Re C and F (Minors) (Adoption)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 November 1996 |
| Date | 13 November 1996 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Butler-Sloss, Lord Justice Millett and Lord Justice Waller
Adoption - notice not to allow children to remain with prospective adopters - no jurisdiction for court to intervene
Where an adoption agency had issued to prospective adoptive parents a notice, under section 30(1)(b) of the Adoption Act 1976, of the agency's intention not to allow the children to remain in the prospective parents' home, and the parents had not before issue of the notice made an application for an adoption order under section 30(2), there was no jurisdiction for the court to intervene under section 30 and no scope for an application for an interim order under section 25, which was irrelevant to the situation.
The Court of Appeal so held in dismissing an appeal by a prospective adoptive father from the dismissal by Mr Justice Johnson of the father's adoption applications in respect of two children which were issued after receipt of a section 30(1)(b) notice of the local authority's intention to remove the children.
Mr Jeremy Posnansky, QC and Mr Roger Bickerdike for the father; Mrs Jill Black, QC, for the local authority.
LORD JUSTICE BUTLER-SLOSS said that the framework of section 30 in Part III of the Act was clear. A child was to be returned to the adoption agency within seven days of either the prospective adopters (under section 30(1)(a)) or the agency (under section 30(1)(b)) giving notice. In either event it was a matter between the persons with whom the child had been placed and the agency and there was no recourse to the court.
Provision was made, however, within the framework for the decision of the agency to remove the child placed with prospective adopters after an adoption application was made. In that event, and only in that event, the local authority required the leave of the court and the decision was that of the court and not of the prospective adopters or of the agency.
In the instant case the notice by the agency was given in advance of the application to adopt by the father and there was, clearly, no jurisdiction in Part III of the Act to enable the court to intervene.
Mr Posnansky had suggested that, provided the prospective parent had issued his application to adopt within the seven-day period, since an applicant was entitled to apply for an interim order under section 25 of the Act and, if granted, would be able to establish the residence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Cornwall County Council and Another
...notice: local authority), Re[1994] 2 FCR 839; sub nom Re C (a minor) (adoption) [1994] 1 WLR 1220, CA. C and F (minors) (adoption), Re[1997] 1 FCR 405, R v Lancashire CC, ex p M[1992] 1 FCR 283, CA. Consolidated appealsThe foster parents applied for an adoption order in respect of a child a......
-
Devon County Council v B
...ss 1, 6 and 30. Adoption Agency Regulations 1983. Children Act 1989, s 22. Cases referred to in judgment: C and F (Minors) (Adoption), Re[1997] 1 FCR 405. R v Hereford and Worcester County Council, ex parte D[1992] 1 FCR 497. W (Powers of Adoption Agency), Re [1990] FCR 736. Ian Karsten, QC......