Glamorgan v ABC (Welfare)

Adoption is a last resort. A placement order may be made only where the child’s welfare requires adoption and nothing else will do. The court must undertake a holistic and rigorous evaluation of every realistically available option, including long-term fostering, and must weigh the benefits and detriments of each option throughout the child’s life. The analysis must address the child’s relationships with parents and siblings, the consequences of severing those relationships, and the need for permanence and stability. Care plans placing children with suitable parents may be approved where the parent has passed assessment and the placement is supported by appropriate continuing local-authority involvement. Contact arrangements must remain sufficiently flexible to protect placements while recognising existing family relationships.

The Vale of Glamorgan Council brought care proceedings concerning four children. The court had already found the threshold criteria established. At the welfare stage, the principal issues were whether the children could safely return to their mother, whether two children should be placed with their respective fathers, and whether placement orders should be made for the remaining two children.

The court considered the welfare checklist under the Children Act 1989, the adoption welfare checklist under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the children’s sibling relationships, and the alternatives of long-term fostering and adoption.

1. The court made final care orders for all four children. The mother could not care for any of them within the children’s timescales. The evidence of the social worker, independent social worker and guardian established that the mother had not demonstrated a sufficiently sustained change in behaviour or the ability consistently to meet the children’s needs.
2. Care plans placing Child A with Father A and Child C with Father C were approved. Both fathers had passed parenting assessments and demonstrated appropriate commitment. The placements required continuing and initially close local-authority involvement. Father C was also granted parental responsibility for Child C.
3. Contact between the mother and Child A and Child C was set at supervised contact once per fortnight, subject to the local authority’s continuing responsibility and flexibility. The level could be reduced if contact undermined the placements or increased if circumstances permitted.
4. For Child B and Child D, the realistic alternatives were long-term fostering and adoption. Applying sections 1 and 52(1) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the court considered welfare throughout each child’s life and the effect of severing relationships with the birth family and siblings. Adoption was not selected merely because it was preferable. The court had to be satisfied that nothing else would do.
5. For Child D, permanence and stability outweighed the loss of relationships with the birth family and siblings. His age meant that he had no significant existing attachment to the other children. Long-term fostering would leave him in the care system throughout minority with continuing uncertainty.
6. Child B had substantial relationships with her mother and siblings. Nevertheless, she could not safely live with either parent and no alternative family placement was available. Adoption together with Child D offered permanence and avoided her languishing in care while her brothers were placed elsewhere. The placement order was therefore made on the express basis that the children would be placed together; if that could not be achieved within six months, the matter was to be restored urgently.
7. Parental consent to placement was dispensed with because the welfare of Child B and Child D required it. The local authority’s plans for contact with the mother and Father B before placement were approved, including contact between Father B and Child D.