首页    期刊浏览 2025年07月15日 星期二
登录注册

文章基本信息

  • 标题:Adoption of a relinquished baby contested by birth father.
  • 作者:Harris, Alexandra Conroy
  • 期刊名称:Adoption & Fostering
  • 印刷版ISSN:0308-5759
  • 出版年度:2012
  • 期号:March
  • 语种:English
  • 出版社:Sage Publications, Inc.
  • 摘要:Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Munby, Black & Kitchin LLJ
  • 关键词:Adoption;Parent and child (Law);Questions and answers

Adoption of a relinquished baby contested by birth father.


Harris, Alexandra Conroy



Q (A child) [2011]

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Munby, Black & Kitchin LLJ

21 December 2011 [2011] EWCA Civ 1610

Q's parents were both Muslims but came from different communities. Her father was married to a woman in his country of origin and her mother was living at home when Q was conceived. M was terrified of the consequences for her and for the baby if her father found out about the relationship and was clear that she would be unable to keep the baby. Q was born in hospital and M was discharged shortly afterwards. She gave her written consent to placement and to adoption and Q was placed with prospective adopters in December 2010. F knew about the pregnancy, but claimed that M told him that the baby had died. At the beginning of 2011 he contacted social services and indicated that he wished to apply for a residence order in respect of Q. An adoption application was issued in March and the local authority applied for directions in respect of F. Evidence was given from the police which suggested that there was a high risk to Q and to M if the community found out about Q's birth. The judge ordered F not to disclose any information about Q or to contact M's family. He was told that the baby was well and had been placed for adoption. He applied for a residence order, intending Q to be brought up with the child of his marriage, born a few months after Q. Reports were filed which showed that F and his wife were caring well for their own baby, and that Q had settled well and attached to her adopters. The local authority supported the adopters' application, the children's guardian supported F. The judge at first instance found that there was a risk that Q would not be able to transfer her attachment to F and his wife, and there was a significant risk that placing Q with her father would enable the community to put two and two together and could provoke M's father to take action to preserve the family honour. There were also concerns raised about F's understanding of Q's emotional needs and his ability to meet them. The court made an adoption order with a plan for letterbox contact only. F appealed, claiming that he had a private and family life with Q that required protection; that the judge should have adjourned for a psychiatric report to inform her decision, especially as there was a difference in opinion between the guardian and the social worker; and that the judge should have heard evidence from a cultural expert.

Held

The issue of whether F had a private or family life with Q did not need to be decided as the judge had actually applied the test that she would have had to apply if F had had parental responsibility - did Q's welfare require her adoption? The judge had weighed the facts carefully and come to the 'unimpeachable' findings that the physical and emotional risks to Q of moving to F's family were such that her welfare required adoption by the couple with whom she was currently placed.

Alexandra Conroy Harris, BAAF's Legal Consultant, prepared these notes
联系我们|关于我们|网站声明
国家哲学社会科学文献中心版权所有