P (a child), Re [2007] NICA 20_3 (04 June 2007)

P (a child), Re [2007] NICA 20_3 (04 June 2007)

The restriction of adoption applications to married couples under the 1987 Order is not unlawfully discriminatory under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR. There are material and relevant differences between married and unmarried couples, and the differentiation pursues a legitimate aim (the stability of the adoptive family) and is rationally justified. The legislature is entitled to draw such distinctions, and the court should defer to its policy choice.

Citation
[2007] NICA 20_3
Parties
Applicant: X; Applicant: Y; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
04 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adoption, Discrimination, Marital Status, Article 8 ECHR, Article 14 ECHR
Family Law Human Rights Law Adoption Discrimination Marital Status Article 8 ECHR Article 14 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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Applicant

Y

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether restricting adoption applications to married couples under Article 14 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 is incompatible with Article 8 and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Ratio Decidendi

The restriction of adoption applications to married couples under the 1987 Order is not unlawfully discriminatory under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR. There are material and relevant differences between married and unmarried couples, and the differentiation pursues a legitimate aim (the stability of the adoptive family) and is rationally justified. The legislature is entitled to draw such distinctions, and the court should defer to its policy choice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed