Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T12:14:13.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

POST-ADOPTION CONTACT REFORM: COMPOUNDING THE STATE-ORDERED TERMINATION OF PARENTHOOD?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2014

Brian Sloan
Brian Sloan*
Affiliation:
College Lecturer and Fellow, Robinson College, Cambridge.
*
Address for correspondence: Robinson College, Grange Road, Cambridge CB3 9AN. Email: bds26@cam.ac.uk.
Get access

Abstract

The Children and Families Act 2014 pursues the twin policies of increasing the number of children adopted out of compulsory state care and reducing the scope for court-ordered contact between such children and their birth families. Building upon previous work by Dr. Kirsty Hughes and me, this paper critically evaluates these reforms to post-adoption contact in view of the fact that adoption terminates the legal relationship of parent and child. Aspects of the analysis include the impact of the proposals on “open adoption” and child welfare in the light of the available empirical evidence, and their compatibility with both the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Keywords

Child protectionhuman rightsUNCRCECHRidentitylaw reform
Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 73 , Issue 2 , July 2014 , pp. 378 - 404
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Adoption and Children Act 2002, s. 67. Cf. “simple adoption”, a form of adoption available in France and some other civil law jurisdictions, which “does not sever the relationship with the family of origin so that the adopted child is not entirely integrated into his or her adoptive family”: Explanatory Report to the European Convention on the Adoption of Children (Revised) (2008), at [63].

2 Down Lisburn Health & Social Services Trust v H [2006] UKHL 36, [2007] 1 F.L.R. 121, at [34] (Lady Hale).

3 The term is borrowed from Harris-Short, S. and Miles, J., Family Law: Text, Cases and Materials, 2nd ed. (Oxford 2011) 254Google Scholar.

4 See, e.g., Harris-Short, S., “Holding onto the Past: Adoption, Birth Parents and the Law in the Twenty-First Century” in Probert, R. and Barton, C. (eds.), Fifty Years in Family Law: Essays for Stephen Cretney (Cambridge 2012)Google Scholar for discussion of current adoption law and policy.

5 Harris-Short, S., “New Legislation: The Adoption and Children Bill – A Fast Track to Failure?” [2001] Child & Family Law Quarterly 405, 407Google Scholar.

6 Adoption and Children Act 2002, s. 21.

7 Ibid., s. 22.

8 Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535, [2008] 2 F.L.R. 625, at [137] (Wall L.J., giving the judgment of the court).

9 Harris-Short, “Holding onto the Past”, see note 4 above, pp. 150–51.

10 Adoption and Children Act 2002, s. 52(6).

11 Ibid., s. 19.

12 Ibid., s. 20. Restrictions are then placed on parents’ ability to withdraw their consent and oppose the making of the final adoption order: see Sloan, B., “Conflicting rights: English Adoption Law and the Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child” [2013] Child & Family Law Quarterly 40, 56–57Google Scholar.

13 Adoption and Children Act 2002, s. 52(1)(b). Consent can also be dispensed with where “the parent or guardian cannot be found or is incapable of giving consent”: s. 52(1)(a).

14 Ibid., ss. 18, 21.

15 Ibid., s. 1(3).

16 Department for Education, An Action Plan for Adoption: Tackling Delay (London 2011)Google Scholar. Cf. the increase of 15 per cent in the number of adoptions from care in England in the year ending March 2013 as compared with the year before: Department for Education, Statistical First Release: Children Looked After in England (Including Adoption and Care Leavers) Year Ending 31 March 2013 (London 2013)Google Scholar.

17 Inter alia, Children and Families Act 2014, s. 9 will come into force on 22 April 2014 (Children and Families Act 2014 (Commencement No. 2) Order 2014 SI 2014/889, art. 4) while ss. 4 and 7 will commence on 13 May 2014 (SI 2014/889, art. 5) and ss. 1 (in relation to England), 2–3 and 6 will commence on 25 July 2014 (SI 2014/889, art. 6). See also Children and Families Act 2014 (Commencement No. 1) Order, SI 2014/793.

