Search results

This article seeks to explore two questions. First, given that the legal effects of an adoption order and a parental order made under s.54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 are virtually identical while the statutory conditions for each are different, would the granting of one in circumstances designed for the other create any genuine problem and do the differences in aims justify the different conditions for each order? Secondly, when is it right for the court to override statutory conditions on the ground that the welfare of the child requires the order to be made? Does welfare 'trump' all or only some conditions, and if only some then how do we distinguish between competency determining conditions and those subject to welfare considerations? Both questions arise from a decision of the President of the Family Division, in which the judge held (i) that the child's welfare overrode a statutory requirement, and (ii) that the use of the adoption legislation, which contained no such requirement, would be entirely unsuitable for the circumstances in which a parental order was sought. It will be suggested that this approach is an unnecessary subversion of the expressed will of Parliament; it will be concluded that parental orders, by avoiding the policy balances of adoption, are themselves dangerous and ought to be abolished. These issues will be explored in the context of both Scots and English law because parental orders, though designed to reflect the different adoption rules in each of these jurisdictions, contain elements traced to English law that fit imperfectly into the Scottish system.

The adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has substantially changed the landscape in relation to the right to non-discrimination of persons with disabilities and has had a clear impact on the case law and legislation at international and national level. This impact is detected in the interpretation of key concepts such as the definition of disability and the forms of discrimination. It also extends to more cross-cutting issues such as the interpretive methodology that is followed by the different courts. Despite the efforts of legal systems to adapt to the text of the Convention, certain problems of compatibility between national and EU legislation and case law and the CRPD can still be observed. Thus, this article focuses on these problems, arguing that a different regulation of certain issues is necessary for the coherence in the legal system to be guaranteed and the rights of persons with disabilities to be more effectively protected. ; La aprobación de la Convención sobre los Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad (CDPD) ha cambiado sustancialmente el panorama en relación con el derecho a la no discriminación de las personas con discapacidad y ha te­nido un claro impacto en la jurisprudencia y normativa a nivel internacional y nacional sobre esta materia. Este impacto se detecta en la interpretación de con­ceptos clave como la definición de discapacidad y las formas de discriminación. Pero se extiende también a cuestiones más transversales como es la metodología interpretativa que se sigue por parte de los diferentes órganos jurisdiccionales. A pesar de los esfuerzos de adaptación de los ordenamientos jurídicos al texto de la Convención, todavía se pueden observar determinados problemas de com­patibilidad entre la normativa y jurisprudencia nacional y comunitaria y la CDPD. Así, el presente artículo se centra en estos problemas argumentando que es necesaria una regulación diferente de determinadas cuestiones para que se pueda garantizar la coherencia en el ...

1 sheet ([1] p.) ; Dated at end: Given at Our Court at Whitehall, the nineteenth day of April, in the thirteenth year of Our Reign. ; Annotation on Thomason copy: "Aprill 20". ; Reproduction of the original in the British Library.

"November 1998." ; Shipping list no.: 99-0101-P. ; Mode of access: Internet.