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
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
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....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles
Authors

ADOPTION: Re C (Adoption Proceedings: Change of Circumstances [2013] EWCA Civ 431

Sep 29, 2018, 21:05 PM
Slug : adoption-re-c-adoption-proceedings-change-of-circumstances-2013-ewca-civ-431
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 3, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 102363

(Court of Appeal, Sir James Munby P, Arden, Aikens LJJ, 25 April 2013)

The child, now 5 years old, was removed from his mother's care just days after birth and placed in foster care. Final care and placement orders were made and he was placed with prospective adopters where he had since remained and the adopters applied for an adoption order.

When the appellant became aware of the adoption proceedings he applied for a DNA paternity test to find out if he was the child's father. When he was confirmed as the father he applied under Part 19 of the FPR 2010 to defend/oppose the adoption order. The mother's position was that she wished for the child to be placed with his natural father or with the paternal aunt as opposed to strangers.

The father's application was dismissed and the judge held that in all the circumstances the child required that the stability that had been obtained for him should not be threatened and that it was in his best interests to be adopted. The father sought permission to appeal but there was a delay in obtaining a transcript of the judgment and in the meantime an adoption order was granted.

The father's appeal was dismissed on the grounds that he had no relationship with the child who had been settled for over 2 years with the adopters. The court could not take the risk of disturbing that placement. The judgment was clear and demonstrated no error of law or approach.

 

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