S (A Child), Re

A court considering care and adoption must establish the statutory threshold for the particular child and conduct a child-focused welfare assessment. Where adoption is proposed, the court must consider proportionality and whether anything else will do.

A holistic comparison is required between potentially viable placement options. It does not require an artificial balance where no viable alternative exists. An uncertain, open-ended wait for therapy may be rejected where it exceeds the child’s timescale.

Direct contact after placement for adoption is rare. A judge may summarily refuse an application where recent proceedings provide sufficient knowledge to assess its merits.

The mother appealed against care and placement-for-adoption orders made by His Honour Judge Hernandez in the Manchester County Court concerning her young daughter, A. She argued that the statutory threshold had not been adequately established, insufficient weight had been given to her positive parenting qualities, the risks had not been properly analysed, and the judge had failed to undertake a holistic and proportionate welfare assessment.

The court also considered her application for permission to appeal against the same judge’s summary refusal to reinstate weekly direct contact with an older child, Y, who had already been placed for adoption.

The central issues were whether the judge’s assessment and reasons justified adoption as the only viable plan for A, and whether the summary refusal of contact with Y was arguably wrong.

1. Appeal dismissed. The threshold under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 had been conceded and was amply established. The mother’s unpredictable emotional outbursts could destabilise and emotionally harm a child. Her difficulty working openly with social workers impaired effective monitoring, while her persistence in potentially violent relationships added to the risk (paras 26–28).

2. The judge had permitted fresh psychiatric and independent social-work assessments instead of adopting the local authority’s proposed fast-track course. Neither assessment supported immediate reunification. The psychiatric evidence indicated that therapy would be required for at least six months and might involve a broader multidisciplinary intervention. The judge was entitled to conclude that further intervention and subsequent assessment lay beyond A’s timescale (paras 29–44).

3. The welfare assessment had to be child-focused, with A’s welfare treated as paramount. Although the mother possessed substantial positive qualities and good basic childcare skills, there was no viable immediate alternative to adoption. The only suggested course was an uncertain and open-ended wait for therapy, with no guarantee that risk would diminish (paras 44–48).

4. A holistic appraisal is required where the court must compare potentially viable placement options. The judge’s approach was not improperly linear because there was no viable competing placement to balance against adoption. Applying the proportionality formulation associated with Re B [2013] UK SC33, nothing else would do because no workable alternative had been advanced (paras 45–49).

5. Permission to appeal concerning contact with Y refused. Direct contact with a child placed for adoption is rare, particularly where prospective adopters do not agree. A judge has a wide procedural discretion ranging from a full hearing to summary dismissal. Having recently conducted a full hearing concerning the mother and knowing her current circumstances, the judge was entitled summarily to refuse the application (paras 50–54).

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal against the care and placement-for-adoption orders concerning A was dismissed. Permission to appeal against the refusal of direct contact with Y was refused.
• Manchester County Court: On 1 May 2013, His Honour Judge Hernandez made care and placement-for-adoption orders concerning A. On 14 June 2013, he summarily refused the mother’s application to reinstate direct contact with Y.