A couple who say their lives have been ruined by the disturbed child they adopted have begun a High Court case for damages.

They claim Essex County Council failed in their duty as a statutory adoption agency.

On Wednesday, Gavin Millar QC, barrister for the couple - who cannot be named - told judge Mr Justice Buckley that had the couple known how the then five-year-old would turn out, they would never have adopted him.

The court was told that the boy left their care in 1999 and now lives at a residential school.

The parents allege they were not properly informed of the boy's serious and emotional behavioural difficulties

Gavin Millar QC

Part of their claim for compensation is under the Human Rights Act as they say the decision to place the boy with them was a violation of their right to respect for their home and family life.

Mr Millar told the court the disturbed boy, who suffered from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, was placed with the couple in the mid-1990s by the council.

Despite having no experience of raising a child as a couple they were still given approval to adopt both him and his three year old sister, he said.

'Informed consent'

Mr Millar said: "The parents allege they were not properly informed of the boy's serious and emotional behavioural difficulties, and in consequence were unable to give informed consent to the council's proposals for placement.

"They should have been put in a position to give full and informed consent to the proposed placement in deciding whether to accept the proposal and accept the child into their home. It's very much an informed consent case."

Mr Millar said the parents were given no written warning of the boy's behavioural background when they adopted him.

This, said the barrister, was despite the fact concerns of the then foster mother and professionals involved in the case had been minuted at a meeting - which the couple did not attend - of the Council's Adoption Panel.

'Happy and outgoing'

The barrister said the parents only received two reports on the boy.

Although they warned he could be difficult, he was described as "happy and outgoing". But the council denies any liability in the case arguing that the parents were made fully aware of what was known about the boy.

Earlier Mr Justice Buckley lifted an order banning the identification of the local authority, but he ruled the couple and the child must not be identified.