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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

ADOPTION: Re C (Foreign Adoption: Natural Mother's Consent: Service) [2006] 1 FLR 318

Sep 29, 2018, 16:34 PM
Slug : re-c-foreign-adoption-natural-mother-s-consent-service-2006-1-flr-318
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 26, 2005, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 85545

(Family Division; Bodey J; 26 July 2005)

An English couple had previously been granted an adoption order in Papua New Guinea but the English courts would not recognise the Papuan order as the couple were not domiciled in Papua New Guinea at the relevant time. The couple applied to the English courts for an adoption order and separated before the hearing. The court held that adoption would promote and safeguard the child's welfare under the Adoption Act 1976, s 6(4). The court has jurisdiction to make an adoption order under ss 14 and 15 where a married couple or a sole applicant i.e. one of a separated couple, apply for an order. The various advantages of an adoption order being granted to separated parents as outlined in Re WM (Adoption Non-Patrial) [1997] 1 FLR 132 applied and the requirements of s 13(3) were satisfied in this case. Under s 16 no adoption order can be made unless there is consent from each parent or his consent can be dispensed with. The judge adopted the reasoning given by Johnson J in Re G (Foreign Adoption: Consent) [1995] 2 FLR 534 following Scott-Baker J in Re KAP (unreported) on 14 November 1988 that the English courts could not recognise the extinguishment of a natural parent's right to consent to an English adoption by virtue of a foreign adoption order, the validity of which the English courts does not recognise. The natural mother remains the child's parent. The question then arose as to whether the mother had consented to the English adoption or whether it could be dispensed with. The mother had unequivocally consented to the Papuan adoption order. The effect of a Papuan adoption order extinguishes parental rights and vests them in those adopting as is the case with an English adoption order. Considering all the evidence, Bodey J was satisfied that the written consent given by the natural mother at the time of the original adoption was sufficient to embrace this adoption albeit years later in a different country. This is a possibility recognised in Re A (Adoption of a Russian child) [2000] 1 FLR 539 that despite Re G, valid parental agreement could consist in agreement to adoption in the country of origin and did not have to include specific agreement to an English adoption. The judge purposively construed s 16(2)(b) no reasonable parent taking into account the child's welfare could reasonably deny consent. The Adoption Rules 1984, rr 15 and 21 express in mandatory terms that parents are to be parties and parties to be served. However, there is a discretion not to require service, notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the rules in question following Re R (Adoption) [1967] 1 WLR 34 and Re A (Adoption of a Russian child) [2000] 1 FLR 539. Here there were exceptional circumstances and there were no realistic benefits to the mother in serving her with notice of proceedings. She had clearly intended the child to be adopted by the applicants in the Papuan courts and anywhere else that would recognise her consent as being valid. It is not possible to conceive of any realistic argument the natural mother could advance against an adoption order in the English courts. Bodey J granted the adoption order.

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