1

Specialist Family
Law Barristers

Find out the reasons to work with Fourteen

Fourteen

Top
Ranking

Fourteen

Fearless
Approach

Fourteen

Personalised
Service

Fourteen

Expert
Knowledge

Fourteen

Strong
Advocacy

Fourteen
28th August 2015
@ParadigmFamLaw @JordansFamLaw @Familoo @Fost...
7th August 2015
A Non-Decision but Far From a Non-Issue: Re X (Court of Prot...
7th August 2015
A Non-Decision but Far From a Non-Issue: Re X (Court of Protection Practice) [2015] EWCA Civ 599

Written by: Chris Stevenson

18th February 2015
Introduction to Mental Health Review Tribunals & the Court o...
18th February 2015
Introduction to Mental Health Review Tribunals & the Court of Protection
Venue: FOURTEEN, 14 Gray's Inn Square, London WC1R 5JP
Involving: Edward Lloyd-Jones and Chris Stevenson
Cost: FREE

In the second of the “Meet the Players” series, Eddie Lloyd-Jones chaired this introductory seminar on Mental Health Review Tribunals and the Court of Protection.

Ros Dunning, solicitor and senior partner of Dunning & Co solicitors, is a member of the Law Society’s Mental Health Panel and also a Mental Health Review Tribunal judge.  She spoke at the seminar, along with Chris Stevenson, barrister at FOURTEEN, whose specialisms include proceedings brought under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in the Court of Protection.

Please click here to download the handout.

6th August 2015
CB (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 888
6th August 2015

The Court of Appeal provides definitive guidance on issues relating to the interface between ECHR Law, BIIa and domestic adoption jurisprudence.

6th August 2015
Chris Miller in the Court of Appeal in CB (A Child)
6th August 2015
Chris Miller in the Court of Appeal in CB (A Child)

Chris Miller, led by Henry Setright QC (4 Paper Buildings) appeared in a landmark Court of Appeal case in which the Central Authority of a foreign state intervened; Re CB (A child) [2015] EWCA Civ 888. The case provided definitive guidance on issues relating to the interface between ECHR Law, BIIa and domestic adoption jurisprudence. The mother and foreign state’s central authority sought transfer of the case to the jurisdiction of the foreign state pursuant to BIIa and, in default of transfer, permission for the mother to oppose the application for adoption. They also invited the Court to conclude that the domestic approach to adoption was incompatible with European practice and principle. All grounds of appeal were refused.  The case has attracted a lot of media attention, including this article by Joshua Rozenberg for The Guardian. Key aspects of the Judgment were:

  • A finding that English adoption law is compatible with European jurisprudence and rights protected under the ECHR.
  • A checklist was provided for best practice in public law cases where subject children are foreign nationals.
  • Guidance was given that the inevitable loss of cultural heritage by a foreign national child through adoption is not a reason to decline to make an adoption order when nothing else will do.
  • A finding that Article 15 of BIIa cannot (by virtue of article 1(3)(b) of BIIa) be used to transfer to another jurisdiction a part or whole of proceedings which concern moves preparatory to adoption.
  • Applications for permission to oppose an adoption application under s47(5) of the ACA 2002 are moves preparatory to adoption for the purposes of BIIa.
  • The ECHR does not automatically require that a parent be further assessed, within an application pursuant to s47(5) of ACA 2002.
  • Whilst a local authority must notify the embassy of a child who is a foreign national at the earliest opportunity, failure to do so does not necessarily invalidate earlier placement decisions.
  • The involvement of an embassy after a placement order due to late notification does not automatically constitute a change in circumstances for the purposes of s47(5) ACA 2002.
  • A theoretical ability by a foreign state to identify a cultural match for a child is not necessarily a change of circumstances for the purposes of s47(5) ACA 2002.