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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

ADOPTION/CONTACT: MF v London Borough of Brent and Others [2013] EWHC 1838 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:09 PM
Slug : adoption-contact-mf-v-london-borough-of-brent-and-others-2013-ewhc-1838-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 10, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 103049

(Family Division, Ryder LJ, 28 June 2013)

The 7-year-old child was cared for since he was 4 months old by a foster carer. Attempts were made to place him with the paternal aunt and uncle but proved unsuccessful. Once the placement was approved as permanent the carer applied for an adoption order.

The child's maternal grandmother had been having contact on a regular basis and sought an order to formalise the arrangement which was supported by the guardian but opposed by the local authority.

Ryder LJ found that the foster carer provided excellent care and accepted the evidence of the social worker who considered that a contact order would fuel resentment and would be counter-productive. While he agreed with the guardian's views on the frequency of contact, he disagreed with her in relation to the need for an order, saying that it could generate an anxiety of its own that could be antithetic to the hierarchy of needs which were the very reason for an adoption order. He considered that, despite the child's relationships with his maternal family being important, they had to take second place to the primary relationship of (adoptive) parent and child.

However, he concluded that the contact proposed by the guardian was in the best interests of the child and was necessary for his welfare to be safeguarded throughout his life and that there should be an order for limited contact.

All parties apart from the child's mother supported the application for an adoption order. The key issue was which order was best able to provide for the child's needs having regard to the effect on him during his life of ceasing to be a member of his birth family.

On the facts of the case, adoption was not antagonistic to contact, but if the court had to choose between adoption and contact it would unhesitatingly choose adoption.

 

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