Search

The article discusses several court cases on adoption and fostering in England and Wales. The Civil Division of the Court of Appeal ruled on April 25, 2013 that the father being not aware of paternity has no relationship with the baby. A February 21, 2013 decision showed that the Court of Appeal uses the full extent of its power to protect children by refusing a father to contact his newborn baby due to significant concerns about violence from the father.

The article discusses a court cases involving care of children in England and Wales. Parents of a 15-year-old boy with severe autism and attention deficit hyperactive disease (ADHD) who has been provided with full-time placement in a residential school filed for a appeal for the looked after status of the boy by the local authority. In another case, a single mother appealed to be given permission to apply to see her son who has been placed for open adoption.

The article discusses several adoption court cases in England including N (A Child) [2012] Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Hallett & McFarlane LLC 31 October 2012 [2012] EWCA Civ 1563, Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Thorpe, Hallett and McFarlane LLJ [2012] EWCA Civ 1281, and Edinburgh Council, Petitioners, in respect of CC. The merits of the case are explained as well as the rulings.

The article describes the case of Re R (A Child) [2012] High Court Family Division Hedley J which involves a four-year old child named R who was born in India and a married couple living in England who wanted to adopt him. According to the author, the British immigration authorities did not recognise the Indian adoption in order to allow R to be brought to England. The British Court of Appeal ruled that the main question in the case is whether the child is cared for by a local authority.

The article discusses a court case involving a fourth child of a mother whose other siblings who were the subject of placement orders and have been placed for adoption. The local authority had found that the mother would not be able to take care of the child. Guidelines on the use of section 20 of the British Children Act of 1989 were set by the court.

The article discusses a court case wherein the British Court of Appeal held that it was an incorrect interpretation of Article 56 Council Regulation (EC) 2210/2003. The case involved a four-year-old Lithuanian child who was brought to Great Britain by her mother in 2010. The child was removed from her mother's care in May 2011 and the English courts wanted the child returned to Lithuania.

The article discusses a court case involving a child who had been removed from her family as a result of neglect prompting her aunt to put herself forward as a carer. The aunt and the local authority had a dispute about the appropriate legal framework under the child was placed. The court ruled that the local authority should not be expected to be a secondary source of funding where legal aid is not available.

The article discusses a court case wherein the High Court (Family Division) in England needed to decide whether several children were ordinarily resident in any local authority area. In Derbyshire County Council v HM and others, an agreement was signed by a foster mother to keep a two-year-old child and her brother in her care. The father of the children issued an application for a residence order when the foster mother refused to return the children to their father.

The article discusses a court case concerning a child who was born to a mother with significant mental health difficulties and substance misuse issues and was discharged to foster carers.

The article discusses a court case wherein the High Court Family Division in England ruled on the issue of parental order. In G v G, the biological father of a child applied for a parental order. The child war born as a result of surrogacy commissioned by a couple in January 2011. The court referred to a previous case where a step-parent adoption was set aside as the father has agreed to the adoption without knowing that the mother was terminally ill.

The article discusses a court case wherein the High Court (Family Division) in England found that both the local authority and the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) violated the rights of a 16-year-old boy and his younger brother. In A and S v Lancashire County Council, the court heard that the mother of the boys had applied to revoke the freeing orders in 2002 as the children had not been placed. It is noted that the case revealed deficiencies in the service provided by the IROs.

The article discusses the court case PGO & FEO v Coventry City Council concerning adoption by foster carers. PGO and FEO applied to adopt two children in their care and they were found to have established a right to a family life with the children they adopted with which the court could only interfere if it would be proportionate to do so. It was decided by the court that it was in the children's best interests that they should be found a permanent adoptive placement elsewhere.

The article discusses the court case Suffolk CC v Nottinghamshire CC Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Thorpe & Black LJJ, Hedley J in which the Nottinghamshire County Council issued care proceedings and a child named CS was placed in foster care by consent in July 2010. The court ruled that it is important that proper consideration be given to whether a child placed out of area should remain looked after or be made the subject of a residence order.

The article discusses a court case wherein the High Court Queen's Bench Division ruled that LB Merton's special guardianship policy was illegal. In R (TT) v London Borough of Merton, TT was the special guardian of a four-year-old child, who sought judicial review of LB Merton's policy setting the maximum allowance payable to special guardians at two-thirds of the fostering rate. A comment on the ruling is also presented.

The article discusses a court case wherein the court held that the mother of twin boys born as the result of a surrogate pregnancy arranged through an Indian clinic could not be found. In D and L (Surrogacy), the twin boys were taken care of by a male couple. The court emphasized that commissioning parents should ensure that clear lines of communications are established to facilitate the giving of proper consent six weeks after the birth.

The article discusses a court case wherein the court discovered that the parents of a six-year-old child who had been placed with carers in England were strangers to the child. In An application for adoption was issued by the prospective adopters, which was opposed by the parents of the child. The focus of the mother's case was on criticism of the Scottish system.