The child was referred to in the judgement as ‘T’. When she was removed from her mother and taken into care, a paternity test established that a ‘Mr H’ was her biological father, although he was not named as such on the birth certificate and so had no formal legal status. As a result of this discovery, he was included in the legal proceedings. Mr H applied permission to appeal the decision to take T into care but was refused.

The following year, he tried to oppose an application by her carers to formally adopt T, but he was again refused and T was legally adopted. But Mr H was persistent and two years later, in June 2019, he applied for permission to appeal the earlier refusal to allow him to appeal. Unsurprisingly this was unsuccessful as his application had been made some time after the legal deadline.

Then, acting without legal representation, he applied for a ‘declaration of parentage’. Mr H wanted T’s birth certificate to be amended to show that he was her biological father. As the case proceeded, it became clear that he believed a declaration might also mean that he would be able to play a role in his daughter’s life. The family court explained to him that it would not do so and he would not  receive ‘parental responsibility’ (the legal status of father) even if his application was successful.

High Court Judge Mr Justice MacDonald was asked to consider whether or not the courts had the authority to grant a declaration of parentage in these circumstances – and whether, under section 55A(5) of the Family Law Act 1986, it should refuse to do so because such a declaration would “would not be in the best interests of the child.”

The Judge concluded that yes, the court did have the legal authority to grant Mr H a declaration of parentage even though his biological daughter had been adopted by the other family. He cited section 55A(1) of the Family Law Act, which reads:

“…any person may apply to the High Court or the family court or a declaration as to whether or not a person named in the application is or was the parent of another person so named.”

This could apply to Mr H because his status as the biological father of T was an indisputable matter of fact, even though he had never been her legal father. Therefore, a declaration of parentage would not be in conflict with her status as the adopted child of another family.

The Judge quoted the views of T’s adopted parents:

“T’s adoptive parents harbour a concern that if Mr H’s application is granted it has the potential to cause disruption in the future should Mr H wish to cause difficulties. However, it is also clear, as set out above, that the adoptive parents believe it is important that T should know her full life history, that all official information in respect of her should be correct and without gaps and that, in this context, that they do not object to Mr H’s name being placed on T’s birth certificate.”

Therefore, he ruled the matter should be indeed considered at a subsequent hearing. His judgement ends with a warning for Mr H:

“Finally, it is once again important to ensure that Mr H is clear about the effect of this judgment and the potential outcomes consequent upon it. In particular, I again make clear to Mr H that, although I am satisfied that the court has jurisdiction to deal with his application and should do so at a final hearing, if the court decides to make a declaration of parentage in his favour that declaration will not confer on Mr H parental responsibility for T and will not confer on Mr H any other legal rights with respect to T. Whilst a birth parent remains, as a matter of fact, the biological parent of an adopted child, that birth parent has no legal standing in relation to the child.”

Read the full judgement here.

Photo by Michael Coghlan via Flickr (Creative Commons)

The post Courts to consider naming biological father of adopted girl appeared first on Major Family Law.

Education Secretary Gavin Williamson said the financial extension would allow the fund to run until at least 2021.

Originally launched in 2015, the Fund has already distributed £130 million in support to close to 50,000 families. The grants help pay for counselling and various therapies -for example, cognitive, music and play therapy – all intended to help children from troubled and abusive backgrounds settle into life with their new families.

Gavin Williamson said:

“This government will do everything we can to help support young people into an adoptive home and we’re tapping into the expertise of the wonderful people that work in this sector.”

Read more about the Adoption Support Fund here.

Image by Misty Johnson via Flickr (Creative Commons)

The post Government announces new support for adoptive families appeared first on Major Family Law.

In S-L (Children: Adjournment), Lord Justice Peter Jackson considered an appeal which had been lodged by a local authority. Social workers objected to a judge’s decision to adjourn the conclusion of a case concerning two young siblings. The three year-old girl and her seven month old brother had been neglected by their parents, who had an unstable relationship prone to outbursts of domestic abuse.

However, the judge in the earlier case decided against issuing final care and placement orders, which would have taken the children into the care system and made them available for adoption. Instead she ordered a further three-month assessment of the parents, despite the fact that this would extend resolution of the case beyond the 26 week timetable normally required in such cases.

Lord Jackson was critical of the ruling, saying the Judge had failed to justify this extension.

“In cases involving children, there can sometimes be good reasons for adjourning a final decision in order to obtain necessary information. The overriding obligation is to deal with the case justly, but there is a trade-off between the need for information and the presumptive prejudice to the child of delay…”

He added:

“Judges in the family court …are acutely aware that for babies and young children the passage of weeks and months is a matter of real significance.”

The parents had opposed the appeal and the Lord Justice Jackson referred to a claim made by their legal team that the earlier judge did no more than “press the pause button”. He insisted that:

“Adjourning a decision should never be seen as ‘pressing the pause button’: it is a positive purposeful choice that requires a proper weighing-up of the advantages and disadvantages and a lively awareness that the passage of time has consequences.”

The adjournment had been wrong, he concluded, and the case should be sent back to the lower courts for an urgent final hearing.

Read the judgement in full here.

Photo by Angus Fraser via Flickr (Creative Commons)

The post Family court judges must explain delays Court of Appeal rules appeared first on Major Family Law.