A Local Authority v A & Ors

Where a child’s birth parents cannot be found, the court may dispense with consent under Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 52(1)(a). The court must then apply the welfare checklist in s 1 and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of adoption. An adoption order may be appropriate where it provides the child with lifelong legal security, permanence and stability, including where the child may live in another country. The court must consider the child’s attachment, developmental and emotional needs, the effect of becoming adopted, the child’s background and any harm suffered. The order must be assessed by reference to the child’s lifelong welfare needs.

The local authority sought a care order and a declaration of non-parentage concerning B, a four-year-old child cared for since soon after birth by Mr and Mrs A. DNA testing established that they were not B’s biological parents. Investigations in Nigeria could not identify or locate B’s birth parents, and the local authority ultimately supported adoption by Mr and Mrs A.

Mr and Mrs A applied for an adoption order. The court was also required to consider the legal security of B’s position if the family lived in Nigeria, the child’s welfare and attachment to the applicants, and whether consent could be dispensed with. The parties agreed on the proposed outcome.

1. The court concluded under Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 52(1)(a), that B’s birth parents could not be found. The evidence showed that the clinic where B was said to have been born had closed, and that no further realistic lead existed as to the parents’ identity or whereabouts. Consent to adoption could therefore be dispensed with.

2. Applying the welfare checklist in s 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the court weighed the advantages and disadvantages of adoption. B had a secure attachment to Mr and Mrs A, regarded them as her parents, and was thriving in their care. She required a permanent and stable home capable of meeting her physical, emotional and educational needs.

3. The principal advantage of adoption was that it would secure B’s legal relationship with Mr and Mrs A for life, whether they remained in the United Kingdom or returned to Nigeria. The court also considered the effect of B ceasing to be a member of her original family, the absence of information about her biological family, her possible Nigerian origin, and the significant harm arising from the circumstances of her birth.

4. The therapeutic work undertaken by Mr and Mrs A supported the conclusion that they could help B understand her identity and background as she matured. Adoption was consequently the order best meeting B’s lifelong welfare needs.

5. The local authority was given permission to withdraw its applications for a care order and a declaration of non-parentage. An adoption order was made in favour of Mr and Mrs A.

Not stated in the judgment.