No Father’s Rights in Baby Concealment Case in UK
Another set of entitled adoptive parents and the judge is despicable. Again, sympathy only for the adoptive parents.
“A ‘cruelly deceived’ father who has never seen his five-year-old son today had his hopes dashed of building a relationship with the boy.
Appeal Court judges recognised the ‘bitter heartache’ of the father, who found out he was the boy’s father when he was aged four, after a DNA test.
The youngster was conceived during a brief affair the man had with his mother, who had always lied by insisting that the child was not his.
He was placed with adopters in November 2010 – and they are desperate to finally have him legally recognised as their son.
But the adoption process was stalled when the truth about the boy’s paternity emerged. The father then fought through the courts in the hope that he or his sister would be allowed to bring him up.
The mother, who later rekindled her relationship with the father – although they are now apart again – supported his campaign, saying: ‘I do not want my child to be adopted by strangers.’
The father was in the process of taking his case to the Court of Appeal, citing alleged breaches of his human rights, when a final adoption order was made by a judge in April last year.
The country’s most senior family judge, the President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, today ended all prospects of the boy having a relationship with his natural father.
He said: ‘Recognising the bitter heartache that this must cause a father who, it would seem, was cruelly deceived by the mother of his child, I was in the end entirely satisfied that his appeal had to be dismissed.
‘Standing back from the detail, the reality is that the father has no relationship with C, indeed he has never even seen him, and that C has now been settled for over two years with the adopters.
‘How can we, how can any judge, take the risk of disturbing that?’
Sir James, sitting with Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Aikens, said that the adopters had been waiting for two years for the adoption to be finalised and had ‘been through the mill’. [Oh please! What about the FATHER?]
The boy is deeply attached to them, having never known his father or any other family, and it was in his best interests to stay where he is, the court concluded.
After criticising the making of a final adoption order when the father still had an appeal pending, the judge said: ‘I cannot part from this case without expressing my very great concerns about that it reveals about our system.
‘The history of events…makes for depressing and profoundly worrying reading. This is not, I stress, necessarily a criticism of those involved, most of whom did what was required of them.
‘It is a criticism of a system whose inadequacies and potential for catastrophe have here been all too starkly exposed.
‘No humanly devised system can ever be foolproof, but we must do everything to ensure as best we can that future catastrophes are prevented.’”
[Daily Mail 4/25/13 by Mark Duell]
“In C (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 431, the President of the Family Division has given guidance to the profession concerning urgent appeals in adoption cases.
The case concerned a child, C was born in 2007. The appellant was in fact, though he did not know it at the time, his father. C’s mother was unable to care for him. Just three days after he was born, the local authority obtained an interim care order in relation to C. He was subsequently placed with a foster carer with whom he remained until October 2010. In 2008 a final care order was made, followed by a placement order. In October 2010 he was moved to an interim placement while introductions began with the adopters. In November 2010 he was placed with the adopters. He has been with them ever since. On 20 April 2011 the adopters applied to the Principal Registry for an adoption order under section 46 of the 2002 Act.
Meanwhile, from late 2010 the appellant began to suspect that he might be the father of C. In about May 2011 he became aware of the adoption proceedings. In October 2011 a DNA test confirmed his paternity and he immediately sought permission to defend / oppose the adoption order. On the 7th February 2012 the application was rejected and on the 28th February the appellant filed an appellant’s notice. Extensions of time were sought by the appellant’s solicitors to fulfil the requirements of the Civil Appeals Office whilst they awaited receipt of the transcript of the judgment and confirmation of public funding. An extension was granted until the 6th April. However, the adoption hearing, of which neither the appellant nor his solicitors had been informed, took place on the 2nd April. Although the court was aware of the pending appeal application, the hearing proceeded and the adoption order was made.
There were further delays in the provision of the transcript and consideration of the appellant’s public funding application which was refused. Eventually he was provided with legal representation by the Bar Pro Bono Unit.
The court concluded that the adoption order should stand.
“[R]ecognising the bitter heartache this must cause for a father who, it would seem, was cruelly deceived by the mother of his child,” the President said, “…. the reality is that the appellant has no relationship with C, indeed has never even seen him, and that C has now been settled for over two years with the adopters. How can we, how could any judge, take the risk of disturbing that?”
Appeals against a placement order
The President concluded:
“I cannot part from this case without expressing my very great concerns about what it reveals of our system.”
He said:
“In every case where an application to the Court of Appeal is made for permission to appeal against the making of a placement order (or of any order consequent upon the making of a placement order) the following steps must be taken (and when I say must I mean must):
i) The appellant’s notice must be filed as soon as possible.
ii) Those advising the appellant must give careful thought to including in the appellant’s notice any appropriate application for a stay or other interim relief.
iii) If a transcript of the judgment being appealed against is not then available:
a) the appellant’s notice must be accompanied by whatever note of the judgment (even if unapproved) is available; and
b) the transcript must be ordered immediately.
iv) When an application for a transcript is received, the court from which the appeal is being brought must deal with the application immediately.
v) Respondents who are parties to any application consequential upon the placement order (eg, an application for an adoption order) must immediately inform both the appellant and the Court of Appeal of:
a) the fact of the making of the application; and
b) the date(s) of any hearing of the application.
“I invite the relevant supervising Lords Justices and the Master of the Rolls to consider a change to the present practice in the Court of Appeal. That practice, properly followed in the present case by those handling the papers in the CAO, is that an application for permission to appeal is normally not put before a Lord Justice until the bundle is complete, in particular until the transcript is available. As a general practice that is, no doubt, entirely appropriate, but there must be cases where the delay that it necessarily imposes cannot be afforded. In the context of family appeals, the present class of case is one; another (not least because of the very strict time limits on such cases which Parliament is shortly to impose) is where the proposed appeal is against an interim case management decision in a care case. In such cases there is a powerful argument for saying that, irrespective of the contents of whatever bundle has been lodged with the CAO, the papers should be put before a Lord Justice as soon as the appellant’s notice is received so that immediate directions can be given if appropriate.”
Deirdre Fottrell of Coram Chambers (instructed by Creighton & Partners) represented the appellant (the natural father). Alistair G Perkins of 4 Paper Buildings (instructed by the local authority) represented the local authority and the adoptive parents.
The judgment can be read here.”
President gives guidance on urgent appeals in adoption cases
[Family Law Week website]
REFORM Puzzle Piece
Recent Comments