Northamptonshire County Council v AB & Anor

Adoption is appropriate only where no realistic and proportionate alternative will meet the child’s welfare needs. The court must evaluate whether identified risks can be managed through a rehabilitation plan and must balance those risks against the consequences of permanent separation from parents and siblings. Late admissions and a late willingness to co-operate are relevant, but they do not determine the outcome. Where rehabilitation to a parent remains a realistic prospect, adoption may be disproportionate. The court must also be satisfied that the statutory welfare test for dispensing with parental consent is met before making a placement order.

The local authority sought care orders and placement orders for four children following findings of domestic abuse, parental substance misuse and concerns about the parents’ late admissions. The proposed plan involved adoption, potentially separating the older and younger children. The parents accepted the domestic abuse during the final hearing and proposed rehabilitation of the children to their mother. The central issues were whether the identified risks were manageable, whether adoption was necessary and proportionate, and whether the welfare of the children required parental consent to be dispensed with.

1. The court’s paramount consideration was the welfare of each child under section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989, together with the relevant welfare provisions of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The court also had regard to the parents’ and children’s Article 6 and Article 8 rights. Where the Article 8 rights of a child and parent were in tension, the child’s rights prevailed: Yousef v The Netherlands [2003] 1 FLR p. 210.
2. Adoption was subject to the principle identified in Re B (Care Proceedings: Appeal) [2013] UKSC 33: it was appropriate only where nothing else would do in the welfare and best interests of the child. The court also took account of Re B-S (Adoption: Application of s.47(5)) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 and Re R [2014] EWCA Civ 1625.
3. The risks arising from the father’s history of violence, the parents’ late admissions and the possibility that their separation was merely a façade required careful testing under any rehabilitation plan. They were nevertheless manageable on the evidence. The possibility of keeping all four siblings together through rehabilitation to the mother was a significant welfare consideration.
4. On the facts, adoption was a draconian and wholly disproportionate response. Nothing less than adoption had not been shown to be necessary, and the welfare of the children did not require parental consent to be dispensed with under section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
5. The local authority was directed to formulate a revised rehabilitation care plan and explain why rehabilitation should proceed under an interim or final supervision order rather than an interim care order. The matter was to return to court. The court also proposed injunctive orders against the father and warned that breach could result in imprisonment.