Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

ADOPTION/IMMIGRATION: MN (India) v Entry Clearance Officer [2008] EWCA Civ 38

Sep 29, 2018, 16:13 PM
Slug : mn-india-v-entry-clearance-officer-2008-ewca-civ-38
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 11, 2008, 10:31 AM
Article ID : 85033

(Court of Appeal; Ward, Keene and Wilson LJJ; 5 February 2005)

The Indian child's natural father had died and the mother was ill; British citizens of Indian origin adopted the child under Indian law, taking on financial responsibility for her. Although the adoption was not valid in England the adoptive parents sought to bring the child to England as an adopted child. The entry clearance officer refused the application; the immigration judge dismissed the appeal, as did the tribunal.

The immigration judge had made no error of law in refusing entry clearance, notwithstanding the resultant interference in family life; the judge had been entitled to attach considerable weight to the fact that the adoptive parents could have sought leave for the child to enter for purpose of a UK adoption, but had chosen not to do so. None of the professional checks, required under English law as elementary to an analysis of whether a child's interests were served by living as an adopted child in the home of others, had been undertaken; such checks were regarded as necessary not only under English law, but also at international level.

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