S (Children - Application to oppose Adoption)

An application for permission to oppose adoption requires a two-stage inquiry. The court must first decide whether there has been a change in circumstances sufficient to justify revisiting the issue. Only if that threshold is met does the court consider the children’s welfare. Attendance at counselling, parenting or domestic-abuse courses is not, by itself, sufficient to establish a meaningful and sustained change. Where the children have spent a substantial period in care and have been settled with prospective adopters, sustained parental disengagement may make the welfare analysis compellingly adverse to the application.

The birth mother sought permission to oppose the adoption applications concerning her two children. Care and placement orders had been made in 2013 after proceedings in which she had failed to engage consistently. The children had subsequently been placed with prospective adopters for more than a year.

The mother did not attend the hearing and relied only on a short written statement referring to counselling, parenting classes and a domestic-violence course. The court therefore had to determine whether she had established a sufficient change in circumstances to revisit the adoption issue and, if so, whether the children’s welfare justified allowing her to oppose the applications.

1. The application for permission to oppose the adoption applications was dismissed.
2. The court applied a two-stage approach. First, the applicant had to establish a change of circumstances sufficient to justify revisiting the issue. If that threshold was crossed, the court would then consider the welfare of the children.
3. The mother’s evidence was scant and did not demonstrate a meaningful or sustained change on which the court could confidently rely. Attendance at courses, without more, was insufficient.
4. The judge considered the welfare issue in any event. The children had spent a significant period in local-authority care, had lived with their prospective adopters for more than a year, and the mother had failed consistently to engage in proceedings concerning their future. Those circumstances weighed compellingly against permission to oppose.
5. The Part 1 hearing was deferred for four weeks to allow service of the order, further contact with the mother and expiry of the period for any appeal.

This was a first-instance application. The judgment records that care and placement orders had been made in 2013 and that the adoption proceedings had later been transferred from the Family Proceedings Court to the County Court for determination of the permission issue.