B (A Child), Re

Leave to oppose an adoption after a placement order requires the parent to show a change of circumstances since the placement order. Even where such change is shown, leave should be granted only if opposition is in the child’s best interests. An appellate challenge to refusal of leave requires a reasonable prospect of success. A court refusing leave should ordinarily allow a short period for an application for permission to appeal before making the adoption order.

The mother sought permission to appeal against Her Honour Judge Harris’s refusal, at Chelmsford County Court on 11 July 2012, to give her leave to oppose the adoption of T. The judge found that the mother had no realistic prospect of establishing a relevant change in circumstances and that opposition would not serve T’s interests, given his long and settled placement with the prospective adopters.

The mother relied on improvements in her personal circumstances, mental-health stability, employment and community support. She also sought, in substance, limited direct contact with her children. The central issue was whether her proposed appeal against the refusal of leave had a reasonable prospect of success.

Disposition

The application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. The judge had correctly applied the statutory gateway in Adoption and Children Act 2002. The mother had to establish a change of circumstances since the placement order. Even if she did so, leave to oppose could be granted only if this served T’s best interests.

2. The mother’s identified improvements did not realistically engage with, or reduce, the substantial concerns underlying the earlier placement decision. McFarlane LJ could not conclude that the county court was wrong to find no relevant change of circumstances.

3. In any event, T had lived with the prospective adopters from shortly after birth and was settled with them. It was beyond realistic contemplation that the adoption path should be altered at that late stage. The mother therefore had no reasonable prospect of succeeding on either stage of the leave application.

4. The court noted that the mother might make a measured approach to the local authority about the possibility of limited direct contact. That issue was separate from the appeal and was not determined.

5. McFarlane LJ also criticised the county court’s making of the adoption order immediately after refusing leave. The court should have postponed that order for a limited period to allow an application for permission to appeal. That procedural criticism did not affect the refusal of permission in this case.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — McFarlane LJ refused the mother’s application for permission to appeal on 13 March 2013.

• Chelmsford County Court — Her Honour Judge Harris refused the mother leave to oppose the adoption on 11 July 2012 and made the adoption order on the same day.