Hello. Welcome, everybody. My name stuff to my married on a very police to welcome you to today's light slice station As of September 2000 and 18 now, despite Sigh session, I'm going to be taking you through D questions surrounding placement on adoption on reading the question of whether or not one tells the father under family when Children are being relinquished for adoption on Does. Are we looking at the development of the case law over informing the father and the wider family with particular regard to Part 19 off the family procedures of 2010 on applications made their look. I take you think somebody developing case law insofar as this area is concerned. So let's start with this case off J. L and AOL. These were two conjoined Casey's handed down are these cases back in 2000 and 16 and these two would like so two conjoined cases involving two separate Children born today. Respected mothers who were from Eastern Europe on both Children were in fact relinquished at birth. Now, in the case of J. L. Firstly, the parents were from Estonia. The mother came to England on had concealed her pregnancy child was accommodate about a local thought in placed in foster care on the mother didn't wish the child to replace with family members. She would. Hervey was that should rather the child be adopted in England on dumb. She gave no details. Us to father on the birth certificate. Now the local health thought infected, communicated various family members in Estonia and spoke to the father. Hey said that he didn't wish to under golden DNA, and he didn't wish to care for the child and local thought suggested a family group conference by telephone. But the maternal aunt, who had been referred to, said the family what made to look after family and they agreed to adoption. Now, when you have these situations were by mother and father in appropriate cases are seeking to consent to a child being placed for adoption. The local thought would don't be making to before to cath cas, so that calf Koskinen turned and referred the matter to a reporting officer effectively CAFTA's officer in his or her capacity of the reporting officers hosted and witnessed a signature by word to consent by the mother and the father fears parental responsibility and that consent to placement is under section 19 of the Adoption Children 2002 whereby we are consenting to child being placed for adoption. If the father was so needs, it has burned responsibility. Denny's consent would also be required. But if it doesn't have the consent of mother will suffice on. Both can also then go further and, in fact consent Or so in the section 20 of the adoption Children at 2002 on the basis consenting to the future adoption of that child thereafter. So that can also be done now. This is where the mother signed a section, the Section 19 form whereby she was consenting to a child being placed for adoption and the deluxe authority were being gassed by mother, not contacted maternal grandmother and on indeed, the other family members. It's at the local thought to do, in fact, larger placement application on they started care proceedings on Dada local thought with therefore, to seek in the order in relation to the other child. A Oh, depends here were Hungarian citizens. Both lived in England on mother sorted abortion, but she had passed a lawful stage at which a termination could be permitted. Both vans had in fact, attempt to people proceedings, meetings, and they want to a child to be adopted in England. They don't wish their relatives and hungry to know anything about the child. Don't wish the child have any information as to the origins on history. Indoor circumstances. So what the local thought he did here is they applied under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court whereby they were seeking a direction as to Charles Richer residents falling birth on Dad also list the matter to determine issue over jurisdiction on dumb. The local authorities all for hungry to take the chance cases to decide on the chance future. But their parents offered English course toe. I should take responsibility for the child now want issues here. That was very was when parents, as in this case, we're relinquishing that their child Does that chance case come with in Brussels to and therefore, could that chance case actually be referred? Transferred pips of Article 15 of Brussels to to another member state of the court were self satisfied, the local or thought he argued that the proceedings did not fall within Brussels as they were looking out on seeking a placement order was the guard. He took the view that he did well, insofar as jurisdiction is concerned. His lordship did say the articulator Brussels provides that member states of jurisdiction relation matters off parental responsibility. Onda Article 14 states that no court has jurisdiction under articles eight or 13 that he was determined by jurisdictional law off the state Onder article picked 15 does not allow the chance case, but transferred to remember a member state of Darla jurisdiction is placed better. So here, particularly paragraphs 39 of dis judgment. His Lordship did say that Brussels two does not apply to decisions on adoption, all measures taken preparatory to adoption. So therefore, His lordship said that English and Roger courts of jurisdiction under the adoption Children like to make adoption orders which are not UK citizens in that regard. Therefore, it was very important for to bear that in mind now, in deciding whether or not to give weight to their parents, which is. The court did say that the parents views are not decisive, although they obviously are going to be coming. Ah, lot of weight on also, many, if you would know about the cases of re being re Bs re be, as you know, highlighted. Uh, the point about when it comes to plans for adoption. One has to ensure that adoption is it must be in the child's best interests on only be made in exceptional circumstances when nothing else will do well. A Paragraph 55 justice judgment. His Lordship said that their parents have relinquished their child and want their child to be adopted outside the natural family on the degree of interference with family. Life is less in that case, as opposed to where the child impairment relationship is 97 against the patient's wishes and therefore technically a reference to when nothing else will do when all else fails, as referred to and re be, would not be applicable in relinquish baby cases as in this. So this is where it is very important. Therefore, to bear in mind the overlap between situations whereby Children are relinquished nor sort of rights off the various parties in no circumstances so works, he conceded. Use of this now look and then after some of the other cases. This is the case of Ri are a baby