Y And Z (Children) (Adoption From Scotland)

In an adoption application concerning children placed in England under Scottish compulsory supervision orders, the court must apply English adoption law and give paramount consideration to each child’s welfare throughout life. Consent may be dispensed with only where welfare requires adoption; the court must undertake an holistic assessment of realistic alternatives and apply the “nothing else will do” standard. A child’s settled placement, the quality and permanence of proposed alternative care, the effects of disruption, parental capacity for safe and sustained care, and the child’s relationships and identity are central considerations. Findings made by a Scottish court are not binding in the English adoption proceedings, but may provide an evidential basis for assessing current welfare and parental capacity.

Two siblings, Y and Z, were removed from their mother’s care in Scotland following findings in the Sheriff Court that statutory grounds for intervention had been established. Compulsory supervision orders were made and later varied to authorise placement with prospective adopters in England. No Scottish permanence order granting authority for adoption had been made, and the mother retained parental responsibilities and rights under Scots law.

The prospective adopters applied in England for adoption orders. The mother opposed the applications, and Y’s father also sought care of Y or a role in the children’s future. The central issues were whether adoption was in each child’s welfare interests throughout life and whether the mother’s consent should be dispensed with because welfare required adoption.

1. Application of English law. The English court had jurisdiction to determine the applications under the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The Scottish compulsory supervision orders authorised placement for adoption but did not determine parental consent. The position differed from a Scottish permanence order granting authority for adoption, which would satisfy the relevant condition under section 47.
2. Welfare and consent. Under sections 1(2), 1(4) and 52(1)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the court had to consider each child’s welfare throughout life, undertake an holistic assessment of realistic options, and dispense with consent only if adoption was required. Applying Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33, the question was whether anything other than adoption would do.
3. Assessment of the alternatives. The father had not presented a concrete or realistic care plan and there was a risk that the siblings would be separated. The mother had made substantial improvements and was now living a stable life, but the professional evidence showed insufficient insight into the causes of the earlier neglect, continuing vulnerability, difficulty working with professionals, and inability to anticipate the children’s emotional and welfare needs if moved.
4. The children had lived with the prospective adopters for more than two years, regarded them as parental figures, and were thriving in a stable placement. The court could not treat the Scottish findings as binding, but was entitled to take them into account. Removal would require a separate process and was not justified on the evidence.
5. The court concluded that adoption was the only option capable of meeting each child’s lifelong welfare needs. The mother’s consent was dispensed with and adoption orders were made. No contact order was made; future indirect contact, including photographs, was left to the adopters as the children’s legal parents.