‘A teenager who became pregnant after being placed into council care must give up her baby, a family court judge in Leeds has ruled.’
BBC News, 6th May 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Adrian Barnett-Thoung-Holland, pupil barrister at Fourteen, considers how the Department for Education’s proposed four year plan may affect permanency options for children in care.’
Family Law Week, 17th April 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
In re N (Children) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) (AIRE Centre and others intervening) [2016] UKSC 15
‘Two children, who like their parents were Hungarian nationals, were born in England and habitually resident in the United Kingdom, having lived with the same English foster carers for most of their lives, initially with the consent of their parents. The local authority sought a care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 and, subsequently, an order for placement of the children with the foster carers with a view to their adoption pursuant to section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The mother, who had returned to Hungary and had a third child with the father, opposed the orders and applied under article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 for the proceedings to be transferred to Hungary. The Hungarian authorities supported her application, maintaining that only the Hungarian authorities could order the adoption of a Hungarian national minor. They proposed that upon return to Hungary the children would be placed with English speaking foster parents but maintain contact with their parents. The judge directed that both the care and placement order proceedings be transferred in accordance with article 15 on the ground that the Hungarian courts would be better placed to determine the welfare issues. The Court of Appeal decided, inter alia, that the placement order proceedings were outside the scope of article 15 by virtue of article 1(3)(b) of the Regulation and could not, therefore, be transferred to Hungary, but that, since the judge had not erred in ordering the transfer of the care proceedings, the placement order proceedings would be stayed even though they could not be transferred. ‘
WLR Daily, 13th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Government has set out how it plans to change the law to address falls in local authority adoption decisions and the courts’ granting of placement orders.’
Local Government Lawyer, 30th March 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A Christian magistrate who was sacked after voicing his opposition to adoption by same-sex parents has been suspended as a non-executive director by an NHS trust.’
The Guardian, 27th March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A highly experienced magistrate – Richard Page – has been sacked for airing views opposing same-sex couples being allowed to adopt.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th March 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A Christian magistrate who was sacked after opposing adoption by gay parents on national television is planning to sue Michael Gove over the decision.’
The Guardian, 13th March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A Christian judge has been struck off after making controversial comments over same-sex adoption on national television.’
Daily Telegraph, 10th March 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
In re JL and AO (Babies Relinquished for Adoption): [2016] EWHC 440 (Fam)
‘In two cases babies, JL and AO, were born in England to mothers from Eastern Europe but relinquished at birth for adoption. In the case of JL the child, whose Estonian mother worked in England and whose putative father lived in Estonia, was accommodated by the local authority with the mother’s consent pursuant to an agreement under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 and was placed with foster carers. The mother gave her written consent to his adoption and the putative father, maternal family and the Estonian authorities all supported his adoption in this country. The local authority sought a placement order under section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. In the case of AO, the Hungarian parents working in England wished the child to be adopted in this country. AO had been removed at birth and placed with foster carers and had been made a ward of court. The local authority, children’s guardian and Hungarian authorities sought the child’s return to Hungary so that she could be placed for adoption there. Common issues arose as to what jurisdiction the court had to make orders facilitating such placements, (ii) the factors which had to be taken into account when making decisions about relinquished babies, the possible outcomes and the procedures to be followed and (iii) where a child born to nationals of a foreign country had been placed voluntarily in the care of a local authority, with a view to adoption or otherwise, whether the authority was under an obligation under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 to inform the consular officials of that country about the placement. In the case of JL, the further issues arose whether the court had jurisdiction to make a placement order and what order, if any, should be made. In the case of AO, the further issues arose whether it was open to the court either to transfer jurisdiction to Hungary under Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (“Brussels IIA”) or to make an order permitting the local authority to send AO to Hungary; and what order, if any, the court should make.’
WLR Daily, 3rd March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘John Tughan QC of 4 Paper Buildings analyses recent significant judgments in public children law.’
Family Law Week, 22nd February 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Finding a permanent loving home for a baby approved for adoption can take take several months. In 2012, the government said it would change the law to allow potential adopters to foster a baby while the courts were deciding on its future. So what has the Foster to Adopt experience been like for those taking this route?’
BBC News, 19th February 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The Association of Lawyers for Children and the National Association of Guardians ad Litem and Reporting Officers respond to recent guidance given in the Central Family Court on the need for guardians to justify their attendance at care hearings save in specified circumstances.’
Family Law Week, 31st January 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The Government is to change the law to make prioritising lifelong stability for vulnerable children with a loving family a legal requirement, the Department for Education has said.’
Local Government Lawyer, 18th January 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘More children will be removed from their biological parents and placed for adoption, under “urgent” new rules to be announced by ministers.’
The Independent, 14th January 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A family court judge has come under fire after refusing to name a council that violated a man’s parental rights by taking his four-year-old daughter into care without a proper investigation.’
The Guardian, 10th January 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A child (SM) who was adopted in Algeria by a French couple living in the UK was refused an application for a right of entry as a family member. Having been overturned in the Upper Tribunal, the Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal. SM was not, the court held, a family member of Mr M. A keen human rights observer might think this was an apparent infringement of article 8 ECHR (the right to family life).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 12th November 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024