Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
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...
View all articles
Authors

Re A and others (Children) (Adoption) [2017] EWHC 35 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 19:41 PM
Adoption – Scottish orders – Recognition – Whether permanence orders made by the Scottish court should be recognised by the English court – Whether the issue of consent needed to be reconsidered
The President held that Scottish permanence orders should be recognised by the English court.
Slug : re-a-and-others-children-adoption-2017-ewhc-35-fam
Meta Title : Re A and others (Children) (Adoption) [2017] EWHC 35 (Fam)
Meta Keywords : Adoption – Scottish orders – Recognition – Whether permanence orders made by the Scottish court should be recognised by the English court – Whether the issue of consent needed to be reconsidered
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 31, 2017, 09:56 AM
Article ID : 113692

(Family Division Sir James Munby the President of the Family Division, 17 January 2017)

Adoption – Scottish orders – Recognition – Whether permanence orders made by the Scottish court should be recognised by the English court – Whether the issue of consent needed to be reconsidered

The President held that Scottish permanence orders should be recognised by the English court.

In six cases applications for adoption were made by prospective adoptive parents living in England in respect of Scottish children. A Scottish Sheriff had made a permanence order with authority to adopt pursuant to ss 80 and 83 of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007. Orders were also made dispensing with parental consent. Different provisions for contact with the birth parents were made in each case.

It fell to be determined, inter alia, whether the permanence order should be recognised by the English court and whether the English court needed to obtain consent from the parents before an adoption order could be made.

The President held that there was no doubt that the English court had jurisdiction to make adoption orders. There was nothing in the 2002 Act requiring the English court to consider again the question of parental consent when that had already been dealt with by the Scottish court. There was clear legislative intent to marry up the Scottish and English procedures. The English court should recognise the Sottish orders.

The birth parents were not considered ‘parents’ for the purposes of the 2002 Act since they no longer had parental responsibility. Contact was only one facet of parental responsibility.

None of the natural parents were entitled to be joined to the proceedings. Except where orders had been made terminating all contact, the parents could as a matter of discretion be given the opportunity to be heard but only in relation to the issue of future contact.


Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 35 (Fam)


Case Numbers omitted


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 17 January 2017


Before:

SIR JAMES MUNBY PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In the matter of A, B, C, D, E and F (Children)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Nicholas Stonor QC and Mr Justin Gray (instructed by Hadaway & Hadaway) for the guardians of A, B, C, E and F
Ms Lorraine Cavanagh (instructed by John Whittle Robinson Solicitors) for the guardian of D
Ms Deirdre Fottrell QC (instructed by Russell Cooke) for the prospective adoptive parents of D
Ms Alexandra Conroy Harris (of Newcastle City Council) for Newcastle City Council
Ms Frances Heaton QC (instructed by the local authority) for Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council
Mr Alan Inglis of the English Bar and Scottish Bar (instructed by local authority solicitors) lodged written submissions on behalf of Dundee City Council, Clackmannanshire Council and Scottish Borders Council

Hearing date: 16 November 2016


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Judgment Approved This judgment was handed down in open court


Re A and Others (Children)(Adoption) [2017] EWHC 35 (Fam).rtf
Categories :
  • Judgments
  • Public Law Children
Tags :
FLR_cover
Provider :
Product Bucket : Family
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from