Birmingham City Council v HP & Ors

When deciding whether children should be placed for adoption, the court must assess each child’s welfare throughout life and apply the statutory checklist. Adoption may be ordered despite parental objection where welfare requires consent to be dispensed with. Serious abuse, denial of responsibility, inability of relatives to protect the children, and the need for permanence may justify adoption even where the children share the parents’ religion and culture.

A court should not ordinarily make a binding contact order merely because contact is desirable. It must consider the children’s welfare, the effect on prospective placements, and the changing nature of relationships. Delay in making placement orders may itself prejudice the children’s welfare.

Birmingham City Council sought final care orders and placement orders for five children. The parents opposed adoption and sought the children’s return or placement within the wider family. The paternal grandmother initially sought care of some or all of the children but withdrew that application during the hearing.

The court had previously found that the mother had inflicted serious non-accidental injuries and that the father had failed to protect the children. The parents and wider family members did not accept those findings, and assessments did not identify a safe family placement. The central issues were whether adoption was required, whether parental consent should be dispensed with, the appropriate level of family and sibling contact, and whether contact should be secured by orders under the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

1. Placement orders and adoption. The court made care orders and placement orders for all five children. The parents’ continuing denial of the established abuse and the father’s failure to protect the children meant that neither parent could safely care for them. The assessments also showed that no member of the wider family could provide sufficient protection or stability.
2. Welfare throughout life. Under sections 1(2), 1(4) and 52(1)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the court considered each child’s welfare throughout life, including background, relationships, harm suffered, and the relatives’ ability and willingness to provide a secure environment. Adoption offered the best prospect of a permanent and secure family life. The court accepted that adoption would be difficult for the two eldest children, but held that the prospect was not so remote as to justify postponing the placement decision.
3. Religion and culture. The fact that the children were Muslim and had Muslim parents did not prevent adoption. Their religious and cultural background was weighed with the other checklist factors, but the history of abuse and the absence of a safe family placement meant that their welfare required adoption.
4. Contact. Direct parental contact after adoption was not in the children’s interests. Contact in foster care was reduced to a level consistent with settling into placement. The court also declined to make section 26 orders securing contact with parents, relatives, or siblings. Such orders could restrict suitable placements, fail to accommodate changing relationships, and create difficulties given the limited relationship between the two sibling groups.
5. Delay. The court rejected postponing placement orders until adoptive placements had been identified. Further legal uncertainty and delay would deter prospective adopters and conflict with the children’s need for an early permanent placement. The local authority was to keep the respondents informed of progress, with that arrangement recorded in the order’s preamble.