The Adoption Act, 1958 and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE DANCKWERTS,LORD JUSTICE SACHS |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 1966 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1966] EWCA Civ J1220-5 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 20 December 1966 |
[1966] EWCA Civ J1220-5
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Civil Division
Appeal from the Order of Judge Clover made at Bow County Court d/- 26.7.66.
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Denning),
Lord Justice Danckwerts, and
Lord Justice Sachs.
MR M.D. KENNELY (instructed by Messrs. C. Grobel, Son & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Mother.
MR N.B. COCKBURN (instructed by Messrs. Breeze Benton & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Adopting Parents)
MR J.E.A. SAMUELS (Town Clerk, London Borough of Waltnam Forest) appeared on behalf of the guardian ad litem (John H. Coley).
(As Revised)
This case is about a little girl whose Christian name is Allison. She was born on 23rd September, 1965, so she is now just fifteen months old. Her mother is unmarried, some 28 years of age. She has been associating with a married man and is unable to marry him. She had a little boy by him, who is now two-and-a-half, getting on for three, and she has kept that little boy with her.
When this baby girl was on the way, the mother thought she would have it adopted. She approached herself the adopting parents. They had been foster-parents to quite a number of children. These adopting parents were both in the middle 30's. They had a son of their own. But the wife could not have any more children, and on this occasion she said to this mother here: "I do not want to have this child if it is just to foster it, but I will take it to adopt it". She knew that she would get so fond of it that she could not part with it. The mother realised this. She told the adopting parents that she would let them adopt it and she never would go back on it. There is a letter in the mother's own handwriting in which she said: "Have you talked it over with your husband about the baby? You need not worry because if you have the baby you have it for good. I will never take her back from you as I know she will be going to a good home and that which I cannot give her". Then a little later on, when the baby's father had been told and was taking some objection, she wrote again to the adopting parents: "You need not worry. I am not going to take the baby back".
On that the adopting parents took the child and have looked after it ever since it was five weeks old, and they have become devoted to it.
The mother signed the adopting papers, but when the matter came before the Judge she sought to withdraw her consent. She said she wanted the child back. The Judge enquired into the position. There was evidence that in the early days after the child was born, the conditions in which the mother was living were most deplorable. They were not fit for children to be brought up in. The mother then went to Ireland - her home is in Dublin. It was proposed that she should go to a hostel provided by the religious authorities in Dublin and have the child there. She could go out to work and leave the child in their care. The CountyCourt Judge did not approve that proposal. He came to the conclusion on the whole that the mother was unreasonably withholding her consent.
The mother has now returned to England and appeals to us. We have heard ourselves fresh evidence, namely, the evidence of the Health Visitor. She has told us the present position of the mother. She is in a home hare in London provided by the local authority, a home for the homeless, where she has the little boy. She has told the Health Visitor of her affection for the little girl and she would like her back. The conditions at her present place are fairly good. The Health Visitor did not notice any particular defects. Does this new proposal make all...
To continue reading
Request your trial