W, Re

In determining whether adoption or family placement better serves a child, the court must assess welfare throughout the child’s life. It must evaluate every realistic option, balance the benefits and detriments of each, and give proper weight to family relationships, sibling relationships and the child’s origins. The fact that a child is settled with prospective adopters, or that removal would cause serious short-term distress, is not determinative. The court must consider whether adoption would be better for the child than making no adoption order. Adoption remains a last resort where a safe and capable family placement is available. A placement should be changed only after careful assessment of the risks, including the likely duration and severity of disruption.

A, aged two, had lived since infancy with prospective adopters under a placement order and was thriving in their care. Her paternal grandparents later came forward after learning of her existence. They had obtained a special guardianship order for A’s younger sibling and sought a special guardianship or child arrangements order for A.

The issue was whether A’s lifelong welfare would be better served by adoption by the prospective adopters or by moving her to the paternal grandparents, enabling her to grow up within her birth family and alongside her siblings. The court also considered the grandparents’ age and health, the risks of disrupting A’s established attachment, and whether adoption with family contact would provide a preferable compromise.

1. Welfare assessment. The court’s paramount consideration under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 was A’s welfare throughout her life. The court had to consider the statutory welfare checklist, the relationships and support available within the extended family, the whole range of powers available, and whether making an adoption order would be better for A than not doing so.
2. Balancing exercise. The court had to balance the benefits and detriments of each realistic option. A’s settled and loving relationship with the prospective adopters, and the likely immediate distress and regression caused by a move, were powerful considerations. They did not determine the outcome. The court was required to take a medium- and long-term view and avoid attaching undue weight to short-term or transient difficulties.
3. Family placement. Safe upbringing within the natural family, particularly with siblings, could provide substantial lifelong benefits, including knowledge of family identity, origins and heritage. Adoption was a last resort where a capable family placement could meet the child’s needs. The grandparents’ age, mobility and health were relevant risks, but were manageable because of their parenting experience and extensive family support.
4. Application to A. The court accepted the evidence that a move would cause significant disruption but concluded that A would probably settle within months rather than years. The prospective adopters’ inability to give emotional approval to the move increased the difficulty but did not make the transition impossible. Adoption with contact was rejected as potentially disruptive and dependent on untested long-term relationships between the adults.
5. Orders. The court concluded that A’s welfare throughout her life would be better served by being brought up by her paternal grandparents with her siblings. A special guardianship order was made in their favour. The court proposed discharging the placement order, with the care order reviving to facilitate a carefully managed transfer.