fbpx

Couple Subjected to Race Discrimination By Adoption Agency Win Damages

21st February 2020 By

Race discrimination may not be intentional, but it can be deeply hurtful and, with the right legal advice, victims can both express their disgust and secure compensation. In a striking case on point, a Sikh couple who were rejected as potential adopters because of their ethnicity were awarded substantial damages.

The high-earning professional couple were born and raised in England and considered themselves culturally British, whilst acknowledging their Indian heritage. After making numerous attempts to conceive by IVF, they realised that they were unlikely to have a child biologically their own and applied to a local authority-run adoption agency to be placed on its list of prospective adopters. They were, however, rejected at an early stage of the selection process.

After they launched legal proceedings, the High Court noted that there was nothing in their background to suggest that they were not suitable people to adopt or that they could not offer a loving and caring home to a child. The agency’s policy to ‘match’ children with adopters from a similar background in reality amounted to the imposition of a criterion based on race.

The stereotypical assumption that lay behind the agency’s policy of seeking an exact, or near-exact, ethnic match gave race a disproportionate importance as a factor regarding the welfare of children. In treating the couple’s race as the key criterion when considering their application, the agency had given overwhelming priority to their ethnicity over other factors which were unanimously in their favour.

The couple were particularly vulnerable, having endured numerous rounds of IVF and a sad early pregnancy loss, and were desperate for a child. Whilst stopping short of finding that the discrimination they suffered was intentional, the Court ruled it a very serious case. They were awarded approximately £120,000 in damages, reflecting the injury to their feelings and the costs arising from the discrimination.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Company Owner's Negligible Value Claim Unsuccessful

29th April, 2024 By

When an asset falls in value to the point that it is almost worthless, it may be possible to make a negligible value claim under Section 24 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The asset will then be treated as if it had been sold and immediately acquired again, so that the loss can be set off against other income. For a claim to succeed, however, the asset must have become of negligible value during the time the claimant owned it. On 30 September 2017, a woman who...

Court Sanctions Leg Amputation for Man Lacking Mental Capacity

24th April, 2024 By

The courts are often called upon to sanction treatment for patients whose ability to make decisions for themselves is impaired. In a recent case on point, the Court of Protection had to decide whether it was in the best interests of a man with mental health issues to have his right leg amputated above the knee. The man, aged 60, was taken to hospital by his niece. He was found to have an ulcerated leg. He had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, and believed that the sores on his leg...

High Court Grants Parental Order Despite Previous Adoption

18th April, 2024 By

In law, adopted children are regarded as having been born to their adoptive parents. The Family Division of the High Court recently considered whether that fact precluded a parental order being granted under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA) in respect of a child born via surrogacy. A couple who lived in the USA had entered into a surrogacy arrangement with another woman. An adoption order naming the couple as the child's parents had been made by a US court and was automatically recognised under UK law. However,...

Flat Owner Not Liable for Pre-existing Structural Issues

16th April, 2024 By

When building owners carry out works on their property, are they liable for damage to adjoining properties that results from pre-existing structural issues? The Court of Appeal recently provided welcome clarification on that question. The owner of a ground-floor flat wished to extend it by building out into his garden. He served notices on owners of adjoining properties, as required by the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. The works caused the rear wall of two adjoining properties to drop by about 2 mm, which led to internal walls and floor...