Adoption

The Children and Families Act 2014 (CFA 2014) made changes to adoption, in particular as to post-adoption contact, the emphasis to be placed on ethnicity and fostering to adopt. The Public Law Outline (PLO 2014) as set out in Family Procedure Rules 2010, PD 12A applies to adoption proceedings, see Practice Note: Public law children procedure—Public Law Outline.

General principles

The Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002) embodies the law on adoption and was aimed at improving adoption support to encourage more people to come forward to adopt. It places a duty on local authorities to make arrangements for the provision of adoption support services to promote adoption as a means of giving looked after children the chance to live in permanent homes.

The framework of ACA 2002 is intended to:

  1. simplify the adoption process

  2. make the child’s welfare a paramount consideration in decisions on adoption

  3. avoid delay

  4. make provision for the process of adoption and the conditions for the making of adoption orders, including measures

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Family News

Family court judges’ anonymisation reversed by Court of Appeal (Tickle & Summers v BBC and others)

Family analysis: The murder of ten-year-old Sara Sharif by her father and step-mother continues to dominate the UK news. Following her death, journalists (Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers) and major news organisations sought disclosure of documents and information from the historical Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) proceedings concerning Sara and her siblings, including the relevant judges’ names. Despite the judges involved in those proceedings having made no application in respect of their own anonymity, Mr Justice Williams nonetheless included in his disclosure order a provision that their names were not to be published. The appeals against Williams J’s decision were successful on each of the three grounds advanced. He had lacked jurisdiction to order the judges’ anonymisation and there had been serious procedural irregularities owing to the lack of submissions and evidence on the anonymisation issue. The Court of Appeal also disapproved of the judge’s use of anecdotal material and his own experiences to try to shore up his judgment. Williams J was further criticised for his unfair treatment of the journalists and Channel 4. Publication of the judges’ names has now taken place in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s decision to ensure a short interval of seven days occurred during which time HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) was required to put in place any protective measures. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, examines the issues.

View Family by content type :

Popular documents