P-B (a child), Re

A local authority acting as an adoption agency cannot be satisfied under section 22 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 that a child ought to be placed for adoption until it has completed the prescribed decision-making process. This requires consideration of the adoption panel’s recommendation and a decision by the agency.

The duty under regulation 19 of the Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005 is substantive. The agency must genuinely consider the panel’s recommendation, although it may depart from it on sufficiently strong grounds. A placement-order application therefore follows the panel’s recommendation and the agency’s consequential decision.

A court may determine care and placement-order applications together where the parent knew adoption was proposed, had an adequate opportunity to contest it and suffers no identifiable prejudice.

The mother appealed against orders made by HHJ Roger Connor in Watford County Court granting a local authority a care order and a placement order in respect of her young son. The authority’s initial care plans contemplated rehabilitation, but its eighth plan proposed adoption. After the adoption panel approved that proposal during the care trial, the authority issued its placement-order application and the judge directed that both applications be determined together.

The mother alleged procedural unfairness because the placement application was issued during the trial. She argued that section 22 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 had permitted and required an earlier application. She also challenged the judge’s reliance on a psychiatrist’s paper-only assessment and the adequacy of the evidence concerning the prospects of finding suitable adopters.

1. Appeal dismissed. Under section 22 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the relevant satisfaction is that of the local authority acting as an adoption agency. That state of satisfaction cannot be reached until the regulatory process has been completed. The adoption panel must make its recommendation and the appointed officer must make the agency’s consequential decision. The authority therefore could not have issued its placement-order application earlier than it did.

2. HHJ Connor acted within the wide ambit of his discretion by directing that the placement-order application be determined with the care proceedings. The mother had known since the eighth care plan that the authority sought adoption, and the intended application had been explained at the pre-trial review. No further evidence was identified that she could usefully have filed after an adjournment. Her ability to seek contact was not extinguished by the placement order. The late application therefore caused no material prejudice.

3. Lady Justice Arden added that regulation 19 of the Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005 imposes a substantive duty to take the adoption panel’s recommendation into account. Paying lip service to it is insufficient. Although the agency may theoretically reach a different conclusion, strong grounds would be required. The court left open the consequences of commencing proceedings without properly fulfilling that duty.

4. Lord Justice Wilson added that regulation 18(3), which permits a panel to advise whether a local authority should seek a placement order, confirms that the recommendation and the agency’s consequential decision precede the application.

5. The trial judge was entitled to rely on the psychiatrist’s paper-only assessment. The expert had been invited to request interviews if necessary and maintained that the papers enabled him to assist the court. Resolving the conflict between that opinion and the contrary professional evidence was a matter for the trial judge, who also had the guardian’s support.

6. The evidence about finding adopters was adequate. The judge recognised the child’s illness and possible genetic predisposition as placement difficulties, but was entitled to weigh the adoption manager’s evidence, the child’s positive characteristics and the authority’s established systems and reputation.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The mother’s appeal was dismissed unanimously. The court upheld both the care order and the placement order.

2. Watford County Court: HHJ Roger Connor ordered that the placement-order application be determined with the ongoing care proceedings. Following a full trial, he granted the local authority a care order and a placement order. He subsequently refused permission to appeal.

3. Court of Appeal permission stage: Hughes LJ directed that the renewed application for permission be listed for an oral hearing, with the appeal to follow if permission was granted. The constitution treated the hearing as the appeal and regarded permission as inferentially granted.