18 Children Act 1989, new s. 26(9B)(c), inserted by Children and Families Act 2014, s. 2(3). See also Children and Families Act 2014, s. 7.

19 Children Act 1989, s. 26(6)(a).

20 Ibid., new s 26(9B)(c), inserted by Children and Families Act 2014, s. 2(3).

21 Explanatory Notes to the Children and Families Act 2014, at [53]. See, generally, D. Nickols, “Fostering for Adoption: Progress or Unjustifiable ‘Fait Accompli’ or Something In-between? Part 1” [2014] Family Law 190; D. Nickols, “Fostering for Adoption: Part 2: Policy and Potential Difficulties” [2014] Family Law 339.

22 Explanatory Notes to the Children and Families Act 2014, at [54].

23 Children Act 1989, new s 26(9B)(a), inserted by Children and Families Act 2014, s. 2(3).

24 Children Act 1989, s. 22C(7)(a).

25 Ibid., s. 22C(6)(a).

26 Committee on the Rights of the Child, “Consideration of Reports submitted by State[ ] Parties under Article 44 of the Convention – Concluding Observations: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” (Third and Fourth Reports) (CRC/C/GBR/CO/4, 2008), at [46].

27 Ibid., at [47].

28 Children and Families Act 2014, s. 3. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has expressed concern about the compatibility of the original proposal with the UNCRC: Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Children and Families Bill; Energy Bill (H.L. Paper 29/H.C. 452, 2013), at [23]–[33].

29 Adoption and Children Act 2002, s. 1(5).

30 Explanatory Notes to the Children and Families Act 2014, at [56].

31 Ibid., at [57].

32 Children and Families Act 2014, s. 4. See, generally, Department for Education, Further Action on Adoption: Finding More Loving Homes (London 2013)Google Scholar.

33 Children and Families Act 2014, ss. 5–6.

34 Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Children and Families Bill; Energy Bill, p. 3.

35 Ibid., p. 3; paras. [13]–[22].

36 Cf. Children and Families Bill 2012–13 as introduced into the House of Commons, cl. 1(3).

37 Re B (Care Proceedings: Appeal) [2013] UKSC 33, [2013] 1 W.L.R. 1911, at [104]. See, generally, B. Sloan, “Loving but Potentially Harmful Parents in the Supreme Court” [2014] C.L.J. 28.

38 See, e.g., Re V (Children) (Long-term Fostering versus Adoption) [2013] EWCA Civ 913, [2013] 3 F.C.R. 407, at [7] (Black L.J.); Re B-S (Children) (Adoption: Leave to Oppose) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, [2014] 1 W.L.R. 563, at [22] (Sir James Munby P.); H v G (Adoption: Appeal) [2013] EWHC 2136 (Fam), [2013] Family Law 1358, at [2] (Peter Jackson J.); Re G (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Welfare Evaluation) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, [2013] 3 F.C.R. 293, at [30] (McFarlane L.J.); Re P (A Child) (Care and Placement: Evidential Basis of Local Authority Case) [2013] EWCA Civ 963, [2013] 3 F.C.R. 159, at [102] (Black L.J.); Re J (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1100, at [6] (McFarlane L.J.); Re S (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1073, [2014] Family Law 19, at [35] (Black L.J.); Re AW (a Child: Application to revoke Placement Order: Leave to oppose Adoption) [2013] EWHC 2967 (Fam), at [37] (Pauffley J.); Re IA (a Child) (Fact Finding: Welfare: Single Hearing: Experts Reports) [2013] EWHC 2499 (Fam), (2013) 134 B.M.L.R. 6, at [98] (Pauffley J.); Re W (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Welfare Evaluation: Functions of Local Authority) [2013] EWCA Civ 1227, [2014] 1 F.C.R. 260, at [94] (Ryder L.J.); Re W (A Child) (Adoption Order: Leave to Oppose) [2013] EWCA Civ 1177, [2014] 1 F.C.R. 191, at [22] (Sir James Munby); Re C (A Child) (Appeal from Care and Placement Orders) [2013] EWCA Civ 1257, [2014] 1 F.C.R. 173, at [18] (McFarlane L.J.); Re L (Leave to Oppose Making of Adoption Order) [2013] EWCA Civ 1481, [2014] Family Law 275, at [53] (Black LJ); Re HA (Capacity to Change) [2013] EWHC 3634 (Fam), [2014] Family Law 277, at [57] (Baker J.); Re A (Placement Order: Imposition of Conditions on Adoption) [2013] EWCA Civ 1611, [2014] Family Law 279, at [39] (McFarlane L.J.); RO v A Local Authority [2014] EWHC 97 (Fam), at [11] (Keehan J.); The Prospective Adopters v IA and London Borough of Croydon [2014] EWHC 331 (Fam), at [28] (Moor J.). See, generally, L. Sprinz, “Adoption in 2014” [2014] Family Law 335.