relinquished for adoption case management. This is a case handed down on the sixth of May 2016 by Mr Justice. Come, this was a six month old on Had we relinquished by birth by parents at birth on a child was in fact placed with foster carers who we're proved to adopt on uh, the maternal grandmother who lived in Latvia was assessed over there in Latvia but depends opposed to the placement of a child with the maternal grandmother. Now the parents themselves were Latvian citizens, but that we live in England for some five years. Andi Guardian wanted to follow assessment of grandmother to be done into circumstance stances. Now again, this case very much brings it to play to jail and a or principles about the concept of re be about nothing else will do when all else fails. But here, given that the child was being relinquished at those principles, would have lesser significance in that regard. The court was off the view here that heard of factors. Under the adoption, Children at 2002 could be considered without further assessing. Tell a grandmother here under second Stan sees the court said it was possible to carry out the analysis without a four assessment of the other parties or even knowledge of the existence of the baby. And what his Lordship did say is to avoid difficulties in these cases in the future. It's very important for local authorities to make use of depart 19 procedure. Does Part 19 daughter finally procedures of 2010? Which effectively is that? If the provides that if the local authority is in any doubt whatsoever about the need to investigate or assess family members or obligations under Brussels to revise the Vienna Convention at and therefore as to whether or not they should be notifying a central authority, then it may wish to consider making a preemptive application to the court on the part 19 of the family procedures of 2010. And this could be used where effective did local thought it. Any seeking advice on the court to make a decision on a question which is unlikely to involve a substantial dispute of fact is effectively could be used without an application made it without even naming a respondent and advantage of disease. If, for example, a local authority had been asked by mother not to. I informed the father, for example, the wider family of the child and the mother, which used to give the child up for adoption, then that this preemptive application could be very useful indoors in that situation, so as to be able to get a decision on, therefore potentially to keep delay to an absolute minimum into circumstances. Now the other case of a old Cape ceilings 2016 is also very important, which identifies the fact, if apparent, relinquishes their child. This doesn't in itself satisfied a special criteria for the making off a care order. So this case itself involved in a three month old baby on the parents, uh, relinquished a child up birth local thought. He subsequently lodged a care application on the obtained an interim care order and sort for the child to be placed for adoption. Hungry. Undone. The question was, when Children are relinquished on the threshold under Section 31 subsection two of the Children that met on the court said, Not necessarily. It depends upon how the charters relinquished its child was abandoned, for example, left at a doorstep, for example, of threshold met. But if, as in this case, the mother talked a decision to relinquish, and she informed a local authority in advance on dirt. She had really being careful in began between make plans in that regard and clearly special would not be met in the second stances again, he conceded the significance off that decision. Now that then brings me on to this other case of a local authority. Gates, the mother on another def 2017 case on that. This was a case where by his lordship, Mr just his home, and did say that this is very much an exceptional gaze, which is one whereby Mother attended hospital on, described herself as having stomach symptoms pains. And she, in fact, realized only when she went to the hospital that she was 29 weeks pregnant. That mother feared that she would be ostracised and possibly killed if her family became a way off the fact that she was going to be having this child and that she had had this child and she feared for her safety falling repeated fears that she would be killed if her family and wider community became aware of the fact of a pregnancy and subsequently I became aware that she had had sexual intercourse outside marriage. The local photo subsequently lodged care and placement proceedings on that court did say that unless exceptional consideration needs to be given in not not notifying parents and wider family in these circumstances, and the court did say that in a very and exceptional circumstances, it is permissible on a perfect for the court to dispense with the requirements of notice, as in these circumstances and here on the facts. It was based upon the belief that mother hot doctor that she would be at significant risk if the wind family became aware off the year the fact off the pregnancy and the birth indoor circumstances. The court here did say that they were not. There was no psychological relationship at all between the father and the child, on any members of rising maternal paternal family, and where what legal relations may exist between child and father was somewhat speculative in the circumstances. Onda under facts, the court took the view that the declaration was necessary and would be made in the circumstances. This endings me onto the other case of M and N twins Relinquish Baby's parentage again it's very similar to somebody other cases that I've just mentioned it. This involved twins who were subject interim care orders on that mother sort for the at Children to be a place for adoption. A declaration here was being sought by the local authority under Section 55. A of the family worked after Peter the father was the father of twins and sexually Declaration has been sorted apart. 