‘John Tughan QC, 4 Paper Buildings, reviews recent decisions relevant to public children lawyers, including two important recent decisions of the Court of Appeal.’
Family Law Week, 11th August 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘It is entirely common for care proceedings to involve parents with learning disabilities or difficulties. This case is essential reading for all practitioners involved in such cases. It sets out the expectations on the state (inevitably through a local authority) to provide support to such parents in caring for their children.’
Park Square Barristers, 23rd June 2016
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘The President of the Family Division has ordered the re-opening of a finding of fact hearing in care proceedings where a boy was later adopted.’
Local Government Lawyer, 22nd June 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
In re A (A Child) (Baby Relinquished for Adoption: Case Management) [2016] EWFC 25
‘A, a baby born in England to Latvian parents, was relinquished at birth for adoption and quickly placed with foster parents who were approved to adopt. On the understanding that there was no one within the extended natural family, either in England or in Latvia, in a position to care for A, and with the consent of the birth parents given in accordance with sections 19 and 20 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the local authority proceeded to convert A’s short-term arrangements to an adoptive placement and notified the Latvian central authority of A’s situation. The foster parents, with whom A had lived for much of his life, applied to adopt him. The Latvian central authority, having made its own enquiries of relatives in Latvia, identified the maternal grandmother as a potential long-term carer for A, had completed a favourable preliminary suitability assessment and commissioned a full suitability assessment. The central authority opposed the adoption of A in England and submitted its concerns that the approach of the English courts towards adoption cases placed insufficient weight on the rights of a child to grow up in his inherited culture and was therefore potentially contrary to articles 36 and 37 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 and a breach of articles 8 and 20 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989. The birth mother, who had deliberately not informed her wider family in Latvia of the proposed adoption, continued to support adoption by the foster parents, maintaining her opinion that an education and upbringing in England would be in A’s best interests and that her mother would find it difficult physically and financially to care for A. At a case management hearing, the children’s guardian appointed for A recommended an adjournment to enable completion of the grandmother’s assessment. In circumstances where the prospective adopters, the birth parents and the local authority all supported the adoption, where factors from the welfare checklist in section 1(4) of the 2002 Act pointed towards adoption, and where a delay in making a decision was likely to prejudice A’s welfare, the issue before the judge was whether he should make an adoption order without having considered the substantial assessment of the suitability of the maternal grandmother in Latvia as A’s long-term carer.’
WLR Daily, 6th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘How should a local authority approach a case where a baby is relinquished for adoption at birth by parents whose home country is not (or not necessarily) the United Kingdom and his or her parents do not seek to contest an adoption in the UK? This was a very interesting case in which William Tyler QC of Park Square Barristers represented the Local Authority.’
Park Square Barristers, 1st June 2016
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘Z (A Child) (No 2) [2016] EWHC 1191 (Fam) 20 May 2016. The Court of Protection has granted an order for a declaration of incompatibility with Convention rights of a section in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act on grounds of discrimination.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th May 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Surrogacy laws which prevent single people from claiming parental rights are set to change following a ruling by the Family Division of the High Court.’
BBC News, 23rd May 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Oliver Wright takes a look at the biggest changes to be expected in Wednesday’s Queen’s Speech – and assesses how controversial they will be.’
The Independent, 16th May 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A teenager who became pregnant after being placed into council care must give up her baby, a family court judge in Leeds has ruled.’
BBC News, 6th May 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Adrian Barnett-Thoung-Holland, pupil barrister at Fourteen, considers how the Department for Education’s proposed four year plan may affect permanency options for children in care.’
Family Law Week, 17th April 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
In re N (Children) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) (AIRE Centre and others intervening) [2016] UKSC 15
‘Two children, who like their parents were Hungarian nationals, were born in England and habitually resident in the United Kingdom, having lived with the same English foster carers for most of their lives, initially with the consent of their parents. The local authority sought a care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 and, subsequently, an order for placement of the children with the foster carers with a view to their adoption pursuant to section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The mother, who had returned to Hungary and had a third child with the father, opposed the orders and applied under article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 for the proceedings to be transferred to Hungary. The Hungarian authorities supported her application, maintaining that only the Hungarian authorities could order the adoption of a Hungarian national minor. They proposed that upon return to Hungary the children would be placed with English speaking foster parents but maintain contact with their parents. The judge directed that both the care and placement order proceedings be transferred in accordance with article 15 on the ground that the Hungarian courts would be better placed to determine the welfare issues. The Court of Appeal decided, inter alia, that the placement order proceedings were outside the scope of article 15 by virtue of article 1(3)(b) of the Regulation and could not, therefore, be transferred to Hungary, but that, since the judge had not erred in ordering the transfer of the care proceedings, the placement order proceedings would be stayed even though they could not be transferred. ‘
WLR Daily, 13th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Government has set out how it plans to change the law to address falls in local authority adoption decisions and the courts’ granting of placement orders.’
Local Government Lawyer, 30th March 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A Christian magistrate who was sacked after voicing his opposition to adoption by same-sex parents has been suspended as a non-executive director by an NHS trust.’
The Guardian, 27th March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A highly experienced magistrate – Richard Page – has been sacked for airing views opposing same-sex couples being allowed to adopt.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th March 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘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
© Inner Temple Library 2024