Birmingham City Council v LC & Ors

In determining children’s welfare, the court must assess all realistic options globally and holistically. Adoption is appropriate only where the evidence shows that nothing else will do. Family placement and long-term foster care must be evaluated against the children’s lifelong welfare, including their individual needs, the carers’ capacity to meet them, placement stability and the effect of continuing family relationships. The preservation of family ties, although important, does not by itself amount to the exceptionally cogent reason required to justify long-term foster care for very young children where adoption better promotes their welfare.

Birmingham City Council sought care orders and placement orders for three young children, T, W and H, following longstanding neglect and emotional abuse in their mother’s care. The mother accepted that the threshold under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 was met and that she could not care for the children, but opposed adoption. Her brother, G, and his partner, K, sought to care for the children. The court considered placement with G and K, long-term foster care and adoption. It also determined arrangements for A, the older sibling, and parental responsibility for H.

1. The applications were granted. A was to live with her father, EH, and spend time with her mother under a child arrangements order. X was granted parental responsibility for H. T, W and H were made subject to care orders and placement orders. The mother’s and X’s consent to adoption was dispensed with on welfare grounds.
2. The court applied the welfare principles in section 1 of the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The children’s welfare was paramount, including their welfare throughout their lives. Their Article 6 and Article 8 rights were considered, but the children’s rights prevailed where they conflicted with those of adults.
3. Following Re B [2013] UKSC 33, adoption could be approved only where nothing else would do. In accordance with Re B-S [2014] 1 WLR 563, [2014] 1 FLR 1035, the court undertook a global and holistic assessment of all realistic options.
4. Placement with G and K was not realistic. They lacked the experience and stability required to care for three children with significant developmental and behavioural needs, and they could not adequately resist or manage the mother’s likely interference. Long-term foster care was also rejected. For children of this age it was an unusual course absent extremely cogent reasons, and the benefits of preserving family relationships did not outweigh its disadvantages.
5. Adoption was the only realistic option, and in any event the only option capable of meeting and promoting each child’s welfare throughout life.