X & Anor v A & Ors

In adoption proceedings, the court must determine the children’s welfare throughout their lives by a global and holistic assessment of all realistic options. There is no presumption or parental right that children should be brought up by their natural family. The court must assess the established attachments, the likely consequences of disrupting them, the children’s identity and relationships, and the proportionality of adoption. Adoption may be authorised where lesser orders cannot provide the required permanence and security. Consent may be dispensed with under Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 52(1)(b), where the children’s welfare requires it.

The applicants sought adoption orders for two children, C and D, who had been placed with them since April 2015. The children’s parents opposed adoption and sought their return, individually or jointly. Earlier Scottish proceedings had refused permanence orders with authority to adopt and had contemplated rehabilitation, but subsequent independent assessment did not recommend returning the children to either parent.

The central issues were whether adoption was in the children’s welfare interests, whether any lesser order would provide sufficient permanence and security, and whether the parents’ consent should be dispensed with. The court also considered the children’s existing attachments, their relationships with their birth family, cultural factors and the risk of harm from removal.

1. Welfare assessment. The court was required to undertake a global and holistic, rather than linear, assessment of all realistic options. The children’s welfare throughout their lives was paramount under s 1(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, with regard to the statutory checklist in s 1(4).
2. No natural-family presumption. The court rejected any assumption that the children had a right to be raised by their birth parents. The decisive consideration was their welfare, assessed proportionately and compatibly with the engaged Article 8 rights.
3. Evidence and attachments. C and D were securely attached to the applicants, regarded them as their parents, and were thriving in their care. The expert evidence established that removal would cause serious emotional and psychological harm. The parents could not meet the children’s needs, whether separately or together. The children’s cultural and birth-family relationships were relevant but did not outweigh the need for permanence and safety.
4. Choice of order. A return to the parents was excluded. A child arrangements order, special guardianship order or shared-parenting arrangement would not provide the stability required, particularly in light of the mother’s opposition to the applicants and the risk of continuing conflict. Adoption was therefore the only order capable of securing the children’s welfare and future stability.
5. Consent and injunction. Under s 52(1)(b), each child’s welfare required the parents’ consent to be dispensed with. Adoption orders were made in favour of the applicants. An injunction under the inherent jurisdiction restrained both parents from entering the place where the adopters lived or attending their home, until D attained majority or further order.

The judgment records that Sheriff Corke refused permanence orders with authority to adopt on 26 January 2016. The Sheriff Appeal Court dismissed the local authority’s appeal on 27 February 2017. The present proceedings were subsequent adoption applications in the High Court.