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
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
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...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
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