Family law refers to the body of laws, rules, and guidelines that regulate issues arising from or relate to marriages, civils unions, and other forms of domestic partnerships. Naturally, children are a focus area of family law. Furthermore, adoption, or the assumption by one person or couple of the parenting rights of a child from the child’s biological parent, is a key element of family law’s focus on children.
Interestingly systematic rules for adoption is a fairly recent addition to family law. That is to say, the formal and legal adopting a child is a modern concept. In the past, families that wanted to “adopt” children simply worked out a private agreement with the parent’s biological or legal parent (AHP). The modern adoption system began in the United States. As a result of a number of factors, including increased immigration and the resultant lack of family ties; the US was an outlier in the establishment of a legal framework to facilitate adoption. To be sure, the Massachusetts Adoption of Children Act, widely deemed the first ever adoption law, was enacted in 1851 (AHP).
It would be at least another half a century before other western countries would begin passing similar legislation. For example, in the United Kingdom, the “legal history of adoption” began in 1926 with the enactment of the Adoption of Children Act (UKP). The law was the government’s initial attempt to replace “the widespread practice of unregulated de facto adoption” and allow for the permeant, safe, and secure “transfer of orphans and illegitimate children to new parents” (UKP). Since 1926, the law has been amended several times to update it’s with a modern, changing society and view of adoption. To be sure, by 1974 there were nearly 23,000 adoptions, according to governments statistics, in England and Wales alone, of which 23 percent were the adoption of babies. The most recent amendment to the original 1926 law was the Adoption and Children Act of 2002 which came into force in 2004. One of the key “updates” in the 2002 amendment was to divest authority over adoptions from the central government to local authorities. The idea behind this amendment being that since the care of children is most intimately affected at the local level, local authorities should have more control. It was also believed that local authorities would be in a better position to increase the amount of adoptions.
In 1998, the Human Rights Act was enacted by Parliament, which in effect incorporated the rights and privileges of the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention) into domestic UK laws. In other words, the act required that governments and courts to interpret laws and governmental actions against the requirements of the Convention in consideration of whether or not they are legal and valid. Under Article 8 of the Convention, in family law matters, courts and government agencies are required to ensure the safety of the child and act in the child’s best interests when contemplating whether a law or act is legal. More relevantly, in terms of adoptions was that under Article 8, courts and government agencies’ interference of or into the rights of the parent and the child most only be what is necessary and proportionate to resolving the issue at hand.
Under the 2002 amendments, substantively, there are a number of requirements that must be met in order or a court or agency to agree to an adoption. The first and foremost issue is who can be adopted. Under the law, any child or teenager under the age of 19 is eligible for adoption. In addition, the child cannot be married or have entered into a civil union. Moreover, the prior to finalizing an adoption order, a court will require that the prospective child be places with the adopting family in order to see if the match is indeed appropriate.
The second substantive issue covered in the amendments is who is entitle to adopt. Naturally, the requirements are quite broad. Appropriate people who may adopt a child include single people, married couples, a couple in a civil partnership, and even an unmarried couple who live as partners in a stable and enduring family relationship. One key requirement though is that an adopter must be at least 21 years old.
The third substantive area covered in the 2002 amendments is what types of adoptions a court will allow. Generally an adoption, or transplant as it was more traditionally known, was allowed between an orphan or illegitimate child and an adult or couple. The purposes of these adoptions varied from wanting to start or create a family to needing them for work and labor (CAP). Nowadays, the basis of all adoptions, as required under the Convention, is for the best interests of the child. Accordingly, adoptions are allowed to create a family either by giving the child a family, and the adults a child that creates a family. In 1967, the UK extended recognition of adoption to include inter-country adoptions between children and parents from different nations (CAP). In 1975, the Step-Parent Adoption Act was enacted to allowed step-parents to adopt their children. In addition, UK adoption laws recognize what is known as “open adoptions” which allow the child to retain contacts with their birth family.
Naturally, as mentioned, the authorities play a role in administering the nation’s adoption laws. Courts are tasked with overseeing the process. This includes, as mentioned, making sure that all prospective adoptee spend a period of time with their adoptive families. In addition to the courts, which make the final determination if an adoption order is valid and enforceable, the relevant local authority is the local adoption agency or adoption service. Their responsibilities include but not limited to meeting: prospective adoptee children, the parents or guardians of the prospective adoptees, the people that are interested in adopting a child, those that have already completed the adoption process and the birth or natural parents and former guardians of the adoptee children. Placements of a child into an adoption service can be initiated either by the parents or guardians of child or the courts.
Two interesting adoption cases include the cases of Wright Armstrong and Christopher Emanuel. In Armstrong’s case, he learned that his former wife agreed to her current husband to adopt the child in a hearing that he was not made aware of. He then petitioned the court to dissolve the adoption order, but was refused. Eventually, the Supreme Court held that the adoption order should be dissolved because it was completed without giving Armstrong proper notice and a chance to fight it (Armstrong v. Manzo). In Emanuel’s case, his girlfriend put his and her baby up for adoption without Emanuel consent (Maillard). Emanuel had to go to court to stop the adoption from going through
Works Cited
Adoption History Project (AHP). “Adoption history in brief.” University of Oregon, 24 Feb. 2012. Web. http://pages.uoregon.edu/adoption/topics/adoptionhistbrief.htm
Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 US 545. The Supreme Court of the United States, 1965. Web. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/545/case.html
Center for Adoption Policy (CAP). “Overview of English adoption law.” Center for Adoption Policy. Web. http://www.adoptionpolicy.org/pdf/eu-england.pdf
Maillard, Kevin Nobel. “A father’s struggle to stop his daughter’s adoption.” The Atlantic, 07 Jul. 2015. Web. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/paternity-registry/396044/
United Kingdom Parliament (UKP). “Chapter 2: Adoption in context.” Parliament UK, 2013. Web. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldadopt/127/12705.htm
