P (A Child), Re

Permission to oppose an adoption order involves two stages. First, the parent must show a change in circumstances since the relevant consent or placement order under section 47(7) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The threshold must not be set so high that genuine improvement is discouraged. If the gateway is met, the court assesses the parent’s prospects of opposing adoption, with the child’s welfare throughout life paramount. A proposed adopter’s status as the child’s foster carer does not raise the gateway hurdle. The court must nevertheless weigh the effect of ending the child’s membership of the original family against the value of continuing the relationship with the long-term carer. Each child must be assessed individually, so siblings may properly receive different outcomes.

The mother appealed against His Honour Judge Hernandez’s refusal on 19 January 2015 to grant her permission to oppose an adoption order for F. A placement order had been made on 28 March 2014, and F had lived since birth with a foster carer who was later approved as the prospective adopter. The mother relied on progress made through a therapeutic and professional-support programme. The judge found that the change was insufficiently established and, alternatively, that her prospects of successfully opposing adoption were too uncertain. During the appeal, the mother’s younger child, R, was returned to her care. The central issue was whether the later evidence required permission to oppose F’s adoption.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal.

1. Statutory gateway and welfare assessment. Under sections 47(5) and 47(7) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the parent must first establish a change in circumstances since the relevant placement order or consent. The threshold should not be made unachievable. If the gateway is passed, the court must evaluate the parent’s ultimate prospects of opposing adoption, with the child’s welfare throughout life as the paramount consideration. This approach was applied consistently with Re P – Adoption: Leave Provisions 2007 2 FLR 1069.
2. Decision at the original hearing. The judge was entitled to find that the mother’s programme was too recent and uncertain to amount to a material change in January 2015. He also correctly undertook the evaluative welfare exercise required by Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, including consideration of the mother’s prospects and F’s lifelong welfare.
3. Foster carer as proposed adopter. The fact that the prospective adopter was F’s foster carer did not impose a higher gateway. The court nevertheless had to apply section 1(4)(c) and section 1(4)(f)(i) of the Act, weighing the lifelong effect of ending F’s membership of his original family against the value of continuing his relationship with his prospective adopter. F’s established attachment to his long-term carer was relevant. Re M’P-P (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 584 confirmed that the relative weight of family placement and status quo considerations depends on the facts.
4. Later evidence and individual welfare. The mother’s subsequent progress might have satisfied the gateway if considered at the later date. Even then, the welfare assessment would have produced the same result because F was two years old and had lived all his life with his present carer. Each child had to be considered individually, so R’s return to the mother did not determine F’s welfare outcome. The appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal against the refusal of permission to oppose adoption was dismissed. [2015] EWCA Civ 777.
• Manchester County Court & Family Court: His Honour Judge Hernandez refused the mother permission to oppose the adoption order on 19 January 2015.