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
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

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