39 [2013] UKSC 33, at [105].

40 Select Committee on Adoption Legislation, Adoption: Post-Legislative Scrutiny Report (H.L. Paper 127, 2013), p. 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Ibid., at para. [24].

42 Hall, J.C., “Problems of adoption and custodianship” [1987] C.L.J. 40, 42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 See, e.g., Lindley, B., “Open Adoption – Is the Door Ajar?” [1997] Child & Family Law Quarterly 115Google Scholar.

44 See, e.g., O'Halloran, K., The Politics of Adoption: International Perspectives on Law, Policy & Practice, 2nd ed. (Dordrecht 2009), pp. 43–44Google Scholar.

45 Select Committee on Adoption Legislation, Adoption: Post-Legislative Scrutiny Report, at [260].

46 Neil, E., “Post-Adoption Contact and Openness in Adoptive Parents’ Minds: Consequences for Children's Development” (2009) 39 British Journal of Social Work 5, 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 But see Smith, C. and Logan, J., “Adoptive Parenthood as a ‘Legal Fiction’ – Its Consequences for Direct Post-Adoption Contact” [2002] Child & Family Law Quarterly 281Google Scholar for an account of the differing views on this issue.

48 Select Committee on Adoption Legislation, Adoption: Post-Legislative Scrutiny Report, at [255].

49 London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, Adoption Contact: Information for Birth Relatives (date unknown), p. 2.

50 See, e.g., Re V (A Minor) (Adoption: Consent) [1987] Fam. 57.

51 Adoption and Children Act 2002, s. 46(6). Similar obligations are imposed when the court is making a placement order: s. 27(4)(a).

52 Ibid., s. 1; Children Act 1989, s. 1.

53 See, e.g., Reece, H., “The Paramountcy Principle: Consensus or Construct?” (1996) 49 Current Legal Problems 267Google Scholar.

54 [2008] EWCA Civ 535.

55 Ibid., at [54].

56 Ibid., at [141].

57 Ibid., at [153] (Wall L.J., giving the judgment of the court).

58 [2012] EWCA Civ 1281, [2013] 2 F.L.R. 272.

59 Ibid., at [3].

60 Ibid.

61 [2008] EWCA Civ 535, at [147] (Wall L.J., giving the judgment of the court).

62 [2008] EWCA Civ 535, at [154].

63 Ibid.

64 [2010] EWCA Civ 581, [2011] Fam. 31. For a detailed analysis of this case, see K. Hughes and B. Sloan, “Post-adoption Photographs: Welfare, Rights and Judicial Reasoning” [2011] Child & Family Law Quarterly 393.

65 [2010] EWCA Civ 581, at [5]. See Hughes and Sloan, note 64 above, pp. 398–402 for discussion.

66 Re C (A Child) (Adoption: Duty of Local Authority) [2007] EWCA Civ 1206, [2008] Fam. 54, at [18] (Arden L.J.).

67 Adoption and Children Act 2002, s. 1(4)(c) and s. 1(4)(f).

68 Cf. Adoption Act 1976, s. 6.

69 [2010] EWCA Civ 581, at [26] (Lord Neuberger M.R., giving the judgment of the court). See also Re T (A Child) (Adoption: Contact) [2010] EWCA Civ 1527, [2011] 1 F.L.R. 1805.

