Re ZHH (Adoption Application)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1992 |
| Year | 1992 |
| Date | 1992 |
| Court | Family Division |
BOOTH, J
Adoption – breach of statutory provisions – child placed with proposed adopter otherwise than by adoption agency – whether High Court precluded from making adoption order.
An unmarried mother gave birth to a daughter in January 1984. It was impossible for her to look after the child but she wanted the very best for her. The mother therefore sought a person suitable to adopt the child. The applicant was a divorced woman. She was unable to bear children but deeply wanted to have a child. She was known to the mother. In September 1984, after the mother and the applicant had taken legal advice, the child was placed with the applicant for adoption. The applicant immediately informed the local authority of the position and in May 1985 formally notified them of her intention to apply to adopt the child.
The placement was in breach of s 29(1) of the Adoption Act 1958 and was an illegal placement which was a criminal offence. The local authority decided not to take criminal proceedings. Further, they were wholly satisfied with the manner in which the child was being cared for by the applicant.
The applicant applied for an adoption order. It was the view of the local authority, supported by that of the Official Solicitor, that adoption would be in the child's best interests.
Held – granting the application: The child was being extremely well looked after by the applicant and adoption of the child by her would be entirely in the child's best interests. However, by s 29(1) of the Adoption Act 1958 only an adoption agency could place a child for adoption unless the proposed adopter was a relative of the child or the placement was made in pursuance of an order of the High Court. The applicant was not a relative and neither she nor the mother was acting in pursuance of an order of the High Court. It was clear that the section rendered those who contravened it liable to criminal prosecution. But the section did not, in terms, preclude the court thereafter making an adoption order. By s 9(2) of the Children Act 1975, read with s 9(1) of that Act, it was provided that where the applicant was not, inter alia, a relative and the child had not been placed by an adoption agency or in pursuance of an order of the High Court, an adoption order should not be made unless the child was at least 12 months old and had, during the preceding 12 months, had his home with the applicant. That provision clearly referred to a placement which did not fall within the terms of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Re AW (Adoption Application)
-
Re U (Application to Free for Adoption)
...sub nom Re W (A Minor) (Adoption Agency: Wardship) [1990] Fam 156; [1990] 2 WLR 1116; [1990] 2 All ER 463. ZHH (Adoption Application), Re[1992] 1 FCR 197. Rodger Hayward Smith, QC and Gerwyn Samuel for the local Paul Focke, QC and Michael Lane for the grandparents. Michael Horowitz, QC and ......
-
Re G (A Minor) (Adoption: Illegal Placement)
...I need not read s 13(3) for present purposes. However, s 13(2) does not – as one of the reported cases, Re ZHH (Adoption Application)[1992] 1 FCR 197, to which I will refer later suggests – indicate that Parliament contemplated an adoption where there has been an illegal placement. Section ......
-
Re G (Adoption: Illegal Placement)
...in that case (see judgment at page 584, letters C-D), could alter the position. This was an argument which attracted Booth J in Re ZHH [1993] 1 FLR 83 at page 85, but, as I have already said, Section 13 (2) is dealing with an entirely different aspect of the protection of the child. I refer......