header-logo header-logo

02 September 2010
Issue: 7431 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Catholic adoption charity loses appeal over gay parents

A Catholic adoption agency has lost its appeal to the Charity Commission over its policy of excluding gay couples.

The Commission said last week it is withholding consent to the charity Catholic Care to amend its charitable objects to discriminate against prospective adopters if they are in a same-sex relationship.

The decision follows a high court judgment in March, which found the essentially public nature of adoption services meant respect for religious views could not be a justification for discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. However, the court allowed the charity to appeal against the Commission’s decision and set out principles by which the Commission should consider Catholic Care’s case. These principles included the need to justify the discrimination within Art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, under which there needs to be “particularly convincing and weighty reasons” to justify any discrimination.

Catholic Care, which has been providing adoption services for more than 100 years, had argued that it would lose its funding from the Roman Catholic Church if it did not discriminate.

However, the Commission concluded that the evidence did not provide sufficiently “convincing and weighty reasons” to justify the charity’s discrimination. This was because:

• it is in the interests of the children involved that the pool from which prospective parents are drawn be as wide as possible;
• discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation is a serious matter because it departs from the principle of treating people equally;
• local authority evidence suggested that even if the charity were to close its adoption service, children would be placed through other channels; and
• local authority evidence suggested that gay and lesbian people were suitable prospective parents for hard to place children, and that such adoptions have been successful.

Andrew Hind, the Commission’s chief executive, says: “Clearly the interests of children are paramount.
“In certain circumstances, it is not against the law for charities to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. However, because the prohibition on such discrimination is a fundamental principle of human rights law, such discrimination can only be permitted in the most compelling circumstances.”

A spokesperson for Catholic Care says: “The charity is very disappointed with the outcome.

“Catholic Care will now consider whether there is any other way in which the charity can continue to support families seeking to adopt children in need.
“In any event, Catholic Care will seek to register as an adoption support agency offering a service to those who were adopted in the past and are now seeking information about their background, and also to support adoptive parents already approved by Catholic Care.”
 

Issue: 7431 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll