JB (Minor)

Adoption may be authorised where a child’s welfare requires a secure and permanent placement and the prospects within the natural family involve an unacceptable risk of very serious harm. The court must consider whether separation from the natural family is necessary and proportionate to the child’s welfare needs. A parent’s bond, sympathy for the parent, and claimed recent changes do not outweigh serious and continuing risks established by the evidence. Direct monthly contact after adoption may properly be refused where it would materially reduce the prospect of an early adoptive placement or impede the child’s attachment to prospective adopters.

The local authority sought care and placement orders for a ten-month-old child, JB, who had been accommodated with the same foster carers since shortly after birth. The mother sought immediate reunification, or further assessment of herself and the child’s father. The local authority and children’s guardian submitted that adoption was the only outcome consistent with JB’s welfare.

The court considered the mother’s relationship with the father, her history and understanding of domestic violence, the father’s history of aggression and failure to engage with assessment and contact, and the expert parenting assessment. The central questions were whether JB should return to his parents or undergo further assessment, and whether care and placement orders should be made.

1. Orders. The court made a care order and placement order, adopted the local authority’s care plan, and dispensed with the mother’s and father’s consents to adoption pursuant to Adoption & Children Act 2002, s.52(1)(b).
2. Welfare and proportionality. Children are generally entitled to grow up with their parents or close relatives. The court should consider alternatives to the natural family only where the prospects for the child there present an unacceptable risk of very serious proportions. Permanent separation also engages the parents’ and child’s rights to respect for family life, so the intervention must be necessary and proportionate to the child’s welfare needs.
3. Assessment of the evidence. The mother’s affection and bond with JB were accepted, as were changes relied upon on her behalf. They did not overcome the serious findings concerning her failure to protect her older child from sexual harm, limited insight into domestic violence, dependency on violent partners and likely continuing relationship difficulties. The father’s history of violence, anger-management difficulties, failure to attend contact and minimal engagement with the assessment demonstrated significant risks and an inability to prioritise a child’s emotional needs.
4. The court was satisfied that the parenting assessment was sufficiently reliable notwithstanding its limited opportunities to assess the father. Further assessment or immediate return was unsupported by the evidence. JB’s welfare required the search for an adoptive family to begin.
5. Contact. A condition under s.26 requiring monthly direct contact with the mother was refused. Such a requirement would seriously restrict the prospects of finding JB a suitable adoptive family promptly and could impede his attachment to his prospective adopters.