19 that the local authority need not mortify, let alone investigator assess any extended family members are both a mother and a father side on Thirdly, deluxe with water were seeking a placement order. Now the court here said that in circumstances such as this in relation to the declaration of parentage, a person may apply to the high Court for declaration in the and the circumstances and it would be necessary to commission d n A testing in order to determine issue off parentage. But difficulty was that if the father was going to be cooperating, as in this case, then one could only raise inferences from that or consider taking samples for the persons if necessary. What about no informing the wider family and this is very much where the court looked again at the use of the Part 19 procedure on the facts. The court here said that in these circumstances, the court would not have significant weight interviews off their wishes of the mother on the father in the circumstances quite apart from parental opposition to maternal family placements. But here the court did say that the prospects off family placements been identified on information that was quite limited and therefore here there was a proper basis for granted declaration that the local thought he would not quite in notify. We investigate any, remember that a family wider family in the circumstances, So it is of course possible to be so in certain situations. Now, sometimes it may be appropriate to give noticed through other means. And this is where, at this case, every T is important whereby this case of Ri Ta Child 2017 was one whereby notice was effectively given off the proceedings to Facebook. Dis involved in adoption application in relation to a four year old. The birth parents were living together in England at the time of the child's birth. On a childhood, we may subject replacement order onder, the birth parents have played very little part in the proceedings. The birth father had been given notice off the adoption on, but he lodged an application whereby he sought leave proposed the making of the adoption order. So therefore he lodged an application under Section 47 subsection five of the act Onder. The order for leave to opposes Grant on the pace is that the father has shown the requisite change of circumstances and leave was granted but in relation to the actual adoption application he upended there. Now the mother to attend a hearing Can wonder Court passed why the mother was not there? The court was informed that she wasn't there, but that the father's former partner had in fact contacted Mother Andi communicated with the through Facebook. So he had. Judge did say that Facebook may well be a route to informing or giving notice to parents in these circumstances. And even though it wasn't the first message used to taste, of course an effective message in a perfect cases to at least be able to give notice to parties and if so much on the facts was adjourned so as to enable mother to be notified of D second stances. Now the most recent case in relation to the issue of relinquished babies is this case off free. A Relinquished Baby Risk of Domestic abuse This 2018 case handed down by Mr Justice Carbon 27th of July 2000 and 18. This case itself involved 1/7 month old boy who was accommodated under section 20 off the air. Children actually agreement to his mother that this his mother's fifth child, she had two Children had which had been adopted, and two Children were living with herself and this was her fifth child. She don't which the father of the child to know about the child's existence. Northey extended family and she wanted this child to be placed for adoption. I have been discussing with you this is where the local phone quite rightly then made an application on the part 19 off the family procedure users have been discussing with you s so that they were seeking a declaration from the quarters to whether it would be permissible lawful. Therefore, for the local authority to make arrangements for the adoption of a child without seeking to notify the PCT Father paternal or maternal signed of family in the circumstances again, that same procedure Don't mentioned was being employed here. Now what information that the court half as to father and the extended family? Well, this is where the court was aware that many of the extended family members had child protection, her concerns related to them. They had many of the Children would be made subject child protection plans under various categories. Andi, insofar as what was known of the Father couple, had really only been in a brief relationship for a few weeks. They're separated after Father became aware that the mother was expecting. So you think he didn't? He wasn't away about the doctor she was expecting, but the separate after mother was distressed by Father's abusive conduct water on. He didn't know of the year pregnancy and still did not know aunt. He continued to host mother, see social media attacks and otherwise, and even made threats to kill. The police had been informed and the father had other Children, and in fact, the police were able to confirm that insofar as the other Children were concerned, had even been no contact orders in relation to fathers of the Children, which therefore really showed the extent off history post too, to the moderate mothers of the other Children and potentially duress that he posed also two Children and therefore the court took the view that weighing up the assessment of risk insofar as the father was concerned, they had obtained a report from a domestic peace coordinator of the police force for the area in which the mother and father left. And it showed that the father, in fact at a long standing, in fact, 15 year history of abusive relationships and violent and aggressive behavior and therefore clearly was a significant risk in the circumstances. So the court therefore, was able to take this into account and therefore plank the criteria. Under the adoption, Children actives fires the child season to be a member of the original family on therefore potentially in place with the original family here having had analyzer circumstances. This was a case we're by. The court took the view that the child best interests will be best served by the father and the wider family not being informed. The father. The court was satisfied after father was advised of a child's existence, Mother and remove her for accommodation. She would expose a charter risk of harm from the father into circumstances. She would be forced to leave their home in the community and potentially put not only yourself but also of other two Children, also potential discharged at risk and therefore weighing up the Article eight rights. On balance, the court took divvy that it would be disproportionate to inform the father and the wider family of existence of the child and they found up basis. The declaration was granted on the court, therefore allowed the local sorted and proceed with making plans for the child to be placed for adoption. So you can see this is wonder most recent cases and it's a very effective case in assisting appear process and looking to see how having what second star NCI's permission will be granted, not notify. Okay, Can I thank you very much for listening? I hope has been used for four years. Fars weighing up somebody issues surrounding whether or not the wider family and father are to be notified in these circumstances. Thanks very much indeed for listening and speaking next time. Thank you. Bye. For now
Webinar
Slides
Quiz 
3062 Users
171 Courses
157 Reviews
