Re T (A Child)

When determining whether adoption is necessary, the family court must assert and see through its own assessment of risk and welfare. A local authority must accord that assessment a high level of respect and cannot secure a more interventionist order merely because it is unwilling to support a less interventionist placement.

If a local authority maintains a care plan inconsistent with the court’s assessment, the court must call it to account and explore the available lawful means of resolving the impasse. If the disagreement persists, the court must evaluate afresh all realistic options, including lesser orders and, exceptionally, wardship. It cannot treat adoption as inevitable merely because a separate administrative process has prevented the preferred family placement.

A judge found, after a contested care hearing, that the child’s best interests would be served by placement with his paternal grandmother under a care order, provided that the local authority supplied enhanced support and monitoring. The local authority’s fostering panel nevertheless declined to recommend the grandmother’s approval as a connected-person foster carer, and the Agency Decision Maker accepted that recommendation without giving independent reasons.

The judge treated the refusal as preventing the family placement and made care and placement orders authorising adoption. The grandmother appealed, supported by the parents. The central issue was whether the judge had done enough to enforce her welfare assessment and whether adoption had been shown to be necessary after the local authority maintained its refusal.

1. Appeal allowed. The placement order was made prematurely. The grandmother’s claim was remitted for rehearing by a different judge. The rehearing was limited to her position and was not to reconsider either parent as a carer.

2. An application for a placement order engages the state’s obligation under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Severing family ties requires overriding necessity. Both the local authority and the court must therefore pursue an outcome that respects family life while protecting the child.

3. The family court’s assessment of risk and welfare is sovereign within the proceedings. The court cannot dictate the contents of a local authority’s care plan or supervise its implementation after a final order. It can, however, expect a high level of respect for its assessment and must use the proceedings assertively to achieve a lawful and proportionate outcome.

4. The court’s obligation extends beyond expressing its preferred welfare outcome. It must see that assessment through. Where a local authority maintains a contrary position, the court must call it to account, investigate the basis of its decision and engage those ultimately responsible for its case. Depending on the circumstances, judicial review or an appeal may be required, but the family court’s own resources must first be properly used.

5. The separate statutory process for approving connected-person foster carers did not alter those principles. The Agency Decision Maker was not bound to follow the fostering panel’s recommendation. The absence of any independent reasons, coupled with the panel’s limited engagement with the court’s assessment, required further investigation rather than acceptance of the refusal as conclusive.

6. Even if the local authority ultimately maintained its refusal, the judge had to evaluate the child’s position afresh. She instead removed the preferred family placement from consideration and compared adoption only with an unrealistic long-term fostering option. She should have assessed the full range of less interventionist possibilities, including interim care, private law and supervision orders, injunctions, special guardianship and, exceptionally, wardship.

7. The statutory timetable did not justify an otherwise unjust conclusion. Although the proceedings had substantially exceeded 26 weeks, an extension could be granted where necessary to resolve them justly. Adoption could not validly result simply from the decision of a non-court body without the required fresh welfare and proportionality evaluation.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed in Re T (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 650. The grandmother’s claim was remitted for rehearing by a different judge.
2. Birmingham Civil Justice Centre: HHJ Dowding made a care order and a placement order permitting the local authority to place the child for adoption. No neutral citation for the lower-court decision is stated in the judgment.