Re O (A Child)

In adoption proceedings, the court must assess whether a proposed placement can protect the child from disruption and unwanted contact. Anonymity may be fundamental where the natural parents are likely to discover the placement and interfere with it. A foster parent’s strong bond with the child is important, but it may be outweighed by a substantial risk of discovery, threats or disruption. Relocation may not remove that risk. Where those factors make the proposed adoption application almost certain to fail, postponing the child’s placement is not justified.

A child was placed with short-term foster carers after being removed from abusive parents. The care proceedings resulted in a care order, an order under section 34(4) of the Children Act 1989, and the child being freed for adoption. The local authority approved prospective adopters, but the foster carers issued their own adoption application.

The Manchester County Court, applying section 30 of the Adoption Act 1976, directed that the child be handed to the local authority and refused permission to appeal. The foster carers applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. The central issue was whether the risk that the natural parents would discover and disrupt the foster placement justified refusing to delay the child’s move.

Permission to appeal refused. The Court of Appeal held that the judge’s conclusion was correct notwithstanding that one premise concerning the likely delay in hearing the foster carers’ adoption application had proved inaccurate.

1. The decisive consideration was the real possibility of unintended contact between the natural parents and the foster family. The father was dangerous, violent and unpredictable, and the mother had threatened to abscond with or kidnap the child. There was a serious and substantial risk of threats, attendance at the foster home or other disruption.
2. Moving house would not adequately answer the problem. The natural parents already knew the foster carers’ identity and might discover their new address or the fact of an adoption. Relocation would also adversely affect the foster carers’ two older children. More importantly, the judge was entitled to find that the risk of disruption remained substantial even after a move.
3. Anonymity was fundamental in adoption proceedings because experience showed that natural parents could locate and disrupt placements. The judge properly balanced that risk against the child’s attachment to the foster carers. Although the child would experience disruption on moving, she was well adjusted and capable of forming new attachments. The proposed adoption application was therefore almost bound to fail, making a five-month postponement contrary to the child’s interests.
4. The Court noted that the judge may have set the test too high in the terms of Re C (A Minor) (Adoption), and may have given excessive weight to the parents’ human rights. Those issues did not affect the result because the risk of discovery and disruption independently justified the order.

The order refusing permission to appeal was affirmed.

1. Manchester County Court: His Honour Judge Bloom QC made a care order, an order under section 34(4) of the Children Act 1989, and freed the child for adoption. On the local authority’s application under section 30 of the Adoption Act 1976, he directed that the child be handed to the local authority. Permission to appeal was refused on 20 June 2002.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for permission to appeal was refused.