J (A Child), Re

On an application for permission to appeal, the Court of Appeal reviews the lower court’s judgment to identify a sufficient demonstrated error or irregularity warranting permission. Where no such error or irregularity is shown, permission must be refused. In child-care and adoption proceedings, the court’s overriding obligation is to act in the child’s best interests. That obligation may produce an outcome which appears unfair to a parent, including an adoption arrangement involving no continuing parental contact where that is necessary to secure a suitable placement.

The applicant sought permission to appeal from a Leeds County Court order placing her daughter in the care of the local authority and making a freeing order for adoption. The lower court had dispensed with both parents’ consent on the basis that it was being unreasonably withheld. The parents had sought further assessment or an interim care order, and opposed the proposed final disposal. The applicant also complained that contact had not continued after judgment. The central issue was whether the lower court’s judgment disclosed a sufficient error or irregularity to justify permission to appeal.

Lord Justice Thorpe dismissed the application for permission to appeal.

1. The Court of Appeal’s function at this stage was to review the lower court’s judgment and decide whether it disclosed any sufficient demonstrated error or irregularity justifying permission to appeal. The available note of the lower court’s judgment did not demonstrate such an error or irregularity.
2. The lower court had been entitled, in the exercise of its discretion, to reject the parents’ request for further assessment or an interim care order. It had concluded that further assessment could not alter the outcome, that the child required an early decision, and that adoption promoted her welfare.
3. The court’s duty was to do what was best for the child. That duty could lead to a result which was unfair to a parent. The possibility that a suitable adoptive family might accept the child only on terms excluding contact was identified as a matter of practical child-welfare assessment, rather than as a basis for reopening the lower court’s decision.
4. The application was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal from the Leeds County Court judgment was refused, and the application was dismissed.
• Leeds County Court: His Honour Judge Charlesworth made a care order and a freeing order for adoption, dispensing with the parents’ consent on the ground that it was unreasonably withheld.