S (Children), Re

Adoption is permissible only where it is necessary and proportionate to meet the overriding requirements of the child’s welfare. The court must assess the nature and consequences of significant harm, compare realistic alternatives, and weigh the profound effects of adoption against its benefits.

A judgment must make the reasoning sufficiently clear, but it is read as a whole and in context. Failure to recite unchallenged professional evidence or spell out every analytical step will not necessarily invalidate the decision where the evidence was plainly accepted and the required welfare analysis was undertaken. Persistent inability to provide safe, consistent and predictable parenting, despite sustained support, may justify adoption.

The mother of three children appealed against the Oxford Family Court’s decision concerning B, her four-and-a-half-year-old daughter. The recorder made a full care order, endorsed the local authority’s plan for adoption, dispensed with parental consent under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 52, and authorised B’s placement for adoption.

The appeal challenged both the evidential and proportionality basis for adoption and the adequacy of the recorder’s explanation of the significant emotional harm relied upon. A and B’s father supported the appeal. The central issues were whether adoption was required to meet B’s welfare needs and whether the judgment sufficiently explained why removal from her mother was necessary.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. Lord Justice McFarlane gave the judgment and Lord Justice Moore-Bick agreed.

1. Evidence of harm. The social worker, Children’s Guardian and psychologist provided consistent and compelling evidence that B’s emotional needs were not being fully met. The evidence showed a persistent inability by the mother to provide predictable boundaries, regulate behaviour and sustain necessary changes despite extensive support. This was far beyond ordinary parental difficulties.
2. Necessity and proportionality. Adoption under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 52, could be authorised only where required by the overriding requirements of B’s welfare. The relevant comparison included remaining with the mother, placement with the father and adoption. The profound consequences of adoption and the benefits of preserving family relationships had to be weighed against the continuing risk of significant emotional harm. On the uncontested professional evidence, adoption was the only proportionate outcome.
3. Adequacy of the recorder’s judgment. The recorder’s treatment of harm was inadequate in presentation. The agreed threshold document did not record the true factual and professional case and did not contain an admission that B was suffering or likely to suffer significant harm under the Children Act 1989, s 31. Nevertheless, the evidence was unchallenged, was plainly accepted and could properly be taken as read. Reading the judgment as a whole and in context, the recorder had undertaken the required welfare and proportionality analysis. The omissions therefore did not amount to an error sufficient to allow the appeal.
4. The adoption plan contemplated continuing face-to-face contact between B, her siblings and both parents. The recorder relied on the local authority’s assurances and declined to make a formal contact order under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 26.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The mother’s appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the full care order, adoption plan and authorisation for B’s placement for adoption.
2. Oxford Family Court: On 25 August 2016, Mrs Recorder Posner made a full care order, endorsed the local authority’s adoption plan, dispensed with parental consent under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 52, and authorised placement for adoption.