CB, Re Adoption and Children Act 2002

In determining an application for an adoption order, the child’s welfare throughout life is paramount. Adoption is permissible only where the circumstances demonstrate that it is a last resort and that nothing else will do. The court must rigorously assess the welfare checklist, including the lifelong effect of ending membership of the birth family and the child’s national, cultural, linguistic, ethnic and religious background. Those considerations may be outweighed by an overwhelming need for permanence, security and protection from significant emotional harm. Delay is itself relevant to welfare.

The case concerned an application by prospective adopters for an adoption order in respect of CB, a Latvian citizen who had lived in England throughout her life. Care and placement orders had previously been made, and the mother’s appeals against those orders and against the refusal of permission to oppose adoption had failed. The Supreme Court had refused permission to appeal.

The mother and Latvian authorities opposed adoption, relying particularly on CB’s Latvian identity, family relationships, nationality and cultural heritage. The central issue was whether, applying the Adoption and Children Act 2002, adoption was the only order consistent with CB’s welfare throughout her life.

1. Adoption order made. The court also dispensed with the parents’ consent under section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, although the judge considered that this was not necessary because consent had already been dispensed with when the placement order was made.

2. The statutory test required the court to treat CB’s welfare throughout her life as paramount and to bear delay in mind. Adoption required a high degree of justification. It was a last resort, permissible only where overriding requirements relating to the child’s welfare showed that nothing else would do: Re B (Care Proceedings: Appeal) [2013] 2 FLR 1075 and Re B-S (Adoption: Application of s.47(5)) [2014] 1 FLR 1035.

3. The court gave prominent weight to the loss of CB’s Latvian heritage and family connections, and proceeded on the basis that Latvia would not recognise the adoption. Those losses did not determine the application. CB’s overwhelming need for a permanent placement with the prospective adopters, without which she was likely to suffer significant emotional harm and continued instability, required adoption.

4. CB’s wishes and feelings had been obtained through the Annex A report and the Guardian. The judge accepted that a further meeting with CB was neither necessary nor appropriate because it risked destabilising her. Her views supported the order.

5. The court rejected the submission that earlier notice to the Latvian authorities would probably or possibly have changed the outcome. It also noted that the United Kingdom was not a party to the Revised European Adoption Convention.

The judgment recorded that care and placement orders had been made on 10 July 2012. The mother’s appeal to a Circuit Judge was dismissed on 8 October 2012, and her further appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 1 May 2013. Earlier applications concerning permission to oppose adoption, contact and transfer of jurisdiction were dismissed by the High Court on 19 December 2014 in Re B, London Borough of Merton v LB [2014] EWHC 4532 (Fam). The Court of Appeal dismissed the mother’s appeal on 6 August 2015 in CB (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 888. The Supreme Court refused permission to appeal on 8 October 2015.