AJ (Child)

AJ (Child)

The appeal was dismissed because the judge's findings that adoption was necessary to secure AJ's welfare and permanence were unassailable on the facts. The risk of future disruptive applications by the parents could not be sufficiently mitigated by a special guardianship order, and the parents were unreasonably withholding consent. Adoption was a proportionate and necessary interference with Article 8 rights in this case.

Parties
Appellant (mother): JJ; Appellant (father): MJ; 1st and 3rd Respondents (the Adopters): AT & AT; 2nd Respondent (local Authority): Neath Port Talbot Borough Council; Subject Child: AJ (Child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family/adoption) / Appeal From Order Dispensing With Parental Consent to Adoption
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adoption, Special Guardianship Orders, Dispensing With Parental Consent, Welfare of the Child, Article 8 ECHR
Family Law Child Law Adoption Special Guardianship Orders Dispensing With Parental Consent Welfare of the Child Article 8 ECHR

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JJ

Appellant (mother)

MJ

Appellant (father)

AT & AT

1st and 3rd Respondents (the Adopters)

Neath Port Talbot Borough Council

2nd Respondent (local Authority)

AJ (Child)

Subject Child

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family/adoption) / Appeal From Order Dispensing With Parental Consent to Adoption

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court was correct to dispense with parental consent to adoption under section 16(2)(b) of the Adoption Act 1976
  2. 2 Whether a special guardianship order was a viable alternative to adoption
  3. 3 Whether the making of an adoption order was a proportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the judge's findings that adoption was necessary to secure AJ's welfare and permanence were unassailable on the facts. The risk of future disruptive applications by the parents could not be sufficiently mitigated by a special guardianship order, and the parents were unreasonably withholding consent. Adoption was a proportionate and necessary interference with Article 8 rights in this case.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed; order dispensing with parental consent to adoption affirmed