A (Children : Adoption : long Term Foster Care), Re

In deciding whether adoption should replace long-term foster care, the court must evaluate the child’s welfare throughout life on the facts of the individual case. The statutory checklist requires attention to the lifelong effect of adoption and to the child’s relationships with relatives, including siblings, the value and likelihood of continuing those relationships, and the ability of relatives to provide secure care. Adoption’s permanence is important but is not a universal solution. Strong sibling ties and the risk and consequences of placement breakdown may properly carry substantial weight. An appellate court should be slow to interfere with a family judge’s evaluation of future arrangements for a child and will dismiss the appeal unless the decision is shown to be wrong.

H Borough Council appealed against the Family Court’s refusal of placement orders for the three younger children of the first and second respondents. The parents accepted that the threshold for care proceedings was satisfied, but sought the children’s return or placement with their paternal grandfather. The remaining issue was whether adoption or long-term foster care best served the children’s welfare, particularly in light of their close relationships with their three older siblings.

The judge preferred long-term foster care, citing uncertainty about adoption planning, the proposed reduction in sibling contact and the risk of placement breakdown. After judgment, the foster placement broke down and the Guardian changed position. The central issue was whether the judge’s evaluation was wrong and whether later care plans or evidence altered the appeal.

Disposition

The Court of Appeal dismissed the local authority’s appeal. McCombe LJ gave the reasons, with Richards LJ and Longmore LJ agreeing.

1. Statutory framework. On a decision relating to adoption, including proceedings in which a placement order may be made, the court must apply section 1 of the Adoption of Children Act 2002. The child’s welfare throughout life is paramount. The court must consider the statutory checklist, including the likely lifelong effect of adoption and the child’s relationships with relatives.
2. Sibling relationships. The relationships requiring consideration include relationships with siblings. Their likelihood of continuing and their value to the child are material matters. The judge was entitled to attach substantial weight to the strong bond between the six children. It was not excessive merely because adoption offered permanence. The evidence showed that sibling contact had not been developed beyond an aspiration in the local authority’s earlier planning.
3. Fact-sensitive comparison. Adoption and long-term foster care could not be assessed by an automatic preference for either arrangement. Adoption’s permanence and the disadvantages of foster care had to be balanced against the children’s ages, existing family relationships, contact arrangements, the practical prospects of placement and the consequences of breakdown. The judge had particular concerns about separating the younger children from their parents and siblings and about the possible failure of an adoptive placement.
4. Appellate restraint. The appeal was a review of the judge’s evaluation of the facts, not a rehearing. The family judge’s face-to-face knowledge of the evidence and the need to assess the child’s future arrangements justified particular caution before interference. It was impossible to say that the judge had been wrong.
5. Later care plans were not properly available to challenge the order because they had not been the subject of submissions before the judge. Fresh evidence is generally discouraged, although the subsequent placement breakdown did not alter the conclusion reached on the original material.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed against the Family Court’s order of 1 May 2015. Judgment given on 13 October 2015: [2015] EWCA Civ 1021.
• Family Court, Middlesbrough: HHJ Matthews QC refused the local authority’s applications for placement orders for the three younger children and preferred long-term foster care to adoption.