A, B & C (Children: Adoption), Re

In care and adoption proceedings, the local authority must prove the threshold criteria on the balance of probabilities. A parent’s lies may support the evidence, but cannot alone prove the primary case. The court must assess the children’s welfare throughout their lives and compare all realistic care options. Adoption may be proportionate where the evidence shows no realistic prospect of parental change, a high risk of future significant harm, and no suitable less interventionist placement. The court may dispense with parental consent where the child’s welfare requires it. The importance of preserving sibling relationships must be given substantial weight, particularly where adoption is contemplated.

The local authority brought care proceedings concerning three very young children. Earlier findings established an inflicted injury, domestic abuse, abduction, concealment and sustained dishonesty by both parents. Later evidence showed that the parents had continued to conceal information, breached undertakings and court orders, resumed their relationship, and failed to engage openly with professionals.

The children were subject to interim care orders and placed together with foster carers. The court considered whether they should return to parental care, remain in long-term foster care, or be placed for adoption. The central issues were whether the threshold criteria were met, whether parental change was realistically possible within the children’s timescales, and whether adoption was proportionate and in each child’s welfare interests.

1. Threshold. The local authority bore the burden of proving the facts and the threshold criteria under Children Act 1989, s 31(2), on the balance of probabilities. The court found the criteria satisfied for each child.
2. Assessment of evidence. The court applied the revised Lucas direction. Lies could be considered only where there was no good reason, or other established reason, for them. A lie was not itself proof of the primary case. Nor did a party’s failure to establish an alternative account prove the other party’s case. The parents’ repeated lies, concealment and failure to cooperate were nevertheless powerful evidence when considered with the whole factual matrix.
3. Welfare and proportionality. The court applied the paramountcy and welfare-checklist provisions in Children Act 1989, ss 1(1) and 1(3), and Adoption and Children Act 2002, ss 1(2) and 1(4). Return to parental care presented a high and continuing risk of significant harm. Long-term foster care was unsuitable for children of such young ages because it left their futures uncertain and required continuing professional involvement. Adoption offered the only realistic prospect of secure lifelong care.
4. The court balanced the children’s relationships with their parents against the lifelong benefits of adoption. The children’s welfare required them to be placed together if possible. The court could not compel the local authority to achieve that outcome, but expected any failure to place all three together to be returned to court.
5. Under Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 52(1)(b), the welfare of each child required parental consent to be dispensed with. Care orders and placement orders were made for all three children.