RCW v A Local Authority (No.2): Re SB

Visual impairment does not, of itself, disqualify an adult from being a capable and loving parent. An adoption order may properly be made where updated welfare assessments demonstrate that the proposed adopter can meet the child’s needs, with appropriate practical support where required. The court must consider the child’s best interests both immediately and throughout childhood. A decision to remove a child from an adoptive placement should be based on a fair and sufficiently informed welfare assessment, including relevant evidence about the adult’s condition, prognosis, abilities and available support.

The applicant had been caring for a baby placed with her for adoption when emergency brain surgery left her blind. The local authority initially proposed removing the child, and an injunction was granted under the Human Rights Act 1998. The court then directed a welfare assessment and considered the applicant’s application for an adoption order alongside the local authority’s notice under section 35 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

Following multidisciplinary assessment, occupational support and practical assistance, the local authority and the child’s guardian supported adoption. The central issue was whether adoption by the visually impaired applicant was in the child’s best interests, having regard to the applicant’s abilities and the support available.

1. The application for an adoption order was granted. The court was wholly satisfied that adoption by the applicant was in the child’s best interests and that the proposed care arrangements would meet the child’s needs.
2. Visual impairment did not, without more, disqualify an adult from being a capable and loving parent. The applicant had demonstrated that she could provide nurturing, safe and high-quality care, despite sudden and substantial disability.
3. The court attached significant weight to the later, comprehensive welfare evidence. The assessments showed a strong emotional bond, a developing secure attachment and no evidence that the applicant’s visual disability was adversely affecting the child. The applicant had learned practical strategies and was expected to undertake many parenting tasks herself.
4. The child’s welfare could properly be secured through continuing practical support. Full-time live-in assistance was advised for the immediate and medium-term future, together with continuing involvement from Focal Point UK, counselling and further assistance with mobility, cooking and overnight care.
5. The court considered the child’s interests now and for the balance of childhood. The child was settled and thriving in the placement, and the available evidence established that the applicant’s home was the best possible home for her.
6. The order recorded agreed safeguards, including the applicant’s continued engagement with Focal Point UK and the local authority’s contribution towards intervention costs and counselling.

The judgment was a first-instance decision. It refers to an earlier injunction judgment in the same proceedings, [2013] EWHC 235 (Fam), which halted the proposed removal pending fuller welfare assessment.