A and B v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
2014
FAMILY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE HOLMAN
Areas of Law
- Family Law
2014
FAMILY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The court dealt with the conflicting interests of the prospective adopters who had cared for C for 13 months and the genetic father who wanted C to live with his sister (the aunt). The mother and Mr E had inaccurately identified Mr E as C’s father. After discovering the true paternity, the father wanted C to have a normal legal and psychological relationship with his birth family. Despite the exemplary care given by A and B, the court decided C’s long-term welfare would be better safeguarded by moving him to live with the aunt.
Judgment
In this judgment:
A and B are the applicants for an adoption order.
C is the child concerned.
The mother is C’s birth mother.
The father is, unless the context otherwise requires, C’s genetic father.
The aunt is the father’s sister (and therefore C’s aunt).
D or Miss D is the father’s long term, but non-residential, partner.
E or Mr E is the man currently named on C’s birth certificate as his father.
F is the joint child of Miss D and the father.
G is the child of the aunt.
(The above letters are merely alphabetical from A – G and are not actual initials of any of the persons concerned.)
The court directs that no report of, or reference to, this case in the press, media or elsewhere, including any form of electronic or telephonic or broadcast communication, may name or otherwise identify any of the above persons or their addresses or (save to the extent described in this judgment) whereabouts. (Persons who are specifically named in this judgment may be named.)
Mr Justice Holman:
Introduction
I have been a full time judge of the Family Division for almost twenty years. In all that time, apart from cases concerning serious ill health, I have rarely heard a more harrowing case. The hearing was a very painful one for all concerned, and I sincerely thank all parties and the professional witnesses for their attention, dignity and, to the extent possible, good humour. I know, and deeply regret, that my decision will cause intense grief. After hearing all the evidence and argument, and after due consideration, I am, however, clear as to the outcome, which I do not reach narrowly or marginally.
As well as thanking the parties and witnesses, I thank all six advocates for the sensitive, balanced and skilled ways in which they presented their respective clients’ cases. I particularly thank Mr Andrew Wynne and Miss Dawn Tighe and their instructing solicitors, who have acted pro bono, that is, entirely free of charge. As the case occupied five long days in court, as well as requiring considerable out-of-court work and preparation, they have shown great public service.
The facts and circumstances of this case are unusual, and this is a very fact specific judgment and decision. Without any opposition by or on behalf of any party, I conducted virtually the whole hearing in public, except for a short period towards the end when the applicants returned to the court room from the private room in which they had been watching and listening by video lin