T (A Child)

An application for post-adoption contact opposed by adopters must be determined by treating the child’s welfare as paramount. The imposition of contact upon unwilling adopters remains extremely unusual, although the court may adopt a more flexible approach in appropriate cases.

A court may determine such an application at a hearing listed for directions where the procedure is fair and further evidence could not overcome the decisive welfare objection. An applicant has no absolute right to require the adopters to give oral evidence if reliable evidence of their position is available and can be tested.

A child’s former legal grandmother appealed against the Exeter County Court’s dismissal of her application for post-adoption contact. Before placement, professional reports and the care plan had supported qualified direct contact. The adopters subsequently became apprehensive about contact and opposed its immediate introduction.

Although the hearing was listed for directions, the judge heard oral evidence from the child’s guardian and dismissed the application. He found that the proceedings were destabilising the adopters and thereby adversely affecting the child. The appeal concerned whether that summary determination was procedurally fair and a proper exercise of discretion.

1. Appeal dismissed. The county court judge was entitled to determine and dismiss the application at the directions hearing. The child’s welfare was paramount, and the evidence showed that continuing proceedings would destabilise the adopters and adversely affect the child.
2. Per Wilson LJ, with whom Arden LJ and Sir Nicholas Wall P agreed, the general approach remained that imposing post-adoption contact upon unwilling adopters was extremely unusual. Although Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535 indicated greater flexibility in some cases, Re R (Adoption: Contact) [2005] EWCA Civ 1128 continued to reflect the governing approach. There was no measurable prospect that continued proceedings would result in an order imposing direct contact upon the adopters.
3. The unresolved history of communications about contact did not require further investigation before dismissal. Even if earlier professional material had supported direct contact, the decisive circumstances were the adopters’ current opposition and the resulting risk of destabilising the placement. The judge properly concentrated on the child’s present welfare.
4. Per Arden LJ, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights did not give the grandmother an absolute right to require the adopters to attend and give oral evidence. The judge could fairly determine their current position from the guardian, who had recently interviewed them and was questioned by both the judge and the grandmother’s counsel. Further evidence would not have removed the decisive welfare obstacle.
5. Sir Nicholas Wall P agreed that the judge could adopt the shortened procedure provided he acted fairly. The guardian gave evidence, was cross-examined, and counsel presented full argument. The judge’s exercise of discretion was therefore lawful.
6. Local authorities should take particular care to communicate consistently with adopters and biological family members where future contact remains conditional or uncertain. Clear communication may allow any dispute to be considered before adoption under section 46(6) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and, where appropriate, through an application under section 26.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The grandmother’s appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the summary dismissal of her application for post-adoption contact.
2. Exeter County Court: HHJ Tyzack QC dismissed the grandmother’s contact application after hearing evidence from the child’s guardian at a hearing listed for directions.