‘A Christian magistrate who was sacked after opposing adoption by gay parents on national television is planning to sue Michael Gove over the decision.’
The Guardian, 13th March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A Christian judge has been struck off after making controversial comments over same-sex adoption on national television.’
Daily Telegraph, 10th March 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
In re JL and AO (Babies Relinquished for Adoption): [2016] EWHC 440 (Fam)
‘In two cases babies, JL and AO, were born in England to mothers from Eastern Europe but relinquished at birth for adoption. In the case of JL the child, whose Estonian mother worked in England and whose putative father lived in Estonia, was accommodated by the local authority with the mother’s consent pursuant to an agreement under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 and was placed with foster carers. The mother gave her written consent to his adoption and the putative father, maternal family and the Estonian authorities all supported his adoption in this country. The local authority sought a placement order under section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. In the case of AO, the Hungarian parents working in England wished the child to be adopted in this country. AO had been removed at birth and placed with foster carers and had been made a ward of court. The local authority, children’s guardian and Hungarian authorities sought the child’s return to Hungary so that she could be placed for adoption there. Common issues arose as to what jurisdiction the court had to make orders facilitating such placements, (ii) the factors which had to be taken into account when making decisions about relinquished babies, the possible outcomes and the procedures to be followed and (iii) where a child born to nationals of a foreign country had been placed voluntarily in the care of a local authority, with a view to adoption or otherwise, whether the authority was under an obligation under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 to inform the consular officials of that country about the placement. In the case of JL, the further issues arose whether the court had jurisdiction to make a placement order and what order, if any, should be made. In the case of AO, the further issues arose whether it was open to the court either to transfer jurisdiction to Hungary under Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (“Brussels IIA”) or to make an order permitting the local authority to send AO to Hungary; and what order, if any, the court should make.’
WLR Daily, 3rd March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘John Tughan QC of 4 Paper Buildings analyses recent significant judgments in public children law.’
Family Law Week, 22nd February 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Finding a permanent loving home for a baby approved for adoption can take take several months. In 2012, the government said it would change the law to allow potential adopters to foster a baby while the courts were deciding on its future. So what has the Foster to Adopt experience been like for those taking this route?’
BBC News, 19th February 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The Association of Lawyers for Children and the National Association of Guardians ad Litem and Reporting Officers respond to recent guidance given in the Central Family Court on the need for guardians to justify their attendance at care hearings save in specified circumstances.’
Family Law Week, 31st January 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The Government is to change the law to make prioritising lifelong stability for vulnerable children with a loving family a legal requirement, the Department for Education has said.’
Local Government Lawyer, 18th January 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘More children will be removed from their biological parents and placed for adoption, under “urgent” new rules to be announced by ministers.’
The Independent, 14th January 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A family court judge has come under fire after refusing to name a council that violated a man’s parental rights by taking his four-year-old daughter into care without a proper investigation.’
The Guardian, 10th January 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A child (SM) who was adopted in Algeria by a French couple living in the UK was refused an application for a right of entry as a family member. Having been overturned in the Upper Tribunal, the Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal. SM was not, the court held, a family member of Mr M. A keen human rights observer might think this was an apparent infringement of article 8 ECHR (the right to family life).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 12th November 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Alex Laing, barrister of Coram Chambers, considers two aspects of the decision in N (Children) (Adoption: Jurisdiction): (1) the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to order the non-consensual adoption of a foreign child; and (2) the construction and use of Article 15 of Brussels IIA to transfer care proceedings.’
Family Law Week, 10th November 2015
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘There has been further consideration of potential post-adoption Article 8 rights for natural parents in a judgment by Peter Jackson J in the case of Seddon v Oldham MBC. There are no surprises in the conclusions he reaches.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th October 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Court of Appeal says immigration cases could have to bow to adoption laws which must take life-long benefits into account.’
Daily Telegraph, 5th October 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Seddon v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council; [2015] EWHC 2609 (Fam); [2015] WLR (D) 388
‘The making of an adoption order always brought to an end pre-existing rights under article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as between a birth parent and an adopted child, since those rights arose from, and co-existed with, the parent-child relationship which was extinguished by adoption. Furthermore, section 51A of the 2002 Act, as inserted, did not create or maintain an article 8 right as between a birth parent and an adopted child, nor was section 51A(4) incompatible with the Convention. However, a public body running a post-adoption letterbox service was obliged under article 8 to respect correspondence between a birth parent and an adopted child and adopters, the obligation arising from the nature of the correspondence and not from the former parent-child relationship.’
WLR Daily, 14th September 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘John Tughan QC of 4 Paper Buildings reviews recent judgments of significance to child care lawyers.’
Family Law Week, 2nd September 2015
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Notwithstanding that concerns might be expressed in many parts of Europe about the law and practice in England and Wales in relation to non-consensual adoption where care proceedings involving foreign nationals were in contemplation, domestic law was not incompatible with the United Kingdom’s international obligations or, specifically, its obligations under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.’
WLR Daily, 6th August 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025