Hello everyone!

I need of your opinion. In my case I am a step-parent of 11 yo boy. I have been married for 7years. His father has never paid a penny as child maintenance,neither he has ever made efforts to carry out a relationship with his child. He visits him once or twice a year and that is all his involvement in his child's life.

My wife and me have two children together and I want to adopt my step-son.My wife agrees to it. I need to know how I have to proceed.
Any suggestions?

Thank you for reading.

Consult a solicitor. You will need to get the father's permission. Your solicitor will handle all the paperwork.

Consult a solicitor. You will need to get the father's permission. Your solicitor will handle all the paperwork.

Scott tried to joke at your situation.
With or without his permission it is unable for you to adopt that child. DOT. FULL STOP!It It is against s.c. public Policy and Court practice and step parent adoption does not have worth in your case.
Do not waste your time and money.

With or without his permission it is unable for you to adopt that child. DOT. FULL STOP!It It is against s.c. public Policy and Court practice and step parent adoption does not have worth in your case.


Are you saying the UK doesn't permit step parent adoptions? This site

http://www.adoption.org.uk/information/step_adoption.html seems to indicate otherwise.

Are you saying the UK doesn't permit step parent adoptions? This site

Step Adoption (http://www.adoption.org.uk/information/step_adoption.html) seems to indicate otherwise.

Scott, I assume you do not know both English laws and English Court practices.
Step parent adoption is allowed in the UK only if:
1. The child is too little /and that's not the case/
2.The child is not informed about his/her biological parentage/ it's not the case again/
By the way step parent adoption in UK CANNOT occur if whoever for biological father's extended family resists to adoption.

Another point of view about British family law-the court is not under obligation to consider step parent adoption request because it is against the public policy of the United Kingdom.

OK, it just surprised me that the UK doesn't allow this. And so I checked and skimmed that site which seemed to suggest it was allowed.

Scott, I assume you do not know both English laws and English Court practices.
Step parent adoption is allowed in the UK only if:
1. The child is too little /and that's not the case/
2.The child is not informed about his/her biological parentage/ it's not the case again/
By the way step parent adoption in UK CANNOT occur if whoever for biological father's extended family resists to adoption.

GV70:

You really need to re-read what you write before you click "Submit Answer".

I, for one, am unable to parse what you have written, especially the last sentence.

What does "too little" mean?

And, then, with respect to #2: again, difficult to parse. Are you trying to say that if the bio-dad's third cousin twice removed objects, the adoption petition will be dismissed?

GV70:

You really need to re-read what you write before you click "Submit Answer".

I, for one, am unable to parse what you have written, especially the last sentence.

What does "too little" mean?
/QUOTE]

Do not ask me! Ask Lord Ormond!

[QUOTE=AK lawyer;3212037]And, then, with respect to #2: again, difficult to parse. Are you trying to say that if the bio-dad's third cousin twice removed objects, the adoption petition will be dismissed?

Yes! Trust me- I have been working in Europe for 24 years.

But a dramatic change in social policy, enacted into
Law as the Children Act 1975,16 has reversed the trend. Adoptions granted to
Natural and stepparents decreased to fewer than 5,000 in 1977, the year after the
Children Act became eflective.

The Children Act requires the court to consider whether adoption by the
Stepparent is conducive to the immediate and long-term welfare of the child, or
Whether the child's welfare would be better served by granting the stepparent
Custody jointly with the custodial natural parent. The practical effect of this
Legislation is that most applications by stepparents for adoption of a stepchild are
Dismissed, and stepparents who want legal parental status must pursue a claim
For joint custody.

