N v B & Ors

When choosing between adoption and special guardianship in a family placement, the court must determine which order best serves the child’s welfare throughout life. Neither order has precedence. Relevant considerations include the security of the placement, the effect of adoption on family relationships, and whether continuing parental responsibility would expose the child or carer to harmful applications or interference. An adoption order may be justified where special guardianship, even with restrictions, cannot provide lifelong security. Contact alongside adoption is exceptional and should be ordered only where the child’s welfare requires it.

The applicant, the maternal grandmother, cared for two children after their mother was murdered by their father. She sought adoption orders. The father supported special guardianship but opposed adoption, while the Local Authority and Children’s Guardian supported the applicant.

The court also considered indirect contact, restrictions on the father’s parental responsibility, the Local Authority’s support plan, and substantial procedural delays. The central issues were whether adoption or special guardianship best served each child’s welfare throughout life, whether the father’s consent should be dispensed with, and whether defined contact should be ordered.

1. Adoption or special guardianship. Under section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the paramount consideration was each child’s welfare throughout life. There was no presumption in favour of adoption or special guardianship. The court had to decide which order better served the welfare of the particular child, applying Re S (Adoption Order or Special Guardianship) [2007] EWCA Civ 54 at para 47(iii).
2. The court considered the effect of adoption on the family’s legal relationships. The resulting alteration of familial roles was an important factor, but it did not prevent adoption where the need for security was compelling. The approach in S v B and Newport City Council: Re K [2007] 1 FLR 1116 was applied to that issue.
3. In the particular circumstances, special guardianship would not provide sufficient lifelong security. The father’s expressed wish to maintain parental responsibility and seek contact created a real risk of applications and interference. Restrictions under section 91(14) and section 8 of the Children Act 1989 would not adequately remove that risk. Adoption was therefore necessary, and the father’s consent was dispensed with under sections 47 and 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
4. A defined contact order was refused. The children’s welfare did not require one. The grandmother’s agreement to indirect contact by annual birthday cards was recorded as a recital. The exceptional nature of contact orders alongside adoption was recognised under section 46(6) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
5. The court wholly endorsed the guidance in Re A and B [2010] EWHC 3824 (Fam) concerning prompt local-authority action and continuing review. It added the need for judicial continuity and effective case management. The support plan was approved, and adoption orders were made.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision was stated in the judgment.