Seddon v Oldham MBC (Adoption : Human Rights)

The making of an adoption order extinguishes pre-existing Article 8 family-life rights between a birth parent and the adopted child. Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 51A, provides a mechanism for post-adoption contact but does not create or preserve such rights. The leave requirement for a birth parent’s application is compatible with the Convention.

A public authority operating a post-adoption letterbox service must respect correspondence under Article 8. That obligation arises from the private nature of the correspondence, not from the former parent-child relationship. Reasonable screening, redaction and refusal to transmit material outside the scheme may nevertheless be lawful where necessary and proportionate.

The claimant was the birth mother of a child adopted in 2010. The adoption order made no provision for direct contact, and indirect contact was facilitated through a letterbox service operated by the defendant local authority.

The claimant brought proceedings under the Human Rights Act 1998, seeking declarations that Article 8 rights survived adoption, that the letterbox service had been operated unlawfully, and that s 51A(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 was incompatible with the Convention. She also sought permission to apply for a post-adoption contact order.

The central issues were the effect of adoption on Article 8 rights, the effect of s 51A, and the lawfulness of the authority’s handling of correspondence.

1. Article 8 family life. Sections 67(1) and 67(3)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 establish that an adopted child is legally the child of the adopter and not of any other person. Adoption therefore extinguishes the pre-existing legal and relational basis for Article 8 family life between birth parent and child. The court rejected the suggestion that biological connection, or the statutory requirement to consider contact, preserved those rights.
2. Post-adoption contact. Section 51A provides a means by which contact may be agreed or ordered. It does not create or maintain an Article 8 right between a birth parent and adopted child. A rare new family-life relationship might arise from post-adoption circumstances, such as an intra-family adoption or substantial continuing contact, but it would be a new relationship rather than a continuation of the extinguished one.
3. Compatibility of the leave requirement. The requirement in s 51A(4) that persons other than adopters and the child obtain leave before applying for contact is designed to prevent harmful and unmeritorious litigation. It does not prevent a birth parent with a solid case from obtaining permission and is compatible with the Convention.
4. Letterbox correspondence. The local authority was performing a public function when assisting with contact arrangements. Its service was an intermediary for private correspondence and had to act as an honest broker. Article 8 required respect for correspondence, but permitted reasonable moderation where necessary and proportionate to protect the child and adopters and preserve the effectiveness of the scheme. The solicitors’ letter, social-work report and letter to the adopters fell outside the scheme. Article 8 was engaged by the letter to the child, but the limited redactions were lawful.
5. Permission to apply for contact. Applying s 51A(5), the court found that further litigation risked harmful disruption, the claimant’s connection was historic, the adopters opposed further proceedings, and there was no realistic prospect of a contact order. Permission was refused and the application was certified as totally without merit. The Human Rights Act claims were dismissed.