Parents lose bid to block adoption by same-sex couple

A top judge in the UK has rejected opposition by a Roma couple to the adoption of two of their children by a same-sex couple.

Lawyers for the mother and father, who cannot be named, said that the placement was wholly unsuitable having regard to the children’s Slovak Roma origins and Catholic roots.

But, Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division, said there was nothing in all the material he had seen to suggest that the placement of the boys, who were born in 2010 and 2012, with the prospective adopters was inappropriate or wrong, let alone irrational or unlawful.

Everything he had seen indicated that the process was conscientiously and properly undertaken having regard, as the paramount consideration, to the children’s welfare throughout their lives.

Nor was the placement of a kind not contemplated by the judge who made the order, as she expressly held that the children’s welfare needs outweighed the impact that adoption would have on their Roma identity.

Refusing the parents leave to oppose the making of adoption orders, Sir James said that, of course, any judge should have a decent respect to the opinions of those who came to the UK from a foreign land.

“But the fact is, the law is, that, at the end of the day, I have to judge matters according to the law of England and by reference to the standards of reasonable men and women in contemporary English society.

“The parents’ views, whether religious, cultural, secular or social, are entitled to respect but cannot be determinative.

“They have made their life in this country and cannot impose their own views either on the local authority or on the court.”

The parents had wanted the boys, identified only as J and S, to be returned to their care or placed in foster care in a children’s home in the Slovak Republic, but this was resisted by Kent County Council, the adopters and the children’s legal representative.

The couple, who did not accept the concerns about their parenting and could see no basis for any change, said in a witness statement that the lifestyle of the adopters went against Roma culture and lifestyle and that Slovakia did not recognise same-sex couples..

“If, as expected, our children will try to find us and their siblings and roots, then they will discover the huge differences between our culture and the couple with whom they have been brought up. This is likely to cause them great upset and to suffer a conflict within themselves such as to set them against their adoptive parents.

“This would therefore cause the children great psychological harm as homosexuality is not recognised in the worldwide Roma community. Having Roma children live with homosexuals or being adopted by them would be found to be humiliating...Ethnic, cultural and religious identity is an important part of identity and this aspect of a child’s needs in a adoptive placement should be considered very carefully.

“We do not accept that this has been properly considered by Kent County Council.”

They added that the local authority’s actions would change the children into “white middle class English children”, which was contrary to their human rights and those of their parents.

“This is social engineering and is a conscious and deliberate effort by Kent County Council to transform our children from Slovak Roma children to English middle class children.”

Acknowledging that it was a “very sad” case, Sir James said that none of the matters relied on by the parents amounted to a change in circumstances sufficient to give them leave.