A Local Authority v Prospective Adopters

When deciding an application for leave to oppose adoption, the court must first determine whether there has been a change of circumstances of sufficient nature and degree. If so, it must decide whether to grant leave, treating the child’s lifelong welfare as paramount. Asserted changes must be evaluated against the family history and earlier findings; they cannot simply be accepted at face value. The second stage concerns the parents’ prospects of successfully opposing adoption, rather than merely securing the child’s return to their care. A judge with detailed knowledge of the case is entitled to evaluate the evidence and balance delay, permanence and family relationships, including sibling relationships. An appeal will not succeed merely because another judge might have reached a different conclusion.

The local authority brought care proceedings after Y, an infant, suffered multiple fractures and bruises. The parents accepted some findings, including that the father had inflicted the fractures. Care and placement orders were made after adoption was preferred to long-term fostering.

After prospective adopters applied for an adoption order, the parents sought leave under section 47(5) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to oppose it. The Family Court at Northampton dismissed the father’s application to reopen the fact-finding hearing but granted leave to oppose adoption, relying on asserted changes in the parents’ circumstances and Y’s continuing relationship with his siblings.

The local authority appealed, challenging the application of the statutory test, the assessment of change, the welfare analysis, sibling contact and delay.

The appeal was dismissed. The order granting the parents leave to oppose the adoption application was upheld.

1. Two-stage test. The application required the court first to decide whether there had been a change of circumstances of sufficient nature and degree. Only if that threshold was met did the court have a discretion to grant leave, with the child’s lifelong welfare as the paramount consideration. This approach was restated in Re W (A Child: Leave to Oppose Adoption) [2020] EWCA Civ 16 and arose under section 47(5) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
2. Assessment of change and evidence. Although a judge may determine the application on written evidence and need not conduct a full welfare hearing unless the issues positively require it, asserted changes cannot be accepted at face value. They must be evaluated against all the circumstances, particularly the family history and earlier findings. The approach in Re P (Adoption: Leave Provisions) [2007] EWCA Civ 616 supported the judge’s procedural course.
3. Scope of the second stage. The relevant question was whether the parents had a prospect of successfully opposing adoption, not whether Y was likely to be returned to their care. The judge was entitled to conclude that the changes opened the door to reconsidering whether adoption continued to outweigh the preservation of family relationships, particularly sibling relationships.
4. Appellate review and sibling contact. The first-instance judge had conducted the earlier fact-finding and welfare hearings and possessed a detailed understanding of the family. Another judge might have reached a different conclusion, but that did not establish an appealable error. The later welfare analysis would need to examine the advantages, disadvantages and feasibility of ongoing sibling contact, including the effect of alleged threats to trace Y’s placement. That feasibility did not have to be finally determined at the leave stage.
5. Delay. Delay was a relevant consideration under section 1(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. Delay in determining a child’s legal status could, however, have less adverse effect than delay in deciding whether the child should move home. The judge was entitled to weigh the delay against Y’s welfare throughout his life.

The grant of leave did not indicate that the parents would ultimately resist adoption. Their evidence and arguments would require careful scrutiny, and the advantages of adoption remained substantial.

The Court declined to give updated general guidance on remote hearings involving disabled litigants. It nevertheless reiterated the core case-management guidance in Re C (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 128 concerning early identification of hearing disability, support, funding and communication arrangements.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed the local authority’s appeal against the order granting the parents leave to oppose the adoption application.
2. Family Court at Northampton: HH Judge Wicks dismissed the father’s application to reopen the fact-finding hearing, granted the parents leave under section 47(5) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to oppose adoption, and gave further case-management directions. Permission to appeal was refused below.