Family Law Hub

Adoption and Children Act 2002

Statute, published: 31/12/2002

Items referring to this

  • In this surrogacy case, the commissioning parents were applying for a parental order in relation to two girls where the application had been made 17 months after the 6 month deadline had expired. The parental orders were made. Judgment, 22/07/2015, free
  • Judgment, 10/03/2013, free
  • Application for a parental order under s.54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 Case note, 15/04/2013, free
  • A contact case in which no order for direct contact was made between the child and F, despite F being "an unimpeachable father who has been consistently prevented from enjoying contact with his daughter by an implacably hostile mother". The previous systemic failure ended in a hearing which itself was highly unsatisfactory and where the judge had failed to conduct a sufficiently thorough analysis, such that it made it almost inevitable that the court ordered a full rehearing. Judgment, 09/09/2013, free
  • Application for a child arrangements order by the ex-partner of the child's non-biological mother. Application refused. Judgment, 22/06/2015, free
  • A final hearing in respect of an application for a parental order under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008) concerning two children born pursuant to a surrogacy arrangement between the applicants and the respondent, the gestational surrogate. Parental orders made. Judgment, 02/08/2013, free
  • Surrogacy case where the same sex couple was seeking a PR order after the 6 month time limit following the birth of the children had passed and where the Indian surrogate mother could not be located (there was also uncertainty about her marital status). The PR order was made. Judgment, 16/02/2015, free
  • Judgment, 15/01/2013, free
  • Application for a parental order in relation to a child born as a result of a surrogacy arrangement entered into by the parties through a surrogacy agency based in California. Parental order made. Judgment, 02/08/2013, free
  • Application for a parental order in relation to a child born pursuant to section 54 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (‘HFEA 2008’). The child was conceived through IVF treatment in Moscow, with the First Applicant’s sperm and eggs from an anonymous Russian donor, and carried by a married Russian surrogate mother. Parental order made. Judgment, 02/08/2013, free
  • Costs order made against Capita after they failed to provide interpreters in a public law case, leading to the adjournment of the hearing. Judgment, 06/02/2015, free
  • In brief: The High Court allowed a mother’s (“M”) appeal against a suspended committal order made following her failure to comply with a child arrangements order. The success was based on the fact that no application to commit M had been made; the only application made and served had been for an enforcement order. The order was incapable of being enforced by committal as it was not endorsed with an effective penal notice. Judgment, 06/08/2018, free
  • An unusual application brought by a mother to terminate a father’s parental responsibility and father’s cross application for a specific issue order that mother supply him with reports of their child’s progress. Judgment, 19/05/2013, free
  • Judgment from The President concerning lack of legal aid & representation for a couple who have learning disabilities where the local authority was seeking to adopt their child outside the wider family. Judgment, 08/01/2015, free
  • Judgment, 01/10/2012, free
  • Application by mother for termination of father's parental responsibility and application by the father for a specific issues order requiring the mother to supply annual reports on the child Judgment, 15/04/2013, free
  • Despite the concerns raised (including reservations by Cafcass about the relationship of the applicants and whether it was, in fact, an enduring family relationship as required by s 54(2)(c) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 and concerns by the court about the status and legality of the agreement entered into in Thailand) the court made parental orders in respect of both children. Judgment, 19/07/2016, free
  • Father's appeal against an order which allowed the mother to permanently relocate to Germany with their daughter. The appeal was allowed: the judge's reliance on the Payne v Payne criteria led her away from carrying out the necessary overall welfare analysis that was needed. Judgment, 06/08/2015, free
  • A case heard by the President, Munby J, who granted a reporting restriction order, contra mundum, to prevent the publication of details of a child who was subject to care proceedings. The order prevented the naming, but not publication of images, of the child, nor did it prevent the naming of the social workers involved in the case. Judgment, 06/09/2013, free
  • Follow up to the judgment in J (A Minor) [2016] EWHC 2430 (Fam) to consider whether or to what extent that judgment should be placed in the public domain. Judgment, 21/10/2016, free
  • Application by a same sex couple for parental orders in respect of twins born to a surrogate mother in the USA. At the end of the judgment, the judge emphasises the need for parental orders to be made promptly in respect of children born as a result of international surrogacy agreements. Judgment, 28/05/2013, free
