KCC v Mother & Ors.

In adoption and placement proceedings, adoption may be authorised only where the child’s welfare throughout life requires it and nothing else will do. The court must evaluate every realistically possible option holistically, comparing its advantages, disadvantages and risks. A kinship placement should not be pursued merely because it offers important family, cultural or religious benefits where the risks of parental interference, disruption or abduction cannot be reduced to an acceptable level. Delay for further assessment is justified only where there is a real possibility that the assessment could identify a realistic alternative to adoption. The assessment must also address necessity and proportionality under Article 8.

The local authority sought care and placement orders for two young children, D and C. The parents opposed adoption and sought either the children’s return, which had already been ruled out, or placement with the mother’s sister and her husband. Alternatively, they sought an adjournment for a full independent kinship assessment.

The proposed relatives had limited knowledge of the children and had not fully accepted the findings concerning the father’s fatal violence and violence towards the mother. The central issue was whether the court should adjourn for further assessment or conclude that adoption was necessary and proportionate in light of the risks posed by the parents.

1. Legal framework. The court applied the Children Act 1989 and the welfare checklist in section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The children’s welfare throughout their lives was paramount. Consent could be dispensed with under section 52(1)(b) only where welfare required it.
2. The test was strict. The local authority had to establish that nothing else would do. The court had to consider all realistically possible options, with proper evidence and an adequately reasoned judgment addressing the advantages and disadvantages of each option.
3. The evaluation had to be holistic and comparative. Relevant matters included the children’s relationships with their birth family and siblings, cultural, religious and linguistic connections, the benefits of kinship care, the risks inherent in adoption, and the type, likelihood and consequences of harm under each option.
4. Risk was a dominant feature of the evaluation where it could not be removed or reduced substantially. The father presented a very high risk of seeking to recover the children, and the mother was likely to support or be unable to prevent that. The proposed aunt and uncle had not demonstrated sufficient insight into the findings or the ability to protect the children from those risks. Injunctions and other protective measures would have negligible effect against the parents’ determination and history of disregarding law and authority.
5. A fuller assessment might have clarified housing, finances, immigration and general parenting capacity. It could not adequately resolve the fundamental inability to protect the children from their parents or the likely long-term risk of disruption, interference or abduction. Further delay was therefore not justified.
6. Although kinship placement offered substantial family and cultural benefits, those benefits were decisively outweighed by the risks. Adoption offered a substantially more secure and confidential placement. Dispensing with parental consent was necessary and proportionate. The application for an adjournment was refused and care and placement orders were made in respect of D and C.