W (A Child)

When a child has become securely attached and settled in a prospective adoptive home, a later viable placement within the natural family must be evaluated against the child’s existing relationship and the likely harm caused by disrupting it. The court must conduct a full welfare comparison of all realistic options, supported by evidence specific to the child and carers.

“Nothing else will do” is not a shortcut or a presumption favouring the natural family. It expresses the necessity and proportionality assessment to be made only after the welfare evaluation. A viable family placement makes that option a real possibility, but not the automatic outcome.

A had lived from seven months old with prospective adopters, Mr and Mrs X, and was securely attached to them. Her paternal grandparents learned of her existence later, after they had become carers for her younger brother. They sought a special guardianship order while Mr and Mrs X sought an adoption order.

Mr Justice Bodey dismissed the adoption application and made a special guardianship order in favour of the grandparents, subject to transition arrangements. He considered that a successful move would better secure A’s lifelong relationship with her natural family and siblings.

Mr and Mrs X appealed. The central issue was whether the first-instance welfare evaluation was sound where the evidence concerning the effect of removing A from her prospective adopters was flawed and insufficiently child-specific.

1. Appeal allowed. The order dismissing the adoption application and making a special guardianship order was set aside. The cross-applications were remitted for rehearing before a different tribunal.

2. Where a child has achieved a secure, stable and robust attachment in a prospective adoptive placement, that established relationship forms a substantial part of the welfare balance. The court must assess the value of its continuation and the likely emotional and psychological consequences of ending it. Generalised evidence about children’s resilience or ability to form fresh attachments will almost always be inadequate. Expert evidence should ordinarily assess the particular child’s attachment to the particular carers and the consequences of disruption.

3. The first-instance judge’s written welfare comparison was, viewed alone, careful and comprehensive. However, his conclusion on the decisive question—whether A could move without undue or lasting harm—depended on the Children’s Guardian and independent social worker. Both had adopted an erroneous assumption that a child has a right or presumptive entitlement to be brought up by the natural family whenever a viable family placement exists. Their evidence therefore did not provide a safe basis for the conclusion.

4. “Nothing else will do”, drawn from Re B [2013] UKSC 33, is a concise expression of necessity and proportionality. It cannot replace a comprehensive welfare analysis. Only after comparing the advantages and disadvantages of every realistic option may the court assess whether adoption is necessary and proportionate.

5. There is no presumption or right in favour of the natural family at the welfare stage. A viable family home makes a family placement a realistic option, but welfare throughout the child’s life remains paramount under the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

6. A prospective adopter with whom a child is placed for adoption is automatically an “other person” whose relationship with the child is relevant under section 1(4)(f). The judge’s summary of that provision had wrongly confined it to relatives, although his later analysis gave the placement considerable weight.

7. The judge also failed adequately to consider the only viable transition evidence, which contemplated an abrupt removal rather than a staged introduction involving Mr X. Jackson LJ agreed that the case required rehearing and observed that contact with both families should also be considered.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the prospective adopters’ appeal, set aside the special guardianship order, and remitted the cross-applications for rehearing.

• High Court, Family Division: Mr Justice Bodey dismissed the prospective adopters’ adoption application and made a special guardianship order in favour of the paternal grandparents, subject to transitional arrangements.