London Borough of Harrow v Rasul & Ors

In a contested adoption application, the court must undertake a global and holistic evaluation of all realistic options. The question is whether the child’s welfare requires adoption, assessed in the particular circumstances of the child, rather than whether adoption is preferable in some respects. A credible family placement does not automatically defeat the statutory test, but its risks and benefits must be examined carefully. Adoption is a proportionate and necessary order only where the child’s welfare demands it and nothing less will do. Local-authority decision-making must address the advantages and disadvantages of adoption as well as those of family placements. A placement with relatives may be preferred where identified risks can realistically be managed and the advantages of preserving the child’s natural family and cultural relationships outweigh the security offered by adoption.

The local authority sought care and placement orders for a one-year-old child. The parents had longstanding drug problems and had abducted the child to Spain. The maternal grandparents had failed to prevent the removal and had not fully assisted in securing the child’s return, but sought to care for her. A proposed placement with other relatives was withdrawn during the hearing, leaving adoption and placement with the maternal grandparents as the principal options.

The court considered the parents’ capacity to provide safe care, the grandparents’ ability to manage the risk of further abduction or disruption, the deficiencies in the local authority’s adoption analysis, and the proportionality of adoption against the benefits and risks of family placement.

1. Findings and statutory framework. The local authority proved the threshold criteria on the balance of probabilities. The parents’ continuing substance misuse, the father’s volatility and controlling behaviour, the mother’s inability to protect the child from him, and the history of abduction created a real and continuing risk of significant harm. The court applied the welfare principles in the Children Act 1989 and the adoption criteria in the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
2. Assessment of the options. The local authority’s analysis was materially inadequate because it adopted a linear approach: it excluded family placements and treated adoption as the remaining option. It did not evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of adoption or undertake the required global and holistic assessment. The court nevertheless conducted that assessment itself.
3. Proportionality and family placement. Adoption would remove the immediate risks and provide stability, but would also sever or substantially diminish the child’s relationships with her parents, grandparents and wider family and risk loss of cultural and religious heritage. Placement with the grandparents carried real risks of abduction, interference and breakdown. The decisive question was whether those risks could be managed. On the evidence, there was a good, though only just good, chance that the grandparents would protect the child and seek professional assistance when necessary.
4. The court therefore concluded that the child’s welfare did not require adoption and that it was not established that nothing less than adoption would do. It declined to make a final care order and dismissed the placement-order application. An interim care order would continue until placement with the grandparents, after which the child would become a ward of court with care and control granted to the grandparents. A 12-month supervision order would permit monitoring and support. The court also indicated that protective injunctions should be considered.

First-instance decision. The local authority sought permission to appeal and a stay, but both applications were refused because the proposed appeal was not considered to have a real prospect of success.