Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2005]JRC040

royal court

(Samedi Division)

 

7^th April 2005

 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION (JERSEY) LAWS 1961-1995

AND

IN THE MATTER OF P. (d.o.b. 30.08.03).

 

Representation by the Attorney General on behalf of the Health and Social Services Committee, seeking an Order, under Article 4(1)(b) of the Adoption (Jersey) Laws, 1961-1995, declaring P. free for adoption

 

 

Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate

Advocate D. Hopwood for P.'s Mother

 

 

judgment

the bailiff:

1.        This is an application by the Attorney General, on behalf of the Health and Social Services Committee, seeking an Order freeing a child, P., for adoption under the provisions of Article 4 4(1)(b) of the Adoption (Jersey) Laws 1961-1995.

2.        P. was born on 30^th August, 2003 and has been in the care of the Health and Social Services Committee since the age of six weeks.  At that stage P. was placed with foster parents and she has remained with them since that time.  They are her prospective adopters.  P. has not, therefore, been in the de facto care of her parents since the age of six weeks.  She is now nineteen months old.  P. has had no contact with either of her parents since Christmas, 2003.

3.        The Court has to be satisfied in two respects if it is to dispense with the consent of the parents to adoption.  The first test is that the Court is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the child.  We are quite satisfied, bearing in mind that there is no meaningful relationship between the parents and P., that the child in this case would not suffer from the Order being made and indeed that it is in her best interests in making that finding.  We have had regard to all the reports placed before us and there is no need to refer to the contents of those reports.

4.        The second test that we have to apply is whether consent is being unreasonably withheld.  The father has, in fact, consented to adoption but has made that consent conditional.  The condition which he has specified is that a letterbox contact is established between him and the child in due course.   The father has, however, been fully advised as to his rights by legal advisers, but has declined to instruct Counsel to attend this morning and to argue why a condition of this kind should be imposed by the Court.  Having regard to all the background set out in the reports, the Court is satisfied that the father is unreasonably withholding consent in the sense that his consent is conditional and we dispense with his consent.

5.        The mother has been represented this morning by Mr Hopwood of Counsel.  Counsel has told us that he has written to the mother and that he is satisfied that she understands the proceedings which are before that Court this morning.  An appointment was made for her to come and sign the requisite consent form for adoption, but she did not attend that appointment.  Counsel has told us that he is, therefore, without instructions and cannot either oppose or consent to the adoption on behalf of the mother.

6.        Again, without specifying the nature of the matters contained in the background reports, to which we have had full regard, we are entirely satisfied, in this case, that it is right and proper and in the interests of the child that we should dispense with the consent of the mother to adoption.  We therefore grant the application of the Attorney General and make the declaration sought under Article 4(1)(b) of the Law that the infant P. is free for adoption.

Authorities

4 Halsbury 1999 (re-issue): Vol 6: pp. 225-7; 229-30.

4 Halsbury: Vol 5(2): paras 1070-77.

In re D (a minor) (Adoption: freeing order) [1991] 1 FLR 48.

In re B, an infant (7^th October, 1992) Jersey Unreported; [1992/177]; [1992 JLR N.8].

In re T, an infant [1987-88 JLR 677].

Adoption (Jersey) Law 1995: Articles 4, 5 and 8.