HA (A Child) , Re

Adoption is a last resort. A court considering a care plan for adoption or a non-consensual placement order must identify the realistic alternatives and rigorously analyse the advantages and disadvantages of each. The evaluation must be global and holistic, rather than a linear process in which each less interventionist option is rejected in isolation. Adoption may be authorised only where the child’s welfare requires parental consent to be dispensed with and nothing else will do. The court must also provide a frank, fully reasoned judgment explaining why permanence outside the birth family is necessary.

The local authority sought a final care order and placement order for H, an infant who had been placed in foster care under an interim care order. The mother opposed adoption and sought H’s return to her care under residence and supervision orders. The statutory threshold for a care order was accepted to be satisfied, principally in light of serious findings of neglect concerning the mother’s older children.

The central issue was whether H could safely be rehabilitated to her mother with support, or whether her welfare required permanent placement for adoption and the dispensing of the mother’s consent.

1. Applicable principles. The threshold under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 was satisfied and was not disputed. The court then had to determine the order that best served H’s welfare, applying the welfare checklists in section 1(3) of the 1989 Act and section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, together with the requirement to consider the range of available orders.
2. Adoption as a last resort. The court applied the strict approach reaffirmed in Re B [2013] UKSC 33. Severance of the relationship between parent and child should occur only in exceptional circumstances, where motivated by overriding welfare requirements and when nothing else will do. Under sections 21(3) and 52(1)(b) of the 2002 Act, parental consent could be dispensed with only where H’s welfare required it.
3. Evaluation of options. Applying Re B-S [2013] EWHC Civ 1146, the court required proper evidence addressing every realistically possible option, with analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each. The judicial evaluation had to be global and holistic, rather than linear. In this case the only realistic options were rehabilitation with the mother or adoption. Long-term fostering and kinship placement were not realistic options on the evidence.
4. Application to the evidence. The mother had made some positive changes and could meet H’s basic physical needs during contact. However, there was no significant change in her parenting capacity. She lacked insight into the neglect of her older children and the risks arising from her continuing relationships with men. She was easily distracted, required prompting and was not consistently attuned to H’s emotional needs. The proposed support would not sufficiently safeguard H and would not provide a normal childhood.
5. Disposition. After balancing the advantages and disadvantages of rehabilitation and adoption, the court concluded that there was no realistic prospect of H being safely returned to her mother and that H’s need for stability and permanence could be met only by adoption. A care order and placement order were made. The mother’s consent to placement for adoption was dispensed with.