B County Council v R & Anor

After care and placement proceedings have concluded, the court may intervene to protect children’s welfare where parental conduct threatens to frustrate an adoption. Parents retain freedom of expression and may air grievances, but that freedom does not extend to tracing children, identifying protected persons, contacting those involved in their care, or discouraging prospective adopters. Injunctive relief may restrain publication and require removal of website material where it is a proportionate response to a serious threat to the adoption process. The court must respect Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights while giving effect to the determination that adoption serves the children’s best interests.

B County Council applied for continuing prohibitory and mandatory injunctions concerning four children subject to care and placement orders. Their parents had published photographs, names and identifying information online, stated that the children had been wrongfully removed, sought information about their whereabouts, and urged people not to adopt them.

The court had earlier granted relief without notice. On the return date, the parents opposed continuation and sought contact with prospective adopters. The central issue was whether restrictions on publication, identification, tracing and contact should continue to protect the adoption process and the children’s welfare.

1. Relief continued. The prohibitory and mandatory injunctions were renewed. They restrained attempts to identify or locate the children and prospective adopters, contact persons who might know their whereabouts, and publish information likely to identify the children or their circumstances. Persons served with the order were required to remove controlled internet material.
2. Power to intervene after proceedings. The court retained jurisdiction after the care and placement proceedings to protect the children’s welfare where parental conduct put that welfare at risk. The observations in Clayton v Clayton [2006] EWCA Civ 878 supported intervention where parental identification or publicity crossed the boundary between legitimate expression and the children’s welfare and Convention rights.
3. Nature of the threat. The parents’ activity was an attempt to trace the children and deter prospective adopters, thereby directly imperilling the adoption which the court had determined was in the children’s best interests. They could not use publicity or contact with adopters to defeat the court process instead of pursuing lawful remedies.
4. Proportionality and residual expression. Articles 8 and 10 required careful balancing. The injunction was appropriate and proportionate to the serious threat presented. Care and placement orders did not silence the parents: they remained entitled to express their views, subject to restrictions on identifying the children, doctors, evidence given at the hearings and other information capable of frustrating the adoption.