B (A Child : Post-Adoption Contact)

The introduction of section 51A of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 did not alter the established approach to post-adoption contact. A court will impose contact arrangements opposed by adopters only in an extremely unusual case.

Post-adoption contact must nevertheless receive full consideration in every case. Applications under sections 26 and 51A are governed by the adoption welfare provisions, which treat the child’s welfare throughout life as paramount. Current research about greater openness may inform the evidence and the individual welfare evaluation, but does not change the legal test.

At the placement-order stage, the court must consider proposed contact arrangements and manage expectations clearly. The adopters ordinarily retain the ultimate responsibility for deciding what contact should occur.

B was placed with prospective adopters after care proceedings resulted in a care order and a placement for adoption order. Her natural parents did not seek to oppose adoption, but obtained leave to apply for direct post-adoption contact under section 51A of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

HHJ Watson refused their application. She accepted the importance of openness in adoption but found that the adopters’ proposal to develop contact gradually was child-focused, flexible and supported by a full welfare evaluation. The parents appealed.

The central issue was whether section 51A had changed the established rule that imposing contact upon unwilling adopters was extremely unusual. The court was also asked to provide general guidance about post-adoption contact and developing social-work research.

1. Appeal dismissed. Section 51A of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 created a bespoke statutory regime for post-adoption contact, but neither its wording nor section 51B indicated a change to the established approach. It remains extremely unusual for a court to impose contact arrangements upon adopters who do not agree to them. The statutory structure, including the leave requirement for applications by natural parents and the court’s limited power to prohibit contact on its own initiative, was consistent with protecting the adopters’ position.

2. HHJ Watson conducted a fair, balanced and thorough welfare evaluation. She gave substantial weight to the adopters’ child-focused proposal, under which indirect contact and annual meetings between the adults could develop organically towards direct contact when appropriate. There were no unusual, still less extremely unusual, circumstances justifying the court in overriding the adopters’ views. Her refusal to order direct contact was therefore unassailable.

3. Research and professional debate favouring greater openness may properly influence evidence, counselling, adoption planning and welfare decisions in individual cases. They do not establish a new rule of law. The Court of Appeal declined to elevate suggested matters of social-work practice into mandatory legal requirements, while observing that professionals advising on contact should remain informed about current research.

4. Post-adoption contact must receive full consideration in every case under section 46(6). Contact under sections 26 and 51A is determined by the adoption welfare provisions in section 1, which focus on the child’s welfare throughout life rather than only during childhood.

5. Before making a placement order, the court must consider the proposed contact arrangements under section 27(4). Although its decision may influence later arrangements, the court should explain that the ultimate decision ordinarily rests with the adopters. It should avoid creating an expectation that direct contact will later be ordered against their wishes unless extremely unusual circumstances exist.

Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Coulson agreed with Sir Andrew McFarlane P.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The natural parents’ appeal was dismissed. The court upheld HHJ Watson’s refusal to order direct post-adoption contact.
2. Coventry Family Court: HHJ Watson refused the parents’ application under section 51A of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, recorded the prospective adopters’ position on future contact and stayed the adoption application.
3. Coventry Family Court: A district judge had granted the natural parents leave to apply for post-adoption contact. Earlier, Recorder Norton QC had made a final care order and a placement for adoption order.