Read the given article

White couple lose battle to bring up black foster child

A white couple failed in the Court of Appeal yesterday to win the black child that they had brought up since he was younger than a month old.
James and Lynne Melling, the foster parents, had remortgaged their home and spent £8,000 in a legal battle to prevent the child, now aged two, from being taken away from them.
The court was told that Mr Melling, aged 42, and his wife, aged 40, had "showered the child, David, with love and affection since he was 24 days old in February 1989.' At the beginning of last year the Mellings said that they wanted to make a permanent home for the boy and bring him up with their other adopted son, Tyrone, aged nine. In November, however, Lancashire County Council told the couple that long-term carers had been found for David, who would eventually adopt him and bring him up with their two other adopted black children.
Matthias Kelly, counsel for Mr and Mrs Melling, told the court that the authority had a rigid policy on placing children with families of the same
I cultural and ethnic background, but, he said, 'The council has paid too little
attention to the deep and binding love the couple has bonded with David and
he with them.'
Lord Justice Balcombe, one of the three judges hearing the appeal, said that there had never been any suggestion that the couple had given other than excellent care to the child. On the contrary, 'One cannot but feel sympathy for them after they raised David for the first two years of his life. They have obviously grown very fond of him and want to keep him on a permanent basis.'
The council said Mr and Mrs Melling knew that they were only short-term carers while a long-term solution was being sought. The judge said that it was for the court to interpret the law, and under the 1980 Child Care Act the couple would have to prove that the local authority had been so unreasonable and its decision so perverse, that no other local authority could make the same decision in similar circumstances.
Passing judgement, Lord Justice Balcombe said that in his view no court could come to that decision, and that the application for a judicial review must be dismissed. He could only sympathise with the couple who had "taken on the task of giving love and care to children whose own parents did not.'
After the hearing, Mrs Melling said she had hoped that the interests of the child would outweigh the letter of the law. 'It's all very well these judges having sympathy for us. We have had lots of sympathy. Instead of sympathy, we want David returned to us, or, at the very least, a review of our case.
"It appears that, while they may agree with us emotionally, they do not want to set a precedent. Since David was taken away we have not heard a thing about him, not even a note to say how he is doing.'