JB, Re

In deciding whether a child should be placed for adoption, the court must focus on the child’s welfare needs and the necessity and proportionality of permanently separating the child from the natural family. A further assessment is not required where the evidence provides no realistic prospect of safe reunification. The court may dispense with parental consent to adoption where the statutory conditions are met. Direct contact with a natural parent should not be ordered where it would materially reduce the prospect of an early suitable placement or impede the child’s attachment to adoptive parents.

The local authority sought care and placement orders for a ten-month-old child who had been subject to an interim care order since shortly after birth. The mother sought the child’s immediate return or, alternatively, further assessment of herself and her partner. The local authority and children’s guardian supported adoption, relying on serious concerns about the mother’s protective capacity, the partner’s violence and lack of engagement, and the limited prospect of safe reunification. The central issues were whether further assessment was required, whether adoption was necessary and proportionate, and whether direct monthly contact with the mother should be required.

1. The court made care and placement orders. The child’s welfare required that the process of finding an adoptive family should begin.
2. A court should generally seek an outcome enabling a child to remain within the natural family. Permanent separation is justified only where the prospects within that family present an unacceptable risk of very serious proportions and the interference with family life is necessary and proportionate to the child’s welfare needs.
3. Further assessment was unnecessary. The existing assessment was sufficient, and the partner’s repeated failure to attend appointments, contact and court hearings materially limited the prospect of safe reunification. The evidence established serious and continuing concerns about violence, anger management, domestic violence, dependency on partners and the mother’s ability to protect children from harm.
4. The court dispensed with the mother’s and father’s consents to adoption under Adoption & Children Act 2002, s.52(1)(b), and adopted the local authority’s care plan after considering the welfare checklist under s.1(4).
5. A condition requiring monthly direct contact under s.26 was refused. Such contact would probably restrict the pool of suitable adopters, delay an early placement and make it more difficult for the child to form a satisfactory attachment to the adoptive parents.