header-logo header-logo

Catholic adoption charity loses appeal over gay parents

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll