Northamptonshire County Council v AB & Anor

In determining whether adoption should replace long-term foster care, the court must treat the child’s welfare throughout life as paramount. Adoption requires a global and holistic assessment of all realistic options. The court must apply proportionality and the principle that nothing else will do, rather than undertake a linear comparison or presume that a child has a right to be raised by a natural parent. Parental consent may be dispensed with only where the child’s welfare requires it. Relevant family ties and continuing contact must be balanced against the child’s need for safety, security, stability and permanence.

Northamptonshire County Council sought care and placement orders for CD, a four-year-old child, on a plan for adoption. CD’s mother opposed adoption and proposed long-term foster care, potentially allowing continued family relationships and contact. The proceedings followed the murder of CD’s half-brother by his father and concerns about the mother’s ability to protect and safely care for her children. The court also considered the viability of CD remaining with his existing foster carers and the arrangements for contact with his mother.

The central questions were whether CD’s welfare required a care order and adoption plan, whether the mother’s consent to placement should be dispensed with, and whether adoption was proportionate when compared with long-term foster care.

1. The court made a care order and placement order in respect of CD. It dispensed with the mother’s consent under Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 52, approved the local authority’s adoption plan and continued permission under s 34(4) to refuse contact if the mother failed to demonstrate commitment to attending.

2. Under s 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 and s 1(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, CD’s welfare throughout his life was paramount. The court had regard to the relevant welfare checklists and to the parties’ rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. Where parental and child rights were in tension, the child’s rights prevailed: Yousef v The Netherlands [2003] 1FLR, 210.

3. The court rejected any presumption or freestanding right that a child should be raised by a natural parent. The governing question was the child’s welfare, assessed proportionately and compatibly with engaged Article 8 rights: Re W (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 793.

4. Adoption and dispensing with parental consent required the stringent approach identified in Re B (A Child) Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria [2013] UKSC 33 and Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535. The word requires had an imperative meaning. Adoption could be authorised only where nothing else would do in the child’s welfare best interests.

5. The court had to conduct a global and holistic assessment of all realistic options, including long-term foster care, and assess them for proportionality rather than by a linear exercise: Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146. Adoption offered CD the prospect of a permanent family and secure attachments. Long-term foster care preserved legal and familial links but involved continuing local-authority supervision and lacked the same permanence. Given the mother’s inability to provide safety and security and the absence of a viable alternative placement with the current foster carers, adoption was proportionate and necessary.

6. The court found that rehabilitation to the mother’s care was not a realistic option because CD would face a risk of serious harm. The mother’s inconsistent contact and failure to demonstrate sustained protective or parenting change supported the conclusion that CD required a safe, secure and stable permanent home.

First-instance decision of the High Court (Family Division). No earlier appellate decision is stated in the judgment.