A Mother v A London Borough

At the leave stage under section 24(2)(a) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the court must ask whether circumstances have changed and, if so, whether leave should be given. The change need not be significant. It must be of sufficient nature and degree to open the door to reconsideration. New evidence must be assessed against the circumstances underlying the placement order; earlier findings do not remain determinative indefinitely. At the second stage, the applicant’s prospects must be more than fanciful and the child’s welfare is relevant, but not paramount. Relevant considerations include harm, security, stability and the value of the child’s relationship with the birth parent. Evidence will often be incomplete, so the threshold must not be set too high. Granting leave does not determine the substantive application.

The mother appealed against Recorder Goodrum’s order of 10 January 2022 in the Family Court at Barnet, refusing leave under section 24(2)(a) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to apply to revoke placement orders made on 12 February 2021 for her two children.

The children had been removed following care proceedings arising largely from the mother’s alcohol misuse. After the placement orders, she relied on more than a year’s abstinence, therapy, counselling and other changes. An adoptive placement had been identified and was due to progress. The central issues were whether the mother’s circumstances had changed sufficiently and whether, in all the circumstances, leave should be granted having regard to prospects of success and the children’s welfare.

1. The appeal was allowed. The mother was granted leave to apply to revoke the placement orders. The case was remitted for case management and a full hearing of the applications for revocation of the placement orders and discharge of the care order.
2. The statutory inquiry under section 24(2)(a) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 has two stages. The court must first determine whether there has been a change in circumstances since the placement order. It must then decide whether leave should be given in all the circumstances.
3. The change need not be significant. It must be of a nature and degree sufficient to open the door to the exercise of the discretion. The evidence at the leave stage will inevitably be incomplete, which is one reason why the threshold must not be set too high. The court must have sufficient information about the circumstances leading to the placement order and may need to look beyond the earlier judgment. Earlier assessments of risk do not necessarily remain valid indefinitely. In Re S (Leave to Oppose Adoption Order: Appeal) [2021] EWCA Civ 605, the Court had recognised the importance of access to the earlier reasons for the placement decision.
4. Here, the recorder failed to assess the mother’s continued abstinence alongside the markers identified by Dr Mayer. Her abstinence had lasted longer than before, and there was evidence of therapy, greater acceptance of responsibility, stable mental health, improved daily functioning and other relevant changes. The recorder therefore set the bar too high and failed to conduct a sufficiently thorough analysis.
5. At the second stage, the prospects of successfully revoking the placement order must be more than fanciful. The evidence here was more indicative of progress than stasis and gave the mother a real prospect of success. The children’s welfare was relevant but not paramount. The court was entitled to consider past and possible future harm and the need for security and stability, but it also had to consider the children’s close relationship with their mother, the likelihood of that relationship continuing and its value to them. Although the checklist in section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 was not obligatory at the leave stage, relevant checklist factors had to be taken into account. The earlier Re B [2013] UKSC 33 and Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 analysis had not compared adoption with return to the mother’s care.
6. Granting leave expressed no view on whether the substantive application would ultimately succeed. The issue had to be reconsidered without delay.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2022] EWCA Civ 299, the appeal was allowed, leave was granted to apply to revoke the placement orders, and the matter was remitted for case management and a full hearing.
2. Family Court at Barnet: Recorder Goodrum refused the mother leave on 10 January 2022 to apply under section 24(2)(a) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.