Adoption - 1970- 1979

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 130,000 case listings, and over 95,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 8 cases, and was prepared on 26 February 2010.

In Re F (R) (An Infant) [1970] 1 QB 385
1970	Adoption	Casemap 1 Citers
	An adoption order was set aside for an irregularity.

In re W (An Infant) [1971] AC 682
1971 HL Lord Hailsham LC	Adoption	Casemap 1 Citers
	The court considered the reasonability of parental disagreement in applications for adoption: "Two reasonable parents can perfectly reasonably come to opposite conclusions on the same set of facts without forfeiting their title to be regarded as reasonable. The question in any given case is whether a parental veto comes within the band of possible reasonable decisions and not whether it is right or mistaken. Not every reasonable exercise of judgment is right, and not every mistaken exercise of judgment is unreasonable. There is a band of decisions within which no court should seek to replace the individual's judgment with his own." and ". . . the test is reasonableness and not anything else. It is not culpability. It is not indifference. It is not failure to discharge parental duties. It is reasonableness, and reasonableness in the context of the totality of the circumstances. But, although welfare per se is not the test, the fact that a reasonable parent does pay regard to the welfare of his child must enter into the question of reasonableness as a relevant factor. It is relevant in all cases if and to the extent that a reasonable parent would take it into account. It is decisive in those cases where a reasonable parent must so regard it."

Re RA (Minors) (1974) Fam Law 182
1974	Adoption	Casemap 1 Citers
	An adoption order was set aside for a procedural irregularity.

Re F (Infants) (Adoption Order: Validity) [1977] Fam 165
1977	Adoption

In re D (An Infant) (Adoption: Parent's Consent) [1977] AC 602
1977 HL Lord Wilberforce	Adoption	Casemap 1 Citers
	The father opposed adoption of a child by the mother and her new husband. The House was asked whether his opposition was unreasonable: "What, in my understanding, is required is for the court to ask whether the decision, actually made by the father in his individual circumstances, is, by an objective standard, reasonable or unreasonable. This involves considering how a father in the circumstances of the actual father, but (hypothetically) endowed with a mind and temperament capable of making reasonable decisions, would approach a complex question involving a judgment as to the present and as to the future and the probable impact of these upon a child."

Re F [1977] Fam 165
1977	Adoption	Casemap 1 Citers

X and Y -v- United Kingdom (1978) 12 D & R 32
1978 ECHR	Human Rights, Adoption	Casemap 1 Citers
	(Commission) A boy of 14, X's nephew, was adopted under Indian law by two Sikhs, who were UK citizens. He was 14 years when adopted. He had been denied entry clearance into the UK on the grounds that, even if the adoption was valid according to Indian law, there had been no genuine transfer of parental responsibility to X, since Y's natural parents were able to care for him. The Commission rejected the applicants' complaint under article 8 because: “This adoption is neither recognised nor eligible for recognition in English law. The first applicant has apparently since made financial contributions towards the upkeep of the second applicant. However, throughout his life, both before and after the adoption, he has lived with his natural parents in India. It appears that they have been and are fully capable of supporting him. In these circumstances the applicants have not, in the Commission's opinion, established a relationship between them which amounted at any material time to “family life” within the meaning of Article 8, notwithstanding their blood relationship and any legal relationship created under Indian law by the adoption. The Commission does not consider that the second applicant's relationship with the first applicant is at all comparable to that of a new-born child with its parents, where “family life” might be held to exist from the moment of birth.”
	European Convention on Human Rights 8

Marckx -v- Belgium 6833/74; (1979) 2 EHRR 330; [1979] ECHR 2
13 Jun 1979 ECHR Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice	Human Rights, Children, Adoption, Wills and Probate	Casemap 1 Citers
	The complaint related to the manner in which parents were required to adopt their own illegitimate child in order to increase his rights. Under Belgian law, no legal bond between an unmarried mother and her child results from the mere fact of birth. A recognised "illegitimate" child's rights of inheritance on intestacy are less than those of a "legitimate" child. Held: The Belgian system nfringed the right to private and family life by reducing inheritance rights for illegitimate children. The object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities. Nevertheless, it does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference: in addition to this primarily negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in an effective ‘respect’ for family life. Where there are no property rights which pre-exist the interference complained of, the article is not engaged. Family life "includes at least the ties between near relatives, for instance, those between grandparents and grandchildren, since such relatives play a considerable part in family life." Article 8 makes no distinction between the legitimate and illegitimate family.
	European Convention on Human Rights 1P 8 A14
	Link[s] omitted