Newcastle Upon Tyne City Council v Mrs O & Ors

In care and adoption proceedings, serious deliberate violence, coupled with continuing denial, lack of remorse and failure to engage with professionals, may make rehabilitation and effective risk management impossible. The resulting risk to the children may justify placement away from the parent.

Under section 16 of the Adoption Act 1976, the child’s welfare does not by itself override a parent’s objection. The court must decide objectively, having regard to current societal values, whether the advantages of adoption are sufficiently strong to justify overriding the objecting parent’s views and interests. The parent’s consent may be dispensed with where it is unreasonably withheld.

The local authority brought care proceedings concerning two children after the elder child suffered multiple deliberately inflicted injuries while in the mother’s care. The court had previously found that the mother had caused seven significant injuries. The mother denied responsibility and sought the return of both children.

At the resumed hearing, the court considered psychological evidence, the mother’s evidence, the Guardian’s assessment and the local authority’s amended plan for adoption or long-term fostering. The central issues were whether the children faced an unacceptable risk if returned, whether rehabilitation could be safely planned, and whether the mother’s consent to freeing the children for adoption should be dispensed with.

1. Risk and care plan. The court found that both children were likely to suffer significant harm if returned to the mother. The deliberate nature and severity of the injuries, together with the mother’s continuing denials, absence of remorse, rigid thinking and failure to cooperate with the local authority or Guardian, made proper risk assessment and supervision impossible.
2. The evidence established a wholly unacceptable risk of repeated violence to both children. The psychologist’s cautious consideration of rehabilitation for the younger child was not supported by his oral evidence. The Guardian’s evidence confirmed that there was no realistic prospect of meaningful change or of constructing a sufficiently robust risk-management plan.
3. The court’s paramount consideration was the welfare of the children. It recognised the strong presumption that children should be brought up within their natural family, but found that the compelling evidence required an alternative placement. It approved the amended care plan for adoption or long-term fostering away from the mother, with adoption pursued as the appropriate plan.
4. Dispensing with consent. Under section 16 of the Adoption Act 1976, the mother’s consent could not be overridden merely because adoption was in the children’s best interests. Applying the approach in Re C (A Minor) (Adoption: Parental Agreement; Contact) (1993) 2 FLR at p. 262, the court considered objectively whether the advantages of adoption were sufficiently strong, applying current societal values, to justify overriding the objecting parent’s views and interests.
5. Having considered all the circumstances, the court concluded that the mother was unreasonably withholding consent in respect of the younger child. It made freeing orders in respect of both children after dispensing with the relevant parental consents and approved the care plan as amended.