FAS v Bradford Metropolitan District Council & Anor

FAS v Bradford Metropolitan District Council & Anor

The court refused the adoption order because the only benefit to MW would be citizenship, which is a matter for the Home Secretary, and there are no welfare benefits to MW during his childhood. Lord Hoffmann's second proposition remains operative under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and the court should not use adoption to circumvent immigration controls.

Parties
Applicant: FAS; 1st Respondent: Bradford Metropolitan District Council; 2nd Respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Adoption Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for adoption order refused
Legal Topics
Adoption of Adults, Inter Country Adoption, Immigration Status and Citizenship, Consent to Adoption, Welfare of the Child, Jurisdiction of the Court in Adoption, Public Policy and Immigration Control
Family Law Immigration Law Adoption of Adults Inter Country Adoption Immigration Status and Citizenship Consent to Adoption Welfare of the Child Jurisdiction of the Court in Adoption +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FAS

Applicant

Bradford Metropolitan District Council

1st Respondent

Secretary of State for the Home Department

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Adoption Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an adoption order should be granted for an adult where the main benefit is citizenship
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise discretion to make an adoption order where the applicant is an unlawful overstayer
  3. 3 Whether Lord Hoffmann's second proposition in Re B (A Minor) (Adoption Order: Nationality) remains operative under the Adoption and Children Act 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the adoption order because the only benefit to MW would be citizenship, which is a matter for the Home Secretary, and there are no welfare benefits to MW during his childhood. Lord Hoffmann's second proposition remains operative under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and the court should not use adoption to circumvent immigration controls.

Court Disposition

Application for adoption order refused