- Alcester Office +44 (0)1789 765522
- Bedford Office +44 (0)1234 400000
- Birmingham, New St. Office +44 (0)121 270 5666
- Birmingham, Newhall St. Office +44 (0)121 703 2606
- Bristol Office +44 (0)1454 275 190
- Cardiff Office +44 (0)29 2240 8700
- Evesham Office +44 (0)1386 425300
- Gatwick Office +44 (0)1293 602890
- Harrow Office +44 (0)20 8907 4366
- Leicester Office +44 (0)116 255 9911
- Leigh Office +44 (0)1942 673311
- Lichfield Office +44 (0)1543 414426
- Luton Office +44 (0)1582 720175
- Northampton Office +44 (0)1604 233 200
- Redditch Office +44 (0)1527 406363
- Solihull Office +44 (0)121 705 2255
- Stopsley Office +44 (0)1582 453 366
- Sutton Coldfield Office +44 (0)121 355 6118
- Tunbridge Wells Office +44 (0)1892 553090
- Walkden Office +44 (0)161 790 1411
- Walsall Office +44 (0)1922 720000
- Warrington Office +44 (0)1925 632267
- Westhoughton Office +44 (0)1942 816515
- Whitefield Office +44 (0)161 796 7920
- Wigan Office +44 (0)1942 244294
Adoption Agency must not block gay couples, says Court
The Court of Appeal has ruled that an evangelical Christian fostering agency must allow homosexual couples to adopt.
Cornerstone (North East) Adoption and Fostering Service brought legal action against Ofsted after the agency’s rating was downgraded from “good” to “requires improvement”. Ofsted took the step after concluding that the agency was discriminating against lesbians and gay men by only placing children with heterosexual married couples. The Court of Appeal has now agreed with the education watchdog that the policy is discriminatory and not justified by religious beliefs.
However, the case could end up being put before the Supreme Court, as Cornerstone, which is a small, independent fostering and adoption support agency based in Doncaster, intends to appeal the decision.
Whilst giving a High Court ruling in July last year, Mr Justice Julian Knowles said Cornerstone, “must change its recruitment policy to allow gay men and lesbians who are evangelical Christians to apply to become prospective foster parents, and it cannot lawfully refuse to do so”. Cornerstone challenged that judgment at a hearing in June this year. The agency’s appeal was rejected by three Court of Appeal judges, who concluded that the policy was discriminatory and not justified by its religious beliefs.
Lord Justice Peter Jackson, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lady Justice Asplin, said there could be “no doubting” the value of the agency’s work or sincerity of its motives. However, the judge said that to justify the policy it needed to provide “credible evidence” of a seriously detrimental impact on carers and children if its policy was changed. The Lord Justice added: “The evidence it actually advanced did not go beyond the level of general assertion. In consequence, the judge understandably found it impossible to conclude that the ability to discriminate against homosexuals was a matter of such importance to Cornerstone that, without it, the wellbeing of current and future carers and children would be seriously affected. He was entitled to treat assertions of the impact on carers as being at best inconclusive, and no attempt was made to prove any impact on present or future children. In short, while I would not rule out the possibility of an organisation in this position putting up a substantial evidence-based case on justification, Cornerstone simply did not do that, and its claim failed on the facts.”
Cornerstone had previously argued that when Ofsted downgraded the agency’s rating, it had “blundered in” on a “white charger” to be a “champion of equality and human rights”, and had “abused its regulatory function”. Representing the agency, Aidan O’Neill QC told the High Court: “There are no actual victims or complainants. You cannot set up straw men and say, "if they were to do this to them then this would be unlawful. The state has to be neutral in regards of religious beliefs.”
Representing Ofsted, Sir James Eadie QC argued that inspectors had concluded Cornerstone’s recruitment needed action, “because they were unlawful in terms of discrimination law”. He said it was “perfectly clear” Cornerstone was discriminating and added that a homosexual carer would be “required to sign up to a code which effectively denies their orientation”.