A Local Authority v M
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Honourable Mr Justice Munby,MR JUSTICE MUNBY |
| Judgment Date | 07 March 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWHC 219 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No: FD02A00509 |
| Date | 07 March 2003 |
| Court | Family Division |
[2003] EWHC 219 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FAMILY DIVISION
(In Public)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Munby
In The Matter Of The Adoption Act 1976
And In The Matter Of M (a Child)
Case No: FD02A00509
Mr Nick Goodwin (instructed by Authority Legal Services) for the applicant (the local authority)
Mr Michael Sternberg (instructed by White & Sherwin) for the first respondent (the child's guardian)
The second respondent (the child's adoptive father) was neither present nor represented
APPROVED JUDGMENT
Hearing dates: 30 April 2002, 24 July 2002, 25 September 2002, 16 December 2002
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6 1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
WARNING This judgment which was previously circulated to the parties in private is now (7 March 2003) being handed down in public. The text of this judgment can accordingly be reported, in whole or in part, on or after 7 March 2003; BUT anyone who proposes to do so should be aware that the reporting of this case is subject to an INJUNCTION which:
(1) restrains any person from publishing in any newspaper or broadcasting in any sound or television broadcast or by means of any cable or satellite programme service or public computer network or any other public medium:
For the avoidance of doubt nothing in this injunction prohibits the publication of any name or any other fact or matter which is contained in the judgment.
MR JUSTICE MUNBY:
These are adoption proceedings. I am giving this judgment in public because there is, I am satisfied, a pressing need for the events I am about to describe to be brought to the attention of the appropriate public authorities and, indeed, of the public at large.
This is merely the latest, though I fear it will not be the last, of a number of cases of inter-country adoptions where not merely has the process ended in disaster for the child but where that process has been facilitated by the criminal misconduct of so-called professional persons operating commercially in this country.
Similar problems have been high-lighted in the past in reported judgments of judges of the Family Division: see the decisions of Johnson J in Re C (Adoption: Legality) [1999] 1 FLR 370 and Re J-S (Private International Adoption) [2000] 2 FLR 638 and of Kirkwood J in Flintshire County Council v K [2001] 2 FLR 476. In each of those cases the judges commented in stringent – indeed damning – terms about the inadequacies of so called 'home study reports' prepared by so-called 'independent social workers' in support of applications by citizens of this country to adopt children in foreign jurisdictions. It is my melancholy duty to have to make similar complaints about the home study reports prepared in the present case.
It is high time that this evil and exploitative trade was stamped out. It is a trade because, however it is dressed up, it involves the buying and selling of babies by intermediaries who pocket most of the large sums of money which change hands during the course of the transaction. It is evil and exploitative because it battens on would-be adopters who, unable to adopt through more conventional channels, are induced in their desperation to part with large sums of money to intermediaries whose motives are purely mercenary; because it battens on the emotional turmoil of disadvantaged and desperately vulnerable birth mothers who are induced to part with their babies within days of birth, who see little of the large sums of money paid to the intermediaries by the adopters and who too often, as in the present case, soon come to regret their hasty and ill-considered decision; and because it can cause untold harm to children, untold misery to their birth mothers and untold heartache to adopters.
To that end I am directing that copies of this judgment are to be sent to a number of public officials so that what I hope will be effective steps can be taken at least to put a stop once and for all to the shameful and indeed criminal activities of the so-called independent social worker involved in this case.
THE FACTS IN OUTLINE
M was born in January 2000 in Houston in the State of Texas in the United States of America. Both her birth mother A, born in 1980, and her birth father B, born in 1976, are black African Americans who were born in and appear to have been normally resident at the time in Chicago in the State of Illinois, They were not married at the time: a fact confirmed by B personally to the guardian in July 2002. It is apparent that A moved to Texas immediately before, and specifically for the purpose of, the birth and subsequent adoption.
Prior to her birth arrangements had been made for M's adoption by C, born in 1957, and C's husband D, born in 1956. C and D were white citizens of this country, resident at that time within the area of a local authority which I shall refer to as "Authority X". They had met in 1993 and married in 1999.
The arrangements had been made on their behalf in the United States of America by Blessed Trinity Adoptions Inc, a body licensed by the Texas Department of Human Services on 14 June 1991 under the Human Resources Code, Chapter 42, as a child placing agency providing foster care placements and adoption services. As can be seen from the published report of Johnson J's judgment, it was the agency involved in Re J-S. I understand that it is no longer operating, its moving spirit, a Ms Winnell Byrd, having died in July 2000.
In this country the arrangements were made by Jay Carter who, describing herself on her notepaper as an "independent social worker" and "counsellor", operates from an address in the north- east of England. Although he was not identified by Johnson J in his published judgment, I am told by the guardian's solicitor that Jay Carter's husband was the author of the home study report which was excoriated by Johnson J in Re C. And although Johnson J likewise chose not to disclose her identity in his published judgment, it is apparent from papers I have seen that Jay Carter was the independent social worker whose home study report was similarly condemned by Johnson J in Re J-S. Jay Carter was also the worker whose home study report was condemned by Kirkwood J in the Flintshire case. She provided a number of home study reports in the present case. They are lamentable documents.
As I have said, A moved to Texas immediately before, and specifically for the purpose of, the birth and subsequent adoption. It seems that she was told by Blessed Trinity Adoptions Inc that she must come to Texas for the birth. They sent a taxi to her home in Chicago to take her to the airport and provided a flight. Her baby was born on arrival in Texas.
Only three days later A signed before two witnesses and a Notary Public in Texas an 'irrevocable mother's affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights to licensed child-placing agency'. By that document A said:
"I freely, voluntarily, and permanently give and relinquish to" Blessed Trinity Adoptions Inc "all of my parental rights, privileges, powers and duties. I consent to the placement of my child for adoption by this agency."
Four days later – when M was just seven days old – the Honorable Robert J Kern, Judge of the Family District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas, 387th Judicial District, made a temporary order that Blessed Trinity Adoptions Inc serve as Temporary Managing Conservator of M, with power to appoint D and C, the potential adoptive parents, to act on behalf of Blessed Trinity Adoptions Inc and in the best interest of the child, and to allow the child to travel overseas.
Four days later – when M was still just eleven days old – C arrived with M at Gatwick Airport, having travelled on a temporary one year passport issued by the United States Department of State, Houston Passport Agency, the day before. On arrival at Gatwick they were detained for questioning by United Kingdom immigration officers. Permission was given for M to be brought into the country on a temporary basis, She went to live with C and D within the area of Authority X. An application was made to the Home Office for indefinite leave for M to remain in the United Kingdom (see a letter from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office dated 18 October 2000).
On 1 September 2000 there was a further hearing in court in Texas. C and D attended.
On 18 November 2000 B was served with a citation to relinquish his parental rights of M.
On 22 December 2000 Judge Kern made a decree of adoption, finding that M had no living parent whose parental rights had not been terminated by final judicial decree and that the adoption was in the best interests of M. He ordered and decreed that her adoption by D and C be granted and that the parent-child relationship should henceforth exist between her and them.
On 16 May 2001 the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office wrote to say that M had been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
In May 2001 C separated from D and went with M and her two youngest children, her daughters E and F, to live in the area of another local authority which I shall refer to as "Authority Y".
On 2 August 2001 C committed suicide.
M was placed with friends of the family, G and H. On 9 August 2001 the case was referred to a local authority which I shall refer to as "Authority Z". On 14 August 2001 D informed Authority Z that he did not wish to have M returned to him. On 11 September 2001 G and H told Authority Z that they could not continue to care for M. On...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re W (A Child)
...[2014] COPLR 416. Lake v Lake [1955] 2 All ER 538, [1955] P 336, [1955] 3 WLR 145, CA. M (adoption: international adoption trade), Re[2003] EWHC 219 (Fam), [2003] 3 FCR 193, [2003] 1 FLR M (children) (judge’s findings of fact: jurisdiction to appeal), Re[2013] EWCA Civ 1170 (4 October 2013,......
-
Thomson and Others, R v The Minister of State for Children
...Ltd v Department of Trade [1977] 2 All ER 182, [1977] QB 643, [1977] 2 WLR 234, CA. M (adoption: international adoption trade), Re[2003] EWHC 219 (Fam), [2003] 3 FCR 193, [2003] 1 FLR 1111. Maaouia v France (2000) 9 BHRC 205, ECt HR. Marckx v Belgium (1979) 2 EHRR 330, [1979] ECHR 6833/74, ......
-
Re Ward
...was not known to the public until she was publicly exposed and named in the judgment in Re M (Adoption: International Adoption Trade) [2003] EWHC 219 (Fam), [2003] 1 FLR 1111. As a commentator has observed (Camilla Cavendish, The Times, 29 March 2007), ‘In the dark, we cannot see whether p......
-
Singh v Entry Clearance Officer, New Delhi
...v Netherlands[1995] 2 FCR 28, ECt HR. Lebbink v Netherlands[2004] 3 FCR 59, ECt HR. M (adoption: international adoption trade), Re[2003] EWHC 219 (Fam), [2003] 3 FCR 193, [2003] 1 FLR Marckx v Belgium (1979) 2 EHRR 330, [1979] ECHR 6833/74, ECt HR. Mohamed v Knott [1968] 2 All ER 563, [1969......