  • The child of the parties was born as a result of a 'partial' surrogacy agreement. The father was the biological father of the child but the mother was neither the biological or birth mother. The parties failed to lodge their application for a parental order in time, which was 6 months from the date of birth of the child. They did however have a shared residence order. Their relationship then broke down and they eventually divorced. The problem in this case was that a parental order could now not be made because they did not satisfy s54(3) of the HFEA 2008 (the 6 month time limit point), nor could the couple adopt the child because they were no longer together and did not satisfy s54(4)(a). Mrs. Justice Eleanor King, in making the child a ward of court, endorsing the shared residence order, delegating joint parental responsibility to the parties and prohibiting the surrogate mother from exercising any parental responsibility, said that the facts of this exceptional case 'stand as a valuable cautionary tale of the serious legal and practical difficulties which can arise where men or women, desperate for a child of their own, enter into informal surrogacy arrangements, often in the absence of any counselling or any specialist legal advice'. Judgment, 06/03/2014, free
  • In brief: Here the father (“F”) was a litigant in person (legal aid having been refused). The mother (“M”) alleged that he had deliberately stranded her in Pakistan, separating her from her children and had subjected her to coercive, controlling behaviour as well as physical and verbal abuse. At the fact-finding hearing in wardship proceedings, the judge directed the children’s guardian, who was legally represented, to cross-examine both parents in order to prevent F from cross-examining M. Judgment, 06/08/2018, free
  • Mother's application to change the 2 children's surnames and terminate Father's parental responsibility for them was granted. Judgment, 15/09/2016, free
  • Judgment, 26/08/2012, free
  • Case note, 30/08/2012, members only
  • Appeal against dismissal of step-father's applications to adopt the two children of his Polish partner both of whom had different Polish fathers. In the words of McFarlane LJ the case "presents a timely opportunity to consider how an adoption application brought by a child's step-parent is to be approached." He allowed the appeal and made the orders. Judgment, 15/08/2014, free
  • Appeal against orders refusing to grant F parental responsibility, dismissing the F's application for direct contact and making orders for indirect e-mail contact and under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 [CA 1989] that no application may be made by F for an order under the Act for a period of two years. Permission was granted but limited to the parental responsibility and section 91(14) decisions. Both mother and the child through his children’s guardian opposed the appeal. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 02/08/2013, free
  • Judgment, 17/12/2012, free
  • Judgment, 04/07/2012, free
  • Proceedings relating to a child born to a Thai mother, who had falsely persuaded her husband that he was the child's father. Judgment, 30/12/2011, free
  • Judgment, 26/06/2012, free
  • Application for an adoption order where the applicant had entered into a surrogacy arrangement with his mother. The adoption order was made. Judgment, 05/03/2015, free
  • Surrogacy case in which the court had to decide if significant sums paid to the surrogate mother, which were made after the US surrogacy agent drafted an agreement, were disproportionate to reasonable expenses. Although it was conceded that payments other than for expenses reasonably incurred was unlawful in the state in which the surrogate lived, the judge ruled that the biological parents acted in good faith and were not aware of any difficulties until the issue was raised by their lawyers in this jurisdiction. The judge therefore authorised the payments under s 54 (8) and granted parental orders in favour of the biological parents. Judgment, 21/11/2013, free
  • In a tweet: Non-mol order can be made to supplement an injunction made under inherent jurisdiction Judgment, 19/01/2018, free
  • A case providing another cautionary tale of the difficulties that can be encountered in entering into foreign surrogacy arrangements. The main questions here, when considering an application for a parental order, were whether consent had been given by the surrogate mother and whether the court should authorise payments totalling almost $28,000 to the surrogate agency. Judgment, 01/05/2014, free
  • Judgment from The President concerning surrogacy, parental orders, the six month time limit for application from the child's date of birth and whether the court has jurisdiction to make such an order if the application is made after the expiration of 6 months. He concludes it does. Judgment, 03/10/2014, free
  • A parental order was granted following a surrogacy arrangement which took place in Nepal. The judgment includes some helpful advice from the FCO regarding overseas surrogacy arrangements. Judgment, 12/05/2016, free
  • When section 54(1) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 provides that in certain circumstances the court may make a parental order on the application of "two people", is it open to the court to make such an order on the application of one person? Can section 54(1) be 'read down' in accordance with section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 so as to enable that to be done? These were the questions raised for decision here and in Munby P's judgment the answer to each question was clear: No Judgment, 08/09/2015, free

Published: 31/12/2002


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item