K, Re

In an adoption application, the child’s welfare throughout life is paramount. The court must consider the statutory factors, including the lifelong effect of adoption, the child’s relationships with the birth family, and the child’s background, heritage and culture.

Adoption is justified where no alternative arrangement can meet the child’s needs. For a young child who has formed a secure family attachment, temporary care pending a possible change in the birth family may be inadequate. The court may dispense with parental consent where the child’s welfare requires the adoption order.

A married couple applied for an adoption order in respect of a three-year-old Bulgarian child who had lived with them since infancy. The child’s mother had been unable to provide consistent care, had lost contact with the English authorities, and opposed the proposed adoption after being located shortly before the final hearing.

The local authority had obtained information from the Bulgarian authorities. That information indicated that no member of the child’s birth family could provide suitable care and that, if sent to Bulgaria, the child would probably enter foster care or a children’s home. The central issues were whether the proceedings should be delayed to permit further engagement with the mother and whether adoption was necessary to promote the child’s welfare throughout her life.

1. Adoption order made. The court concluded that adoption was both in the child’s best interests and the only outcome capable of meeting her needs and promoting her welfare throughout her life.
2. Under section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the child’s welfare throughout life is the paramount consideration. The court must consider the statutory factors, including the likely lifelong effect of ceasing to be a member of the original family, the child’s relationships with members of that family, and her background, heritage and culture.
3. Adoption is a profound order transferring the child from one family to another. In practical terms it should be made only where there is no alternative arrangement that meets the child’s needs. At the child’s age, remaining a temporary visitor in a family while awaiting possible changes in the birth family was not adequate.
4. The cultural, international and racial differences between the child and the applicants were carefully considered. They did not outweigh the secure family life already established or the applicants’ ability to support the child’s understanding of her background.
5. The proceedings should not be postponed to provide the mother with a further opportunity to oppose the adoption. The evidence showed that she lacked the capacity to care for the child, that no suitable birth-family placement was available, and that delay would not alter the outcome.
6. Service on the mother was dispensed with because her whereabouts became known only virtually on the eve of the final hearing. Her consent was dispensed with on the statutory ground that the child’s welfare required the order to be made.