Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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