70 [2005] EWCA Civ 1128, [2006] 1 F.L.R. 373.

71 Children Act 1989, s. 10, it being unlikely that s. 10(5)(b) will apply.

72 [2011] EWCA Civ 509, [2011] 2 F.L.R. 1179, at [9] (Thorpe L.J.); Children Act 1989, s. 10(9).

73 Ibid.

74 [2010] EWCA Civ 581, at [17].

75 Hughes and Sloan, note 64 above.

76 [2013] EWHC 1838 (Fam), [2014] 1 F.L.R. 195.

77 Ibid., at [28(viii)].

78 Ibid., at [28(viii)].

79 Ibid., at [34].

80 Ibid., at [28(viii)].

81 See Select Committee on Adoption Legislation, Adoption: Post-Legislative Scrutiny Report, at [264]–[269] on the distinctive and particular importance of sibling contact as compared with contact with birth parents.

82 N v B [2013] EWHC 820 (Fam), [2014] 1 F.L.R. 369, at [33] (Theis J.).

83 Children and Families Act 2014, s. 9(1). See also s. 1, concerning the facilitation of contact between certain adoptive and birth relatives of a person adopted before the entry into force of the 2002 Act.

84 Children and Families Act 2014, s. 12.

85 Ibid., s. 9(3), repealing Adoption and Children Act 2002, s. 26(5).

86 Select Committee on Adoption Legislation, Adoption: Post-Legislative Scrutiny Report, at [256].

87 Ibid., at [263].

88 Harris-Short, “Holding onto the Past”, note 4 above, p. 149.

89 Department for Education, Contact Arrangements for Children: A Call for Views (London 2012), p. 2Google Scholar.

90 Cf. Department for Education, Call for Views: Adoption Contact Arrangements and Sibling Placements. Summary of Feedback and Government Response (London 2013)Google Scholar.

91 E. Neil et al., “Contact Arrangements for Adopted Children: What can be Learned from Research?” (Norwich 2012), at [13]. See also Smith and Logan, note 47 above.

92 Neil et al., note 91 above, at [11].

93 Ibid.

94 Ibid., at [16].

95 Ibid., p. 1.

96 Ibid., at [25].

97 Ibid., at [24].

98 Adoption and Children Act 2002, s. 51A(1)(a). The use of Children Act 1989, s. 8 to make provision for post-adoption contact is to be prohibited in such circumstances: Adoption and Children Act 2002, s. 51A(8).

99 Ibid., s. 51A(2).

100 Ibid., s. 51A(2)(a).

101 Ibid., s. 51A(2)(b).

102 Ibid., s. 51B(1)(b).

103 Ibid., s. 51A(3)(a).

104 Ibid., s. 51A(3)(b).

105 Ibid., s. 51A(3)(c).

106 The relevant time can also be when the local authority in fact placed the child if the child was then less than six weeks old: Adoption and Children Act 2002, s. 26(1), (3)(c)–(e).

107 Ibid., s. 51A(3)(d), cross-referring to s. 26(3)(c)–(e).

108 Ibid., s. 51A(3)(e). The period need not be continuous, but must not have begun more than five years before the application: s. 51A(7).

109 Ibid., s. 51A(4)(a).

110 Ibid., s. 51A(4)(b).

111 Ibid., s. 51A(5)(b).

112 Ibid., s. 51A(5)(c).

113 Children and Families Act 2014, s. 9(2), amending Adoption and Children Act 2002, s. 1(7)(a).

114 [2010] EWCA Civ 581, at [5] (Lord Neuberger M.R., giving the judgment of the court).

