J (A Child), Re

In adoption appeals, the appellate court must ask whether the decision was wrong, rather than apply the former stricter test of whether it was plainly wrong. A judge considering adoption must explain why adoption is necessary and proportionate, and why the child’s welfare requires dispensing with parental consent. The judgment should evaluate the realistic alternative of family placement, including available support, its benefits and risks, and the consequences of adoption. The reasons must address the relevant welfare considerations, including the effect of the child ceasing to be part of the natural family.

The grandmother sought permission to appeal from a final care decision concerning J, a 21-month-old child. The county court had chosen a care order and placement for adoption order, rather than placement with the grandmother under a special guardianship order, with or without supervision.

The application followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Re B (A Child), [2013] UKSC 33. The central issues were whether the lower court had applied the correct legal approach to adoption and whether its reasons sufficiently explained why adoption, rather than family placement, was necessary and proportionate.

1. Permission and stay. Permission to appeal was granted. The placement for adoption order was stayed pending determination of the appeal. The local authority could continue preparatory paperwork, but no active step could be taken to secure the child’s placement for adoption during the stay.
2. Appellate approach. Following Re B (A Child), [2013] UKSC 33, the Court of Appeal had to consider whether the adoption outcome was wrong, rather than whether the judge had been plainly wrong. The court regarded this as a proper case for the full Court of Appeal to undertake that review.
3. Reasons required for adoption. The judge had used the words necessary and proportionate but had not explained why adoption was necessary or proportionate instead of placement with the grandmother. A judge must set out reasons sufficient to show why adoption has been chosen over placement within the family.
4. Welfare and alternatives. The judgment should explain why the child’s welfare requires dispensing with parental consent. It should assess what support could be provided to manage risks arising from family placement, and compare the benefits and detriments of adoption with the alternative of special guardianship. The relevant welfare checklist in s.1 of the Adoption & Children Act 2002 required particular attention, including the effect on the child of no longer being part of the natural family and growing up as an adopted child.
5. The appeal was directed to be heard urgently by a court of three judges if possible, with respondents to file responsive skeleton arguments by 31 August and a three-hour time estimate.

• Croydon County Court: Her Honour Judge Atkins made a care order and placement for adoption order after a final hearing on 31 May 2013, rejecting the proposed family placement under special guardianship.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was granted. The placement for adoption order was stayed pending the appeal; the substantive appeal remained to be heard.