MF v The London Borough of Brent

When deciding whether adoption is necessary, the court must give paramount consideration to the child’s welfare throughout life and ask whether anything short of adoption will do. Adoption may be ordered alongside continuing birth-family contact where both arrangements promote welfare. The primary relationship with the adopter, and the adopter’s exclusive parental responsibility, must remain secure. Contact should preserve important identity and sibling relationships without creating instability, divided loyalties or interference with the placement. A contact order may be appropriate where a minimum level of contact is necessary for the child’s long-term welfare, but it should be limited where a more extensive order would improperly fetter the adopter’s parental responsibility.

P-M, aged seven, had spent most of his life with Ms D, his former foster carer and prospective adopter. His earlier placement with paternal relatives had broken down. The local authority, the Children’s Guardian and most parties supported adoption. P-M’s mother preferred a special guardianship order, while his maternal grandmother sought continuing direct contact, preferably under a Children Act 1989 section 8 order.

The court had to determine whether adoption was necessary and, if so, whether contact with the maternal grandmother and P-M’s sister should continue and be secured by order.

1. The court made an adoption order. Under section 1(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, P-M’s welfare throughout his life was paramount. Applying the necessity test discussed in In the matter of B (a child) [2013] UKSC 33, the court concluded that nothing else would provide the permanence, stability and exclusive parental responsibility required by P-M.

2. The welfare checklist supported adoption. Ms D was P-M’s established parental figure, and the permanence of their relationship required her to exercise parental responsibility exclusively. Nevertheless, P-M had an important and continuing need to maintain relationships with his maternal grandmother and sister and to retain links with his birth heritage.

3. Adoption and contact were not incompatible on the facts. Contact had to take second place to the primary parent-child relationship and had to contribute to identity and stability without risking disruption. The court applied the approach to post-adoption contact described in Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] 2 FLR 625, Re R (Adoption: Contact) [2005] EWCA Civ 1128 and Oxfordshire CC v X, Y and J [2010] EWCA Civ 581.

4. A limited, unsupervised contact order was made. It provided approximately eight visits annually, with differing arrangements for the grandmother, sister and other relatives. The court considered that a minimum level of contact, particularly sibling contact, was necessary for P-M’s long-term welfare. A wider order would risk anxiety and would unduly fetter Ms D’s exercise of exclusive parental responsibility.

5. The court declined a further review. Absent a new application, its role ended and the parties were to be free from further litigation.