115 Explanatory Notes to the Children and Families Act 2014, at [8].

116 Public Bill Committee (Bill 131) 2012–13, col. 252 (14 March 2013).

117 Select Committee on Adoption Legislation, Adoption: Post-Legislative Scrutiny Report, at [259].

118 Children and Families Act, 2014, s. 8.

119 Department for Education, Contact Arrangements for Children, note 89 above, p. 18.

120 HL Deb. vol. 748 cols. GC 167–69 (14 October 2013).

121 Children and Families Act 2014, s. 11.

122 Norgrove, D. et al. , Family Justice Review: Final Report (London 2011)Google Scholar, at [4.23].

123 See Rhoades, H., “Legislating to Promote Children's Welfare and the Quest for Certainty” [2012] Child & Family Law Quarterly 158Google Scholar for discussion. Cf. Kaganas, F., “A Presumption that ‘Involvement’ of Both Parents is Best: Deciphering Law's Messages” [2013] Child & Family Law Quarterly 270Google Scholar.

124 Children Act 1989, s. 1(2B), inserted by Children and Families Act 2014, s. 11(2).

125 Adoption and Children Act 2002, s. 51A(6).

126 Ibid., s. 46(6).

127 See, e.g., Re L (a child) (Contact: Domestic Violence) [2000] 2 F.C.R. 404, 437 (Thorpe L.J.).

128 Marshall, J., “Concealed Births, Adoption and Human Rights Law: Being Wary of Seeking to Open Windows into People's Souls” [2012] C.L.J. 325Google Scholar.

129 The 2002 Act contains a framework regulating the disclosure of information by adoption agencies (Adoption and Children Act 2002, ss. 56–65 and ch. 5; see Bainham, A. and Gilmore, S., Children: The Modern Law, 4th ed. (Bristol 2013), pp. 698–704Google Scholar for a summary). For example, when an adopted person reaches the age of 18 (Adoption and Children Act 2002, s. 60(1)), he has the right inter alia to receive “any information which would enable him to obtain a certified copy of the record of his birth” (s. 60(2)(a)) unless the High Court orders otherwise on the basis that “the circumstances are exceptional” (s. 60(3)). That said, the 2002 Act can be criticised for stopping short of conferring a right even to be told that one is adopted (see, e.g., Bridge, C. and Swindells, H., Adoption: The Modern Law (Bristol 2003), p. 255Google Scholar). For a recent general analysis of this topic, see Diver, A., A Law of Blood-ties – The ‘Right’ to Access Genetic Ancestry (Cham 2014)Google Scholar.

130 See Dr. Hughes and my previous acknowledgement (“Post-adoption Photographs”, note 64 above, p. 403) that it would be “fruitless” in the context of the welfare principle merely to argue that less weight should be given to the interests of one set of adults and more should be given to those of another set of adults.

131 Select Committee on Adoption Legislation, Adoption: Post-Legislative Scrutiny Report, at [261].

132 Department for Education, Contact Arrangements for Children, note 89 above, p. 2 (emphasis added). Cf. Department for Education, Call for Views, note 90 above.

133 Department for Education, Contact Arrangements for Children, note 89 above, at [40].

134 See, e.g., Prince v Massachusetts (1944) 321 U.S. 158, 170 (Rutledge J.), cited in Re S; Newcastle City Council v Z [2005] EWHC 1490 (Fam), [2007] 1 F.L.R. 861, at [54] (Munby J.).

135 Neil et al., “Contact Arrangements for Adopted Children”, note 91 above, at [20].

136 Ibid., at para. [13].

137 Ibid., at para. [18].

138 See, e.g., Re H (Contact Order) (No. 2) [2002] 1 F.L.R. 22.

139 See, e.g., Children Act 1989, ss. 11A-11P, which are finessed and expanded by the Children and Families Act 2014, sch. 2.

140 Neil et al., “Contact Arrangements for Adopted Children”, note 91 above, at [18].

141 For its part, the draft statutory guidance for local authorities etc. that is intended to take effect once the relevant provisions of the Act come into force claims that there is “no general presumption for or against contact”, but also asserts that “there is no duty to endeavour to promote contact” (Department for Education, Statutory Guidance on Adoption: For local authorities, Voluntary adoption Agencies and Adoption Support Agencies (London 2014), p. 57Google Scholar).

142 Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Children and Families Bill; Energy Bill.

143 See, e.g., Bonner, D., Fenwick, H. and Harris-Short, S., “Judicial Approaches to the HRA” (2003) 52 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 549Google Scholar.

