Birmingham City Council v AB & Ors

Non-consensual adoption is a measure of last resort. A court must be satisfied that nothing else will do and must identify clear evidence that no realistic alternative meets the child’s welfare needs. The court must assess each child individually and compare the advantages, disadvantages and risks of return to family, long-term fostering and adoption in a global and holistic evaluation. Adoption cannot be made subject to conditions requiring a local authority to secure particular therapeutic or placement outcomes. Where one parent has killed the other, the local authority should act urgently, secure appropriate therapeutic support and properly assess any family member who may care for the children.

Birmingham City Council sought Care Orders and Placement Orders for three young children whose mother had been murdered by their father. The children had lived with their maternal grandmother after the killing and were later removed into foster care. The grandmother sought their return under a Child Arrangements Order, alternatively long-term fostering. The local authority and Guardian supported adoption. The central issues were whether the children could safely return to the grandmother, whether long-term fostering would adequately meet their welfare needs, and whether adoption was necessary as a last resort.

1. Orders made. Care Orders and Placement Orders were made. The court found that the children could not feasibly return to their grandmother and that adoption was necessary and proportionate. The children were not to be separated.
2. Under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, the welfare of each child considered separately was paramount. The court applied the statutory checklist and, for the Placement Orders, section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
3. Adoption was a very extreme measure and a last resort. The court had to identify clear evidence that no realistic alternative would meet the children’s needs. It had to evaluate globally and holistically the benefits, detriments and risks of each option, including return to family, long-term fostering and adoption. The children’s wishes, relationships, therapeutic needs, family conflict, placement stability and the consequences of severing family links were all material.
4. The grandmother had provided loving and generally adequate day-to-day care, but her unresolved psychological difficulties, limited resilience, failure to engage consistently with therapy, inability to manage family conflict, poor financial judgment and risk of future placement disruption meant that she could not provide safe long-term care. Long-term fostering was possible but was a fallback rather than the appropriate outcome.
5. Following Re A (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1611, the court could not impose conditions on a Placement Order. The care plan therefore had to record, rather than make legally enforceable, the requirement that the children remain together and receive appropriate therapy.
6. The interference with family life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention was necessary and proportionate. The court added guidance for future cases in which one parent had killed the other: urgent care proceedings, early consideration of High Court transfer, prompt bereavement counselling, appropriate psychiatric assessment and urgent assessment of any relative proposed as carer.

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