London Borough of Ealing v JM & Ors

Permission to appeal was refused where the local authority gave categorical assurances resolving the factual concerns underlying the proposed grounds. The children would not be separated in any realistically foreseeable circumstances. They would be placed for adoption only together, in the confident belief that the placement would endure. If adoption together proved impossible, they would remain together in a single foster placement and adoption would be removed from consideration. The court relied on those assurances in concluding that the remaining proposed grounds disclosed no substance. It also recorded that, if the children later could not be placed for adoption, the grandmother or, more accurately, one or both parents could apply to revoke the existing placement orders.

The judgment was a continuation of an earlier public hearing concerning an application for permission to appeal against the decision and order of District Judge Bowman dated 7 January 2014. The earlier judgment, available under [2014] EWHC 1084 [Fam], had considered proposed grounds 1 to 6 and left grounds 3, 4 and 5 for further consideration.

The remaining issues concerned whether the two children might be separated, whether they might be placed for adoption with different families or only one might be placed, and whether the elder child was adoptable.

1. The application for permission to appeal was finally refused on all grounds. Permission had already been refused on proposed grounds 1, 2 and 6. The court refused permission on grounds 3, 4 and 5 after receiving further assurances from the local authority.

2. The local authority, through counsel and in the presence of the responsible social-work and legal officers, categorically assured the court that it would not separate the children in any realistically foreseeable circumstances. It would not place either child for adoption separately. Adoption would proceed only through a single placement for both children, in the confident belief that it would endure.

3. The court accepted and relied absolutely on those assurances. If the children could not be adopted together, they would remain together in a single foster placement. The local authority considered that the imperative of keeping them together overrode the advantages of adoption of either or both children separately. The issue of inter-sibling contact therefore did not arise.

4. The local authority continued to believe in good faith that both children were adoptable and was investigating prospective joint adoptive placements. It also undertook to involve the grandmother in looked-after-children reviews and to notify her of relevant developments without disclosing the children’s identity or whereabouts.

5. The court concluded that the assurances removed any substance from the proposed grounds concerning separation and adoptability. If the local authority later decided that the children could not be placed for adoption, the grandmother, or more accurately one or both parents, could apply for revocation of the existing placement orders.

• High Court (Family Division): The court continued its consideration of permission to appeal and finally refused permission on all proposed grounds.
• District Judge Bowman: The decision and order of 7 January 2014 were the subject of the permission application.
• Earlier High Court hearing: Permission had previously been refused on proposed grounds 1, 2 and 6 in the judgment reported at [2014] EWHC 1084 [Fam].