Q (A Child)

In adoption proceedings, the statutory question is whether the child's welfare throughout life requires adoption. That word expresses the Convention necessity threshold, but adoption does not attract an enhanced welfare test and the evidence need not be overwhelming. A judge may consider severe physical-risk consequences, attachment disruption, cultural and religious identity, and available professional evidence. An appellate court will not interfere with the welfare evaluation where the findings are supported by the evidence and are not plainly wrong. The court may leave the engagement of Article 8 undecided where the same test has been applied and the outcome does not turn on that issue.

The child's mother relinquished her at birth and consented to her placement and future adoption. The father, who did not have parental responsibility, sought a residence order. The child had been placed with confidential adopters and had formed a deep attachment to them.

On 18 July 2011, Parker J refused the father's application and made an adoption order. The father appealed, challenging the Article 8 analysis, application of the welfare checklist, assessment of attachment and cultural issues, findings concerning physical risk, refusal of further expert evidence, and factual findings about the parties. The central issue was whether the judge had erred in concluding that adoption was required for the child's welfare throughout her life.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. The adoption order in favour of the confidential adopters was upheld.
2. Applicable test. The court applied Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535. The word “requires” in section 52(1)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 captures the Convention requirement of necessity. Adoption does not require an enhanced welfare test, and the evidence need not be overwhelming. Parker J had applied the correct, Convention-compliant test.
3. Article 8. Because the same test had been applied, nothing turned on whether the father's family or private life rights under Article 8 were engaged. The court therefore deliberately left the important questions raised by Anayo v Germany [2011] 1 FLR 1883 for determination in a case where they arose for decision.
4. Welfare evaluation. The judge was entitled to treat the risk of physical harm as of major importance, particularly given the gravity of the possible consequences. She properly assessed the likely disruption of the child's attachment, the competing professional opinions, and the risks of placement with the father and his new family. Refusal of a further psychiatric report was justified by the existing professional evidence and the delay it would cause.
5. The judge also properly considered cultural, ethnic and religious identity. Her findings and overall welfare evaluation were not plainly wrong. The adoption order and the restriction to letterbox contact therefore remained in force.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 21 December 2011, unanimously dismissed the father's appeal and upheld the adoption order: [2011] EWCA Civ 1610.
• High Court of Justice, Family Division: Parker J, on 18 July 2011, refused the father's residence application and made an adoption order in favour of the confidential adopters. No citation for that judgment is stated in the judgment.