144 Hale, B. and Fortin, J., “Legal Issues in the Care and Treatment of Children with Mental Health Problems” in Rutter, M. et al. (eds.), Rutter's Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 5th edn. (Oxford 2008) p. 102Google Scholar.

145 Choudhry, S. and Herring, J., European Human Rights and Family Law (Oxford 2010), p. 334Google Scholar.

146 Bainham, A., Children: The Modern Law, 3rd ed. (Bristol 2005), pp. 300–301Google Scholar.

147 Bainham, A., “Arguments about Parentage’ [2008] C.L.J. 322, 349–351Google Scholar. Cf. Smith and Logan, “Adoptive Parenthood as a ‘Legal Fiction’”, note 47 above, for an argument that a “transplant” model of adoption actually facilitates post-adoption contact by conferring the status of parenthood and making adoptive parents feel confident enough to allow such contact.

148 [2010] EWCA Civ 581, at [43] (Lord Neuberger M.R, giving the judgment of the court).

149 See Hughes and Sloan, “Post-adoption Photographs”, note 64 above, pp. 405–410 for discussion.

150 (Application no. 35348/06) [2011] 2 F.L.R. 1236.

151 Re N [2005] NIFam 5. For a summary of the relevant Northern Irish Law (based on the English Adoption Act 1976) and a brief comparison with the English Adoption and Children Act 2002, see R and H v United Kingdom (Application no. 35348/06), at [43]–[49].

152 Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust v H and Another [2005] NICA 47(1).

153 [2006] UKHL 36, [2007] 1 F.L.R. 121.

154 (Application no. 35348/06), at [87].

155 Ibid.

156 (Application no. 52502/07) (2012) 54 E.H.R.R. 32.

157 Ibid., at [75].

158 Ibid., at [78].

159 Ibid.

160 Ibid., at [79].

161 See, similarly, KS v United Kingdom (Application no. 62110/10) (2012) 55 E.H.R.R. SE15 (admissibility decision).

162 IS v Germany (Application no. 31021/08) (HUDOC).

163 S and G v Italy (Application no. 39221/98) [2000] 2 F.L.R. 771, at [170].

164 K and T v Finland (Application no. 25702/94) [2001] 2 F.L.R. 707, at [178].

165 Görgülü v Germany (Application no. 74969/01) [2004] 1 F.L.R. 894, at [48].

166 (Application no. 4547/10) [2012] 2 FLR 332, at [134] (judgment of the majority). See C. Simmonds, “Paramountcy and the ECHR: A Conflict Resolved?” [2012] C.L.J. 498 for analysis of the case.

167 Re B [2013] UKSC 33, at [34].

168 (Application no. 42326/98) [2003] 1 F.C.R. 621.

169 Ibid., at [25].

170 Ibid., at [26].

171 Ibid.

172 Ibid, at [28].

173 Harris-Short, S., “Making and Breaking Family Life: Adoption, the State and Human Rights” (2008) 35 Journal of Law and Society 28Google Scholar, 40.

174 See, e.g., Anayo v Germany (Application no. 20578/07) [2011] 1 F.L.R. 1883, at [58].

175 Hughes and Sloan, “Post-adoption Photographs”, note 64 above, at pp. 410–414.

176 P, C and S v United Kingdom (Application no. 56547/00) [2002] 3 F.C.R. 1, at [119]. See also Article 6 on the right to a fair hearing.

177 See, e.g., Pini v Romania (78028/01) (2005) 40 E.H.R.R. 13.

178 See, generally, van Bueren, G., “The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: The Necessity of Incorporation into United Kingdom Law” [1992] Family Law 373Google Scholar; MacDonald, A., “Bringing Rights Home for Children: Arguing the UNCRC” [2009] Family Law 1073Google Scholar; Fortin, J., Children's Rights and the Developing Law, 3rd ed. (Cambridge 2009), pp. 47–54Google Scholar. Cf. Rights of Children and Young Persons Measure (Wales) 2011, available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/mwa/2011/2/contents, and Children and Families Act 2014, s. 107.

