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...
Latest articles
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles

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