Q and A: Legal battle explained

The couple who adopted twin girls over the internet faced Flintshire social services in court on Tuesday about the question of who should have custody of the babies.

Leading child law expert Allan Levy QC explains the legal intricacies of the case.

---

What do the two sides have to try to prove in this case ?

Basically each side has to prove on the balance of probabilities that what they suggest is in the best interests of the children. However, if the local authority want an interim care order for the time being, they will have to satisfy the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the children have suffered or are likely to suffer significant harm if they are not in care.

What is the prime consideration of the judge and the court?

The prime consideration of the court is to do what is best for the children - what is most likely to safeguard and promote their welfare in the future.

What would be the effect of making the twins wards of court?

If the twins are made wards of court, all important decisions would be made by the court, including placements and whether or not they could be taken out of the jurisdiction. However, for technical reasons the children could not be placed in care via wardship - so the local authority position is not absolutely clear at the moment.

If the Kilshaws were to lose this first round, what recourse is open to them?

Any side that loses at first instance could with the permission of the High Court (or the Court of Appeal) appeal to the Court of Appeal.

UK adoption procedures are being tightened - does that affect this case?

The law at present governs the case, not any future changes.

What would happen if a US court were to revoke the adoption of the twins - could they be removed from care in the UK and taken back to the US?

If the Arkansas "adoption" were set aside, the Kilshaws would not have its authority to rely upon. One of the options open to the court is eventually to send the children back to the US.

How much are we in uncharted legal waters here - is there any precedent?

The factual situation of the case is unprecedented. There is no direct precedent for the court to follow.