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
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...
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

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 :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from