Adoption - 1998

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 10 cases, and was prepared on 15 November 2008.

Re J (Adoption: Non-Patrial) [1998] INLR 424
1998 CA Thorpe LJ	Adoption	Casemap 1 Citers
	The court considered an adoption in Pakistan which was valid in Pakistan but would not be recognised here. The natural father and the adoptive father were from the same family. The adoptive parents were unable to have a children of their own, and the adoption was a gift – an act of grace. At first instance, Singer J, found that according to custom in Pakistan the arrangement had the full consequences that would flow from the making of an adoption order in our society: “The mother and the father performed an act of great grace with considerable beneficial religious significance for them in giving up their child as a gift to childless relatives” Held: This was “a custom which we are told is recognised in many parts of the world”, and “It seems to me that we should respect that custom, founded as it is upon a humane response to a sad deprivation.”
	Statute References omitted

Lincolnshire County Council -v- R-J and Others, X and Another Intervening
20 Feb 1998 FD	Adoption
	The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply when considering the freedom of a couple to adopt a child; a caution for an offence of Actual Bodily Harm to child was a bar to adoption.
	Statute References omitted

Home Secretary -v- B (a Minor) [1998] EWCA Civ 392
4 Mar 1998 CA	Adoption
	Link[s] omitted

In Re B (A Minor)(Adoption Order: Nationality)
16 Mar 1998 CA	Children, Adoption
	Any benefit of nationality obtained through an adoption is a side benefit, and is irrelevant to the substantive issues of the propriety of that adoption. An adoption undertaken principally for that purpose was wrong.
	Statute References omitted

In Re W (Minor)(Adoption Details: Disclosure)
21 May 1998 FD	Adoption
	A court making an adoption order has the inherent power to make an order restricting disclosure of adoption details from register where this is in the child's best interests.

In Re C (A Minor) (Adoption Legality)
2 Jun 1998 FD	Adoption
	An adoption was confirmed as being in the best interests of a child, despite illegality of the methods used in adoption from abroad, with social work report incomplete, and criminal offences committed.
	Statute References omitted

In Re P-J (Minors)(Adoption Order: Practice On Appeal)
4 Jun 1998 CA	Adoption
	Where appeal to Court of Appeal against adoption order is being considered, the applicant should apply also for order from judge staying implementation of the adoption order itself.

In Re J (A Minor)(Adoption Order)
14 Oct 1998 CA	Adoption
	It is wrong to make an adoption order against the wishes of a father where he might have sought parental responsibility merely in order to relieve sense of insecurity within the new family. Such difficult matters should normally be heard in the High Court.

In Re C (A Minor) (Adoption- Freeing Order)
26 Oct 1998 FD	Adoption
	The court can in exceptional circumstances exercise its inherent jurisdiction to revoke a freeing order on the application of the mother even though she had said she had no wish to be involved in the child's future. A statutory lacuna was creating orphans.
	Statute References omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Health and Another ex parte C (Minors) (Kent County Council Intervening)
11 Nov 1998 QBD	Adoption
	Regulations which had removed the discretion of the Local Authority to place children with a carer who had a relevant conviction, were not ultra vires even though it created a situation where the best interests of the child might not always be served.
	Statute References omitted