(DIR) Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Soul of Adoption
(HTM) https://soulofadoption.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
(DIR) Return to: Adoption in the Media
*****************************************************
#Post#: 32--------------------------------------------------
Judges attack adoption 'disgrace'
By: Montraviatommygun Date: March 7, 2011, 3:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Judges attack adoption 'disgrace'
Senior judges have attacked the "disgraceful" conduct of East
Sussex social services over the adoption of a child against the
wishes of her father.
Lord Justice Thorpe said East Sussex County Council "was out to
gain its ends by means more foul than fair" by rushing through
the adoption case.
Appeal Court judges ordered that copies of their ruling should
be sent to all family judges and adoption agencies.
A council spokesman said it would carefully review its part in
the case.
It said it would also examine its procedures in light of what
the judges had said.
"In exercising our responsibilities in cases like these we
always have to achieve a difficult balance between considering
the best interests of the child, dealing with matters in a
timely way, and the interests of the birth parents and
prospective adoptive parents," a council statement said.
'Manifest injustice'
The child, who the court ordered should not be identified, was
born in November 2006 to parents who had had a casual
relationship.
The appellant, identified only as MC, did not know he was the
father until the council served care proceedings on him and
asked him for a DNA test.
At the time the child was with her mother but the council had
recommended adoption.
The Court of Appeal in London heard that although the father was
served with the proceedings he was in hospital after a heart
attack and took no part.
He eventually learned of the adoption plans once the child,
known as J-L, was in the care of foster parents.
He alerted his solicitors who immediately contacted the council
and applied for permission to revoke the placement order at
Brighton County Court.
Barbara MacDonald, the lawyer who acted for the father, said the
hearing was due to take place on 30 January, but on the day
before the council ratified the adoption panel's decision.
She said it meant that the father, when he got to court on the
30 January, "couldn't be heard by the judge".
Lord Justice Thorpe said the council should have responded
"promptly and openly" to the solicitors' inquiries and the
father had "suffered a manifest injustice".
"The council's failure to answer that letter and subsequent
placement on the eve of the hearing give rise to the clearest
inference that the council was out to gain its ends by means
more foul than fair," he said.
The judges added that no evidence in response to the father's
statement was heard at an adoption meeting.
Appeal rejected
But the judges' panel ruled with "regret" that they could not
allow the father to challenge the adoption order in court.
Lord Justice Wall said "a travesty of good practice" had
happened in the case but ruled that the best course of action
would be to ensure such conduct could not happen elsewhere.
He added that he could see no reason why a High Court judicial
review should not declare a decision such as that taken by the
agency as unlawful.
"If it did so, it would quash the decision to place the child
for adoption," he said.
A spokesman for the father's solicitors said they would be
seeking legal aid to pursue the judge's suggestion.
East Sussex County Council said it regretted that the father's
late intervention was not acknowledged by letter
"It remains our view that it would not have been in the best
interests of the child to delay the adoption process further and
we are pleased to say that the child is happy and thriving."
Nadine Taylor, from Fathers 4 Justice, said the case illustrated
similar problems experienced by many "who had no voice".
"I don't think I have seen anything positive about social
services since I've been doing this work... it's as if they just
ignore the fact that fathers and grandparents exist."
She added: "We have a father who's been denied the opportunity
to be a loving father to his own, his own child, his own flesh
and blood.
"And on top of that you have grandparents who would have
probably adored the fact that they had a grandchild to dote on,
and they again have been cut out of that child's life."
(HTM) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7378031.stm
*****************************************************