A (A Child : adoption)

Adoption is a last resort. A placement order should be made only where the child’s welfare throughout life requires it and nothing else will do. The court must assess whether a family placement can meet the child’s needs safely, within an appropriate timescale, rather than ask whether adoption would produce a better outcome. It must evaluate the positive and negative consequences of each realistic option and carry out an overall balancing exercise. Where adoption is the only realistic means of securing permanence and protection from significant harm, parental consent may be dispensed with under Adoption and Children Act 2002, s.52(1)(b). Any care and placement orders must also be lawful, necessary, proportionate and reasonable having regard to Article 8.

The local authority applied for care and placement orders in respect of a baby under six months old. The parents accepted that the threshold under Children Act 1989, s.31 was crossed, but opposed adoption and sought the child’s return to the mother or placement with a paternal aunt in Egypt.

The evidence concerned persistent drug misuse, domestic violence, criminality, homelessness, lack of engagement with professionals, failure to attend contact and parenting assessments, and the parents’ inability to demonstrate insight or sustained change. The central issue was whether any realistic family placement could safely meet the child’s needs, or whether adoption was required.

1. Threshold and welfare. The local authority bore the burden of proof on the civil standard. The threshold under Children Act 1989, s.31 was met. The child’s welfare was paramount, and the court applied the welfare checklist and the no-delay principle under s.1(2) and s.1(3). The proper question was whether the child could be cared for safely by a family member to a satisfactory standard within an appropriate timescale, not whether he might be better off if adopted.
2. Assessment of the parents and alternatives. Neither parent could safely meet the child’s physical or emotional needs. The risks included entrenched drug misuse, domestic violence, unstable accommodation, neglect, lack of engagement and absence of insight. No realistic or safe placement with other family members had been established, and long-term fostering was not proposed as a realistic option. The court considered the positive and negative consequences of each available outcome and balanced them overall, as required by Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146.
3. Adoption. Adoption would sever direct family relationships and carried a risk of placement breakdown, but offered the child permanence, security and protection from significant harm. Applying the guidance in Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33, Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, Re P (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 963 and Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, the court concluded that adoption was an extreme measure but that this was a case where nothing else would do.
4. Parental consent. Under s.52(1)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, welfare means welfare throughout the child’s life, and “required” means demanded rather than merely optional, reasonable or desirable, following Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535. The child’s welfare required parental consent to be dispensed with.
5. The court approved the care plan, made a care order and placement order, and dispensed with parental consent. It directed indirect post-adoption letterbox contact twice yearly and made consequential directions concerning anonymisation, disclosure and costs.