AW (A Child: Application to Revoke Placement Order: Leave to Oppose Adoption)

On an application for leave to oppose adoption, a parent must establish a change of circumstances since the placement order which is relevant and material, and of sufficient nature and degree to open the door to the exercise of judicial discretion. The court must then decide whether leave should be granted by applying the child’s welfare throughout life as the paramount consideration. The welfare assessment includes the statutory checklist and the child’s need for security, stability and permanence. Adoption remains a last resort, but the court must assess the individual child’s circumstances and timescales. A full evidential hearing may be required where a summary process would be unfair or disproportionate.

The local authority applied to revoke a placement order made in care proceedings. The parents had previously sought to appeal and had prepared an application for revocation, but the child was placed with prospective adopters before that application was determined. Adoption proceedings were then issued, enabling the parents’ revocation application to be treated alongside an application for leave to oppose adoption.

The central issues were whether there had been a change of circumstances sufficient to engage the court’s discretion under Adoption and Children Act 2002, and, if so, whether leave should be granted having regard to the child’s lifelong welfare.

1. Procedural route. Once adoption proceedings had begun, the parents’ proper route to a substantive challenge was an application for leave to oppose adoption. The applications were heard together so that the statutory scheme was respected while ensuring procedural fairness.
2. Change of circumstances. Under s.47(5) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the parents had to show a change since the placement order of a nature and degree sufficient, on the facts, to open the door to judicial discretion. The court adopted the analysis advanced by the prospective adopters, including the approach in Re F (a Child) EWCA Civ 439 and Re P (Adoption: Leave Provision) [2007] 2FLR 1069.
3. The parents’ apparent improvements, including their care of a younger child and engagement with services, had not been sufficiently consolidated. Their deliberate concealment of a further pregnancy demonstrated that the underlying difficulty in working openly and honestly with professionals remained. The necessary change had therefore not been established.
4. Discretion and welfare. Although unnecessary to the result, the court considered the second limb. Adoption is a last resort and should be contemplated only where necessary for the child’s protection. Nevertheless, the child’s welfare throughout life required permanence, stability and continuity with the prospective adopters. A further move, the demands of caring for three young children and the parents’ untested resilience created a very significant risk of emotional and psychological harm. The child’s welfare required the relationship with her parents to be brought to an end.
5. Leave to oppose the adoption was refused.