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: Oxfordshire County Council v X, Y and J [2010] EWCA Civ 581

Sep 29, 2018, 17:55 PM
Slug : adoption-oxfordshire-county-council-v-x-y-and-j-2010-ewca-civ-581
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 3, 2010, 08:25 AM
Article ID : 91007

(Court of Appeal; Master of the Rolls, Moses and Munby LJJ; 27 May 2010)

The birth parents wished to be sent a photo annually of their child who they had given up for adoption. All other parties wished to permit the birth parents to view the photo at the local authority offices annually. The judge ruled in favour of the birth parents.

Applicable welfare checklist was that in the Children Act 1989 because the adoption order had already been made in respect of the child. The judge had failed to refer (as had counsel at first instance) to authorities stating that it is very rare to impose unwanted conditions on adoptive parents. The judge had considered the impact of possession of the photos on the likelihood of any interference with the adoption. In fact the judge should have been focusing on whether the adopters' fear of such interference was unreasonable in that it had no reasonable basis. To undermine the adopters' security was to harm the child's welfare. The mere fact that the judge came to a different conclusion to the adopters as to the significance of risk was no answer if the adopters' fears were reasonable.

Appeal allowed. Whether or not sending of such photos to adopters was usual practice, as the Official Solicitor claimed, imposing such a condition on adopters was not.


Family Law Reports

Family Law Reports are relied upon by the judiciary, barristers and solicitors and the reports are cited daily in court and in judgments.

They contain verbatim case reports of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European courts case, and also includes practice directions, covering the whole range of family law, public and private child law.


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