Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email editor@familylaw.co.uk.
Spotlight
A day in the life Of...
Louisa Gothard
Louisa Gothard
Senior Solicitor, Head of Family Law
Read on
T v K and others [2016] EWHC 2963 (Fam)
Date:30 NOV 2016
Third slide
Law Reporter

(Family Division, Russell J, 23 November 2016)

Public law children – Adoption – Egyptian child abandoned– British applicant brought child to UK – Egyptian authorities opposed to UK adoption

An adoption order was made in respect of the 6-year-old Egyptian child who had been abandoned at birth.

The now 6-year-old child was born in Egypt to unknown parents and was abandoned as a baby. The applicant was a British national working in Egypt at the time. A local orphanage placed the child with the applicant and her Egyptian husband. She had remained in her care ever since. The child was granted entry clearance to visit the UK but due to a number of factors including political instability and civil unrest in Egypt they had not returned.

The applicant applied for a British passport for the child and had notified the local authority of her presence. The relationship between the applicant and her husband broke down and he resumed a relationship with his previous wife who it appeared he remained married to. The local authority reports were positive about the applicant’s care of the child. She was reportedly well settled and attached to the applicant who was the only mother she had ever known.

The applicant applied for an adoption order, or alternatively, a residence order. The husband was opposed to the child remaining in the UK although he had no contact with her. The Egyptian authorities were granted permission to intervene and objected to an Egyptian child being adopted in the UK. Both the husband and the Egyptian authorities submitted that she should return to Egypt.

The proposition that the mother and child should return to Egypt was unrealistic. It would leave them stranded without support, accommodation or any financial provision in what was to both of them, in essence, an alien land. The advantages were illusory, for although the child would return to her country, culture, religion and heritage of birth and would remain in the care of her psychological mother and primary carer their situation would be so precarious as to undermine any such advantages. For her to return to Egypt and placed with alternative carers would have numerous disadvantages and involve a substantial risk to her long-term psychological welfare that would more likely than not lead to significant harm.

An adoption order would provide far greater security than a child arrangements order. Applying the welfare checklist and taking into account the advantages and disadvantages it was in the child’s best interests throughout her life for an adoption order to be made.



This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

Case No: LV173/13 & LV 14P 00401
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 2963 (Fam)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN AND ADOPTION ACT 2002
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
IN THE MATTER OF THE SENIOR COURTS ACT 1981
AND IN THE MATTER OF Z (A Child) (Believed to be born on 29th October 2010)

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL


Date: 23/11/2016

Before:


MS JUSTICE RUSSELL


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


Between:


T
Applicant


and


K
1st Respondent 


and


Z
2nd Respondent


and


Liverpool City Council
3rd Respondent


and


The Egyptian Ministry of Social Solidarity
4th Respondent


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


Ms Frances Heaton QC and Ms Kate Burnell (instructed by Morecrofts Solicitors) for the Applicant (T)
The 1st Respondent (K-in person by telephone)
Mr Karl Rowley QC (instructed by Susan Howarth & Company) for the 2nd Respondent (Z-the child)
Mr Clive Baker (instructed by LCC) for the 3rd Respondent (Local Authority)
Mr Henry Setright QC and Mr Michael Gration (instructed by Bindmans Solicitors) for the 4th Respondent (Egyptian Ministry of Social Solidarity)




Hearing dates: 30TH AUGUST TO 8TH SEPTEMBER 2016


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


Judgment

T v K and others [2016] EWHC 2963 (Fam).rtf
Family Law
Family Law
"the principal (monthly) periodical dealing with...
£389
Financial Remedies Handbook
Financial Remedies Handbook
Formerly entitled the Ancillary Relief Handbook...
£91.99
Family Court Practice, The
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2019 edition due out in May
£559.99