179 Committee on the Rights of the Child, “Consideration of Reports submitted by State[ ] Parties under Article 44 of the Convention: Concluding Observations – United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” (Third and Fourth Reports) (CRC/C/GBR/CO/4, 2008), at [10]. See, generally, Committee on the Rights of the Child, “General Comment No 5 (2003): General Measures of Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (arts 4, 42 and 44, para 6)” (CRC/GC/2003/5, 2003).

180 ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4, [2011] 2 W.L.R. 148, at [23]. See also, e.g., U. Kilkelly, “The CRC at 21: Assessing the Legal Impact” (2011) 62 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 143, 144.

181 Re B [2013] UKSC 33, at [103]–[104], citing Sloan, “Conflicting Rights”, note 12 above.

182 Re B [2013] UKSC 33, at [73].

183 See, e.g., Committee on the Rights of the Child, “Consideration of Reports Submitted by State[ ] Parties under Article 44 of the Convention: Concluding Observations – France” (Second Report) (CRC/C/15/Add.240, 2004).

184 Hodgkin, R. and Newell, P., Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 3rd ed. (Geneva 2007), p. 303Google Scholar.

185 See, e.g., Reece, “The Paramountcy Principle”, note 53 above.

186 Hodgkin, and Newell, , Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, p. 107Google Scholar.

187 See, e.g., Committee on the Rights of the Child, “Consideration of Reports Submitted by State[ ] Parties under Article 44 of the Convention: Concluding Observations – Australia” (Fourth Report) (CRC/AUS/CO/4, 2012), at [37]–[38].

188 Hodgkin, and Newell, , Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, pp. 107, 116Google Scholar.

189 UNCRC, Article 7(2).

190 UNCRC, Article 9(1).

191 United Nations, “Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General”, Ch. IV, no. 11, available at <http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en> (last accessed 31 March 2014).

192 Cf. Hodgkin, and Newell, , Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, pp. 105–106Google Scholar.

193 Committee on the Rights of the Child, “Consideration of Reports Submitted by State[ ] Parties under Article 44 of the Convention: Concluding Observations – Israel” (Second to Fourth Reports) (CRC/C/ISR/CO/2-44, 2013), at [31].

194 Hodgkin, and Newell, , Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, p. 123Google Scholar. See, e.g., Committee on the Rights of the Child, “Consideration of Reports Submitted by State[ ] Parties under Article 44 of the Convention: Concluding Observations – France” (Third & Fourth Reports) (CRC/C/FRA/CO/4, 2009), at [65].

195 “Simple adoption” is a defined at note 1 above.

196 Hodgkin, and Newell, , Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, p. 123Google Scholar.

197 Ibid., pp. 293–300.

198 Ibid., p. 289.

199 UNCRC, Article 12(1).

200 UNCRC, Article 12(2).

201 Committee on the Rights of the Child, “General Comment No 12 (2009): The Right of the Child to be Heard” (CRC/C/GC/12, 2009), at [56].

202 Adoption and Children Act 2002, ss. 80–81.

203 See, e.g., Committee on the Rights of the Child, “Consideration of Reports Submitted by State[ ] Parties under Article 44 of the Convention: Concluding Observations – Canada” (Third & Fourth Report) (CRC/C/CAN/CO/3-4, 2012), at [57]–[58] on the importance of ensuring that “information about the date and place of birth of adopted children and their biological parents are preserved”.

204 Alston, P., “The Best Interests Principle: Towards a Reconciliation of Culture and Human Rights” (1994) 8 International Journal of Law and the Family 1, 2Google Scholar.

205 I have made the same point in relation to pre-adoption decisions elsewhere: Sloan, “Conflicting Rights”, note 12 above.

206 [2013] EWHC 1838 (Fam), at [28(viii)] (Ryder L.J.).

207 See Herring, J., “The Welfare Principle and the Children Act: Presumably it's about Welfare?” (2014) 36 Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law 14Google Scholar for a general discussion about the undesirability of “presumptions” in the context of the welfare principle.