Adoption - 1995

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 9 cases, and was prepared on 04 October 2008.

Re H (Adoption: Disclosure of Information ) [1995] 1 FLR 236
1995 Thorpe J	Adoption	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	An application was made by the sister of an adopted child for disclosure of the records held in order to allow her to make contact and to warn her of the fact that she might have an inherited genetic disease. Held: The jurisdiction to grant such an order "should be exercised very sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances." and "Mr Blake, for the Registrar General, contends that as a matter of public policy the discretion should be exercised very sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. He prays in aid of his submission the decision of His Honour Judge Blagden almost 40 years ago and the cautious language with which Judge Blagden acceded to the application in circumstances which were clearly exceptional. Mr McFarlane, for NORCAP [the agency seeking the order], submits that had Parliament intended that the discretion should only be exercised very sparingly, and in exceptional circumstances, it would surely have so stated. In the absence of any statutory words Mr McFarlane submits that the burden upon the applicant should be no heavier than the ordinary burden to show cause by establishing a case of sufficient weight and justification so as to persuade the judge of the reasonableness of the order sought. Of the rival submissions I prefer that of Mr McFarlane. Since Judge Blagden considered the parallel section in an earlier statute, attitudes to adoption, its consequences, and the importance of the biological origin and the psychological attachments have changed profoundly."
	Statute References omitted

D -v- Grampian Regional Council 1995 SC (HL) 1
1995 HL Jauncey L	Scotland, Adoption	Casemap 1 Citers
	The House discussed the nature of an adoption order: "The Act of 1978 provides a comprehensive code for adoption and it is perfectly clear that the whole procedure is intended to produce a permanent result for the adopted child. An adoption order once made is irrevocable only in circumstances which will have no practical effect upon the child's day to day life in contradistinction to an order for custody or access which is always reviewable by the court when circumstances demand".
	Statute References omitted

In Re T (A Minor) (Contact Order)
13 Jan 1995 CA	Children, Adoption
	A contact order which was not strictly necessary should not be made in adoption proceedings.
	Statute References omitted

In Re D and Another (Minors) (Adoption: Access)
10 Mar 1995 HL	Adoption, Scotland
	A mother may not apply for access rights after her children had been placed with an adoption agency.
	Statute References omitted

Re B (Adoption Order: Jurisdiction To Set Aside) [1995] EWCA Civ 48; [1995] Fam 239; [1995] 3 FCR 671; [1995] Fam Law 469; [1995] 3 WLR 40; [1995] 3 All ER 333; [1995] 2 FLR 1
17 Mar 1995 CA	Adoption
	Link[s] omitted

Re B (Adoption: Setting Aside) [1995] 2 Fam L R 1
22 Mar 1995 CA	Adoption	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Where the child's natural mother did not receive service of the adoption petition and had no other knowledge that an attempt was being made to adopt the child; in that event it can be considered that there is a fundamental injustice to the natural mother. There was no statutory basis for the setting aside of an adoption order, despite there having been a fundamental mistake. The natural procdure is an appeal.

In Re T (Minors) (Adopted Children: Contact) [1996] Fam 34
8 Aug 1995 CA Balcombe LJ	Adoption	Casemap 1 Citers
	A half-sister had been assured that when her half-sister was adopted she would be given annual reports as to her progress. No report was provided. When she enquired and complained, she was told that the adopters had changed their minds and that it was not in the children's interests for the report to be provided. Furthermore, confidentiality precluded any explanation of the reasons for that refusal. She applied to the court for leave to make an application for contact. The judge refused it. She appealed. Held: She succeeded. The court balanced carefully on the one hand the right of an adoptive family to protection of confidentiality and their right to bring up the adopted child in the way that they thought appropriate, and the inappropriateness of enforcing informal arrangements which might no longer be appropriate and which therefore fell to the prospective adopters to terminate. On the other hand, for the applicant it was argued that if this decision was allowed to stand it meant that adoptive parents could effectively ignore any agreement entered into in the best interests of the child in question, and that that would in fact result in more contests and more difficulties in prospective applications. The court came down firmly in favour of the latter proposition. Guidelines were given on procedures for maintaining parental contact after adoption order. Reasons beyond 'not in Child's interest' are to be given before contact may be withdrawn. Balcombe LJ: "I am not saying that it should never be open to adopters to change their minds and resile from an informal agreement made at the time of the adoption. But if they do so they should, as Butler-Sloss LJ said in In re T (A Minor) (Contact After Adoption) [1995] 2 FCR 537, 543 give their reasons clearly so that the other party to the arrangement, and if necessary the court, may have the opportunity to consider the adequacy of those reasons. Nor need adopters fear that their reasons, when given, will be subjected to critical legal analysis. The judges who hear family cases are well aware of the stresses and strains to which adopters in the position of Mr and Mrs H are subject and a simple explanation of their reasons in non-legal terms would usually be all that is necessary. In my judgment where adopters in the position of Mr and Mrs H simply refuse to provide an explanation for their change of heart, particularly where, as here, the contact envisaged - the provision of a report - is of a nature which is most unlikely to be disruptive of the children's lives, it is not appropriate for the court to accept that position without more."

In Re AB (A Minor)(Adoption: Unmarried Couple)
10 Aug 1995 FD	Adoption
	It was not possible to make adoption order in favour of an unmarried couple, but adoption could be made to one with residence to other.
	Statute References omitted

Re C (Adoption: Parties) [1995] 2 FLR 483
29 Nov 1995 CA	Adoption
	There is no obligation to join an unmarried father without parental rights, in adoption proceedings. The choice is the mother's.
	Statute References omitted