B (A Child)

On an application for permission to appeal, the court considers whether the proposed appeal against the challenged order has a real prospect of success. The application cannot be used to reopen earlier care orders or factual findings which were not appealed. Where children have been separated from a parent for a substantial period and are settled with prospective adopters, the likely emotional harm from disrupting their placements is a material consideration. The court may uphold a reasonable-parent assessment based on the children’s welfare, their bonds with the prospective adopters, and their need for stability and security. A possible later review of allegations, or a challenge to the wider process before the European Court of Human Rights, is a separate issue.

The mother sought permission to appeal against an order made by His Honour Judge Holt in the Watford County Court on 16 October 2002. The order dispensed with her agreement and freed her two young daughters for adoption.

Earlier care proceedings had resulted in findings concerning domestic violence, neglect and allegations of sexual abuse, together with care orders and adoption care plans. Those findings and orders had not been appealed. The daughters had been separated from their mother for lengthy periods and were settled with prospective adopters. The central issue was whether the proposed appeal against the final adoption-related order had a real prospect of success.

Application for permission to appeal refused. Lady Justice Hale, sitting alone, held that the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success.

1. The court was concerned only with the last order, namely the order dispensing with parental agreement and freeing the children for adoption. The earlier care proceedings had involved lengthy hearings, legal representation and careful judicial scrutiny. Their factual findings and resulting care orders had not been challenged by an application for permission to appeal. The present application could not reopen or retry those matters.
2. His Honour Judge Holt had correctly directed himself on the applicable questions. He had to consider whether adoption was in the children’s interests and whether a reasonable parent could withhold consent. Relevant considerations included the evidence and reasons underlying the care orders and adoption plans, the children’s deep bonds with the prospective adopters, the risk of emotional harm if they were removed, and the children’s need for stability and security through adoption rather than a lesser status.
3. The children’s circumstances made the proposed appeal untenable. One child had been separated from her mother and placed with prospective adopters for nearly two years. The other had hardly lived with her mother and had not seen her for about a year. Disrupting the placements and attempting to reintroduce the children to their mother and father would cause enormous harm. The Court of Appeal did not hear evidence and had no real prospect of concluding that the county court judge was wrong.
4. The mother’s wish to prove that the earlier allegations were false was distinct from the question whether the children should be returned. There might be circumstances in which a court could later reconsider the relevance of such allegations to another child, but that issue did not determine the present application. A complaint to the European Court of Human Rights concerning the process as a whole would likewise raise a different issue outside the court’s jurisdiction on this application.

The application was refused. A copy of the judgment was to be provided to the applicant at public expense.

1. Watford County Court: On 16 October 2002, His Honour Judge Holt dispensed with the mother’s agreement and freed the two children for adoption.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2002] EWCA Civ 1835, Lady Justice Hale refused permission to appeal.