Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
View all articles

CARE: Haringey London Borough Council v C (E, E, F and High Commissioner of Republic of Kenya Intervening) [2006] EWHC 1620 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:19 PM
Slug : haringey-london-borough-council-v-c-e-e-f-and-high-commissioner-of-republic-of-kenya-intervening-2006-ewhc-1620-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 19, 2006, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 89197

(Family Division; Ryder J; 19 July 2006)

Following the decision in Haringey London Borough Council v C, E and Another [2005] 2 FLR 47 that the child in question had been the victim of child trafficking, rather than the result of a miracle birth, the local authority sought a care order and a declaration freeing the child for adoption. The authority had identified a suitable prospective adoptive family. The woman who had been deceived into thinking that she had given birth to the child sought to have a residence order made in favour of herself and her husband. The couple persisted in their belief that although the child did not share their DNA, he was their child by conception and birth, and was the result of a miracle, indeed the woman believed that she was currently experiencing another spiritual pregnancy. The child's short-term foster mother sought to be joined as a party to the proceedings with a view to asking the court for a residence order in her favour, with a special guardianship order to follow. The Kenyan authorities were no longer seeking the return of the child to Kenya, as the child's natural parents had not been identified despite searches being undertaken.

The judge refused to place the child with the couple who believed they were the child's parents, notwithstanding the couple's undoubted attachment to child and the quality of their practical care for the child. Neither the man nor the woman was able to acknowledge that the child had in fact been removed from his real parents and neither would be able to give credibility and status to a secular account of the child's history. It was a concern that both the man and the woman believed that the child would be a special or miracle child in life as well as in birth. The court had permitted the foster carer to submit written evidence, give oral evidence and be cross-examined without restriction; this process allowed her to present her case without doing injustice to any other party, following a broad rather than a restrictive or formulaic approach to the exercise of discretion. The foster carer was not preferred as a long-term placement for the child, notwithstanding the good progress the child had made in her care, because, inter alia, of her: difficulty in maintaining a working relationship with social workers; lack of cultural match; age; lack of insight into the child's need for a clear identity; and inability to adopt for religious reasons. The authority care plan was approved and the freeing order made.

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