The hindrance is intentional, since "[i]n Britain, the prevailing
view is that to encourage stepparent adoption is bad social policy / MADOX /

Stepparent adoptions do not give the stepchild a home, do not remove illegitimacy,
And do not create new emotional relationships./Bissett-Johnson/

The Children Act 1975.Since stepparent adoption changes little in the step family - the natural parent and stepparent are already caring for the child and will continue to do so
Whether the stepparent adopts1 - the committee suggested that stepparent
Adoptions be sharply curtailed.
Allowing stepparents to become the legal guardians of their spouse's children would confer rights and impose dutiesl on the stepparent without extinguishing the ties of the noncustodial natural parent (and grandparents and other reiatives) Furthermore, this arrangement would be open to periodic review.


The recommendation became section 1O(3)of the Children Act 1975 This
Section requires a court to dismiss the adoption application filed by a natural
Parent and stepparentl if the court considers the matter to be more appropriately dealt with under section 42 of the Matrimonial Causes Act



Although the "emphasis now clearly lies against the making of adoption orders
in favour of a step-parent,"/CRETNEY, siting lord Ormond/ there are cases in which the "intangible results"
Indicate that adoption is the better course. A successful stepparent adoption
Application is likely only when the child is very young at the time of the application;
Has lived very little or not at all with the nonadopting natural parent; does
Not presently have a significant relationship or contact with that parent; and is
Unlikely to come into contact in the future with that parent and with his or her
Relatives.

The leading case of In re S.216 illustrates these factors, in a dismissal of a
Stepparent adoption application. The divorced mother of three boys, ages six to
Eleven, and her husband of three months applied for adoption orders. Her
Previous marriage had ended two-and-a-half years earlier. The mother had
Received custody, and the natural father regular visitation privileges (or access, as
The English call it) and a weekly support requirement. Although he lived only a
Few miles away, the father rarely exercised his access rights, seeing the boys once
In the summer of 1975 and not requesting another visit until March 1976./In re S. (Infants) (Adopl'ion by parents),
In March 1976, the mother married a man whom she had been dating for two
Years. "It was said that the relationship [between the stepfather and the three
Boys] was a close one; they were pleased to accept him as a father and he, as the
[lower court] judge put it, 'regards them as his sons.' Although the natural
Father consented to the adoption, the lower court dismissed the application in
Accord with section 10(3) of the Children Act 1975.
"[T]he advantages of adoption [in this kind of case] are vague and
Uncertain".
The Court of Appeal therefore upheld the lower court's denial of the adoption,
leaving the stepfather as joint custodian of the boys and the natural father still
linked legally to his sons

The statute does not prohibit adoption. It discourages the "artificial"
adoption, e.g., the natural father has had considerable contact with
the child and the child knows that the step-father is a step-father. It
does not prohibit the "natural" adoption, e.g. the natural father has
Had no contact with the child since babyhood and the child looks
Upon his step-father as his real father


The English divorce court, in arranging joint custody, can vest the stepparent
With all the rights and duties vested in a natural parent except the right to change
The child's surname unilaterally.

And finally
"If a natural parent doesn't agree to adoption because they think a different order would be better for the child,the court may make the different order instead, even if it is not what you originally applied for."

I am sure there is no such laws in Alaska

Thanks, GV70. Informative.

My thanks as well. As the site I linked to indicated and as your quotes confirmed, the law does allow it, but it is discouraged by precedent and public policy.

Armed with that information, it is up to the OP to decide whether to seek the advice of a solicitor as to whether he should pursue it.

My thanks as well. As the site I linked to indicated and as your quotes confirmed, the law does allow it, but it is discouraged by precedent and public policy.

Armed with that information, it is up to the OP to decide whether to seek the advice of a solicitor as to whether he should pursue it.

Agree! You linked to
Step Adoption (http://www.adoption.org.uk/information/step_adoption.html)
... and there we can reed
"But the other parent has not recently / never paid child maintenance
This is irrelevant. "
That's one of the differences between English and American laws. Not paying child support is a ground for TPR in the USA but it is not a ground for TPR in England, Wales and even Scotland. Similar laws were introduced in Canada, too.Another difference is: In England judges are not under obligation to consider petitioner's motions/ i.e. you may file for adoption and the judge may order you to be only an unpaid caretaker /

Actually about 95 per cent of step parent adoptions occurred in the UK have to do with children under six/ I guess that's mean "too little" in England/, other five per cent concerned children over 6 but their fathers were unknown.

