In the matter of L (Children)

Section 47(5) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 requires a two-stage inquiry when a parent seeks permission to oppose an adoption order. The parent must first show a change in circumstances since the placement order. If that threshold is met, the court considers whether permission should be granted, including the parent’s realistic prospect of resisting adoption and the impact on the child. The change must be assessed against the matters that underpinned the original decision. Positive lifestyle changes may be insufficient where the parent has not addressed the central deficits previously found to affect parenting capacity. The court must apply the prospect-of-success test to resisting the adoption order, rather than to the prospect of the child returning to the parent’s care.

The mother sought permission to appeal against Her Honour Judge Brown’s order of 5 August 2016 refusing her permission to oppose adoption orders for her two children. Final care orders were made on 26 April 2013 and placement orders on 8 July 2013. The mother relied on separation from the children’s father, a new relationship, employment, stronger support and limited cognitive behavioural therapy as changes in circumstances. She also relied on therapeutic work undertaken by one child in the adoptive placement.

The appeal challenged the assessment of the evidence, the finding that there had been no sufficient change under section 47(5) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the treatment of the children’s circumstances and the application of the prospects-of-success test. The central issues were whether the mother had demonstrated a sufficient change and whether the first-instance judge had applied the correct two-stage approach.

1. Permission to appeal refused. The Court of Appeal held that the mother had no realistic prospect of successfully appealing Judge Brown’s decision.
2. The application under section 47(5) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 involves two stages, as explained in Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146: first, whether there has been a change in circumstances since the placement order; secondly, if so, whether permission to oppose should be given. The second stage includes the parent’s prospect of resisting adoption and the impact on the child, with the child’s welfare paramount.
3. The change must be evaluated against the reasons for the original care and placement orders. Here, the central concern was the mother’s emotional functioning and its effect on her ability to meet the children’s needs. The recommended therapeutic interventions, especially at least 20 sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy, were therefore the primary benchmark. The judge was entitled to find that the mother had not successfully engaged with the recommended CBT, the Freedom Project, couples therapy or adult-learning support. The evidence did not establish that CBT was no longer required.
4. The mother’s separation from the father, new relationship, employment, limited CBT and stronger support network were positive but did not address the fundamental deficits identified in the earlier proceedings. Therapeutic work undertaken with one child was consistent with settling the child into an adoptive placement and did not demonstrate that the placement was failing or that the children’s circumstances had changed.
5. The relevant prospects question was whether the mother had a realistic prospect of successfully opposing the adoption order, not whether the children would ultimately be restored to her care.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal refused against the Family Court’s order of 5 August 2016.
• Family Court sitting at Milton Keynes: Her Honour Judge Brown refused permission to oppose the making of adoption orders on 5 August 2016.
• Earlier proceedings: final care orders were made on 26 April 2013 and placement orders on 8 July 2013. Those orders were not appealed.