authority believed the child should be brought up by the family if possible.
Lord Justice Thorpe, who led the panel of three judges, said: "That sounds doctrinaire. It is difficult to imagine a more dysfunctional family than this."
A court order prevents identification of the mother and child, the
local authority and where the case occurred. Judgment was reserved.
On a similar point in Re L (2007) was a case where the local authority needed guidance as to whether they should attempt to contact the natural father before placing the child for adoption. The mother claimed that she did not have any information about his identity of whereabouts. Initially Munby J had directed that the mother should be asked once more for information at a hearing, but as that did not result in anything concrete he concluded that nothing further should be done to pursue the father.
A mother's decision to put a child conceived during a one-night stand
up for adoption has turned into a legal dilemma over parental rights
and responsibilities.
The woman, 20, has told the court of appeal she does not want anyone
to know the identity of the father, a work colleague. However, her
local authority believes her family and the father should be
approached to see if they are willing and able to look after the baby girl, who is now 17 weeks old.
A county court has already ordered that the woman's parents and the father should know. Yesterday three appeal court judges were asked to reverse that order. The local authority is preparing to take the child into care after receiving a report that she was "abandoned" by the mother at the hospital where she was born.
Eleanor Hamilton QC, representing the mother, said she had not told
her parents or the father about her pregnancy because she did not want them to know. "This girl was unable to bring herself to tell the
parents and drove herself to hospital in the dead of night to have the child.
"She is a perfectly ordinary girl in a job she loves, who is living
her own life. That should be taken into account by the court." Ms Hamilton said the mother lived away from her parents.
Although the parents now know about the child, she has consistently refused to name the father. Ms Hamilton said: "It was, on the account given by the mother, a one-night stand with a fellow employee while
both were on the rebound having broken up with long-term partners.
"He is now back with his fiancee, continuing with that relationship,
and has no idea she has given birth to a child."
Judith Rowe QC, representing the baby's legal guardian, said that if
the woman's family could not help or were unsuitable, then the father and his family would be approached. Ms Rowe said the local authority believed the child should be brought up by the family if possible.
Lord Justice Thorpe, who led the panel of three judges, said: "That sounds doctrinaire. It is difficult to imagine a more dysfunctional family than this."
A court order prevents identification of the mother and child, the
local authority and where the case occurred. Judgment was reserved.
On a similar point in Re L (2007) was a case where the local authority needed guidance as to whether they should attempt to contact the natural father before placing the child for adoption. The mother claimed that she did not have any information about his identity of whereabouts. Initially Munby J had directed that the mother should be asked once more for information at a hearing, but as that did not result in anything concrete he concluded that nothing further should be done to pursue the father.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)