BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just Β£1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Family Court Decisions (High Court Judges) |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (High Court Judges) >> J and S (Children), Re [2014] EWFC 4 (23 May 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2014/4.html Cite as: [2014] EWFC 4, [2015] 1 FLR 850 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
(In Open Court)
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
In the matter of J and S (Children) |
____________________
Mr Roger Hall (of Kent County Council) for Kent County Council
Ms Cherry Harding (instructed by Kingsfords LLP) for the prospective adopters
Mr Jeremy Hall (instructed by Davis Simmonds and Donaghey) for the children
Hearing dates: 7 and 15 May 2014
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division :
The background
"The parents have made it clear they do not accept the concerns about their parenting in the past and, in effect, can see no basis to change how they parented the children in the past. Without any insight there is no prospect for any change"
and that:
"if the children returned to the care of their parents there would be no change in the parenting or care they received prior to being placed with foster carers. The parents can see no basis to change as, in their view, all the evidence has been made up. They will, in my judgment, not accept any social work intervention or support that questions their parenting."
"Both children are of Roma Slovakian origin and any placement will need to be sensitive to their needs and identity Both children are of Roma Slovakian origin and their parents are practising Catholics."
She added:
"There can be no doubt the parents wish to care for J and S and each strongly object to the plans to place the children for adoption, in particular because of the impact such an order would have on their Roma identity. But the children's welfare needs for long-term security and stability outweigh this consideration."
Subsequent events
The hearing on 7 May 2014
Capita
The hearing on 15 May 2014
"it is highly desirable, and from now on good practice will require, that in any care or other public law case the court should normally accede to any request, whether from the foreign national or from the consular authorities of the relevant foreign state, for permission for an accredited consular official to be present at the hearing as an observer in a non-participatory capacity".
The application under Article 15
"[28] At the start of this hearing the parents confirmed that as their primary case was for the children to be rehabilitated to their care in this jurisdiction they did not pursue a transfer of the proceedings pursuant to Art 15. Their secondary position was that in the event that the court did not return the children to their care they sought placement of the children in the children's home in Slovakia pursuant to Art 56.
[29] They agreed that in the event that the court decided not to return the children to the care of their parents the focus then was on Art 56 "
i) It is not open to the parents to renew an application which has already been determined against them.ii) It is in any event far too late in the day to be contemplating a transfer under Article 15: see Nottingham City Council v LM and Others [2014] EWCA Civ 152, paras 32, 58.
iii) In fact the proceedings have now progressed beyond the point at which BIIR applies. Article 1(3)(b) provides that BIIR "shall not apply to decisions on adoption, measures preparatory to adoption, or the annulment or revocation of adoption".
Article 56
i) First, there is no new material which even begins to suggest that Theis J's decision on the point, not disturbed by the Court of Appeal, should be reconsidered.ii) Second, and for the same reason as in relation to Article 15, the proceedings have now progressed beyond the point at which Article 56 applies.
Section 47(5)
"The third alleged change of circumstances is the application to the ECHR. I cannot see how this can be a change of circumstances, particularly where the ECHR has not accepted the case."
"Our family is a Slovak Roma family and we are practising Catholics and a homosexual couple as potential adopters is very different from what Mrs Justice Theis had in mind in her judgment as this will not promote the children's Roma heritage or their Catholic faith Whilst we have no doubt that the prospective adopters have been properly assessed by the Local Authority, they are a homosexual couple and as such their lifestyle goes against our Roma culture and lifestyle
The children will not be able to be brought up in the Catholic faith because of the conflicts between Catholicism and homosexuality. They would not be able to maintain their Catholic faith if they are adopted by this couple and even if it was promised that they would attend church the children would at some stage be taught or learn of the attitude of the church to same sex couples. This would undoubtedly be upsetting to them and cause them to be in conflict between their religion and home life.
Slovakia still does not recognise same sex couples and so their Slovak roots and values will not be maintained. In 2013 the Catholic Bishops in Slovakia condemned same sex marriage."
They go on to say:
"If, as expected, our children will try to find us and their siblings and roots, then they will discover the huge differences between our culture and the couple with whom they have been brought up. This is likely to cause them great upset and to suffer a conflict within themselves such as to set them against their adoptive parents. This would therefore cause the children great psychological harm as homosexuality is not recognised in the world wide Roma community. Having Roma children live with homosexuals or being adopted by them would be found to be humiliating Ethnic, cultural and religious identity is an important part of identity and this aspect of a child's needs in an adoptive placement should be considered very carefully. We do not accept that this has been properly considered by Kent County Council."
They add:
"By proceeding with the adoption process and supporting adoption by a homosexual couple the Local Authority are continuing to act in such a way that will change our children who are of Slovak Roma heritage into white middle class English children which is contrary to the human rights of us and of the children. This is social engineering and is a conscious and deliberate effort by Kent County Council to transform our children from Slovak Roma children to English middle class children."
Conclusion