LB v London Borough of Merton & Anor

A local authority may prepare and pursue adoption for a child voluntarily accommodated under Children Act 1989, section 20, although no interim care order has been made. Where the conditions in section 22 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 are met, the authority is required to apply for a placement order. A pending, undisposed-of care application provides an alternative statutory basis for that duty.

Under the regulations then in force, the authority had to obtain an adoption-panel recommendation before its agency decision maker made the necessary decision. That procedure was lawful and gave the court jurisdiction to determine the placement application. Timely parallel planning promotes welfare by avoiding delay.

CB had been accommodated by the local authority under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 after serious neglect. Care proceedings were later issued. The Inner London Family Proceedings Court made a placement order on 10 July 2012. HHJ Cryan dismissed the mother’s first appeal on 8 October 2012.

On a second appeal, permission was confined to whether the authority could refer an accommodated child to its adoption panel and apply for a placement order without an interim care order; whether the court had jurisdiction; and whether sections 1 and 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 had been considered.

Decision

1. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the second appeal. Lord Justice Ryder gave the reasons. Lady Justice Rafferty and Lord Justice Maurice Kay agreed.

2. Section 22(1) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 required the local authority to apply for a placement order where a child was being provided with accommodation, the authority considered the section 31(2) threshold conditions met, and it was satisfied that the child ought to be placed for adoption. The authority had issued care proceedings on that basis. Section 22(2) also independently required an application because a care-order application concerning CB remained undisposed of.

3. A child accommodated during care proceedings, without an interim care order, was a looked-after child under section 22(1)(b) of the Children Act 1989. Nothing in the statutory scheme excluded such a child from placement-order decision making. Adoption planning and referral to the adoption panel were not incidents exclusive to the local authority’s parental responsibility.

4. The applicable Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005 imposed a mandatory process. The authority was required to obtain an adoption-panel recommendation, followed by a decision of the agency decision maker, before issuing its placement application. The authority complied with that process. The court therefore had jurisdiction to consider the application.

5. The separate placement judgment had analysed and applied sections 1 and 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. There was no error in that approach. The later amendment preventing panel referral in specified cases did not apply and was directed to expedition, not to prohibiting preparations for adoption.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — The mother’s second appeal was dismissed: [2013] EWCA Civ 476.

• Principal Registry of the Family Division — HHJ Cryan dismissed the mother’s first appeal against the placement order on 8 October 2012.

• Inner London Family Proceedings Court — District Judge McPhee made the placement order on 10 July 2012.