Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

ADOPTION: Re PW (Adoption) [2011] EWHC 3793 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:29 PM
Slug : 2011EWHC3793Fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 23, 2012, 04:00 AM
Article ID : 97901

(Family Division; Parker J; 12 October 2011)

The 69-year-old woman was orphaned when she was 17 and the parents of her closest friend offered her a home and applied for an adoption order. The order was granted and the woman remained with the adoptive family until she was 23 when she left home and was married. She married in her adoptive name and her children have that name on their birth certificates. After her adoptive mother died the woman challenged the adoption order which she claimed should not have been made and had a devastating effect on her life. She claimed that her wishes and feelings were not ascertained prior to the order and that she felt pressurised and influenced by her adoptive parents who very much wished to adopt her to the extent that she felt unable to gainsay their wishes. The only available remedy was permission to appeal out of time. The adoption had provided considerable benefits and support for the woman and there were strong policy reasons why adoption orders should not be set aside. The court had to assume the order was validly made on a proper and appropriate basis under the law as it was at the time. There was no prospect of success on appeal and so no basis to grant an extension of time for permission to appeal. Application refused.

 

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from