The English laws are clear-a biological father is always legal father notwithstanding he pays child support or not,whether he plays a role in his child's life or not, and he always remain to be the legal father. If you are not connected biologically to a particular child,then you may be designated even as the primary custodian but you CANNOT become as a legal parent.
By the way there are some differences in terminology : there are
1 Parental responsibility -it is similar to legal custody and it may be held by several men/ two, three.ten etc/
2Residence order-it is similar to Physical custody in the USA
Contact order-it is similar to visitation
And so on...

Example- a very bizarre case/
F (Children) [2007] EWCA Civ 873 (25 July 2007) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/873.html)
Re F (Paternity: Jurisdiction) Court of Appeal 25 July 2007

The family justice system was entitled to take responsibility for deciding whether a child should or should not be told of his paternity, in the event of adult dispute.” … it is likely that mental health professionals will need to be involved to help the children through the process and indeed the whole family, including the parents.”“Assuming a parent who, out of obstinacy or emotional disturbance, was challenging the judicial discretionary decision by a threat to ignore the order, it is manifest that such a parent only magnifies the difficulty and with it the need for professional intervention. So, in a case such as that it would be quite pointless to order the reluctant parent to do the job. Such a parent is the worst possible person to carry out the delicate task and in reality the court would meet the challenge by simply putting in place alternative mechanisms for the imparting of the sensitive information.”
LORD JUSTICE THORPE
LORD JUSTICE LLOYD
And
LORD JUSTICE TOULSON
____________________


IN THE MATTER OF F (Children)
In the course of his judgment he defined the relevant factual and legal context in paragraph 33 of his judgment:
Miss Butler pursues an application for permission with appeal to follow on behalf of the mother of twins, who were born on 3 March 1999 and are therefore 8¼ years of age. The other party to the proceedings is Mr B, who issued an application on 28 February 2006 seeking a declaration of parentage in relation to the twins and, if paternity proved, a contact order.
"(a) It is now clear that Mr B is the biological father of the twins.

(b) The twins do not know or suspect the truth. They believe C to be their father, B to be their full brother and Mr C's parents to be their grandparents. Mr C could at present properly be described as their only father figure i.e. as their psychological and social father.

(c) Mr B has seen the twins twice when they were less than a year old, the last occasion being in December 1999. He has had no indirect contact and they know nothing of him. It is not agreed between the parties whether his very limited contact with them was sufficient to establish family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The mother and Mr B never lived together, and their relationship was brief, lasting three a few months in 1998. Because Mr B and the children have never been part of the same family unit and there is no past or present relationship between them, he could only base any claim to respect for family life on the existence of the blood tie and on a potential relationship in the future.

(d) Their births were initially registered without a father being named; Mr C was registered as their father in 2005, and thereby he acquired parental responsibility. However his parental responsibility would be revoked once the registration is corrected.

Assuming a parent who, out of obstinacy or emotional disturbance, was challenging the judicial discretionary decision by a threat to ignore the order, it is manifest that such a parent only magnifies the difficulty and with it the need for professional intervention. So, in a case such as that it would be quite pointless to order the reluctant parent to do the job. Such a parent is the worst possible person to carry out the delicate task and in reality the court would meet the challenge by simply putting in place alternative mechanisms for the imparting of the sensitive information.


 

Not paying child support is a ground for TPR in the USA but it is not a ground for TPR in England,

I just wanted to comment on this point.What we are seeing here is that laws in both the UK and US allow certain things, but from a practical matter, the courts have set different precedent. In the US a TPR is rarely granted, even though almost half the states have laws allowing for it. Courts take the position that if rights aren't being exercised then why bother terminating them. So they will usually issue a TPR only to clear the way for an adoption.