Gloucestershire County Council v M

Care and placement orders, including non-consensual adoption, are exceptional and may be made only where the child’s welfare demonstrates that no less interventionist solution will suffice. The court must undertake a global and holistic evaluation of all realistic options, applying the separate welfare checklists in the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002. It must not ask merely whether adoption would provide better or optimal care. However, the importance of a natural family relationship does not require a child to remain with parents who cannot provide safe and adequate care, where protective arrangements are unrealistic or ineffective and delay would itself harm the child.

The local authority sought care and placement orders for a nine-month-old child, Ch, following non-accidental bruising while he was in his mother’s sole care. The mother accepted late in the hearing that she had caused the injury but gave an account which the court rejected as untruthful. The father had a history of sexual offending, obsessive harassment, breaches of injunctions and behaviour associated with autism spectrum disorder. The parents’ relationship had involved repeated deception, instability and disruption to the child’s care.

The mother proposed caring for Ch with family support, supervision and injunctions restricting the father. The father initially sought sole care. The central issue was whether either parent, or a family-supported arrangement, could meet Ch’s welfare needs safely and within his timescale, or whether care and placement orders were required.

1. Orders made. The court made a care order to the local authority, dispensed with both parents’ consent to placement for adoption under section 52(1)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and made a placement order.
2. The threshold under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 was satisfied. The mother had caused Ch’s non-accidental bruising and had persistently given false accounts. The father could not meet Ch’s emotional or physical needs, and no realistic service or therapy could make him an adequate carer within Ch’s timescale.
3. In deciding welfare issues, the court applied the statutory provisions and Article 8 of the Convention. It conducted a global and holistic assessment of the available options, rather than eliminating options in a linear sequence. Care and placement orders were proportionate only if necessary for Ch’s welfare and if no less interventionist arrangement would suffice.
4. The court considered the mother’s proposal carefully. Although she could provide basic care, the evidence showed that she was unlikely to maintain a genuine separation from the father, regulate his persistent harassment or work openly and reliably with professionals. Injunctions and repeated committal proceedings would be punitive after the event rather than preventive, and could not provide a safe or stable environment. The proposed family support network could not mitigate those risks.
5. The court distinguished the mother’s position from a case where a parent might safely retain care with effective support. Ch had already experienced numerous changes of carer and required permanence urgently. Adoption was the most intrusive option and carried lifelong consequences, but it offered the only realistic prospect of stable, safe and child-focused care. The court concluded that the welfare of Ch required consent to be dispensed with and that placement for adoption was proportionate.