Nottinghamshire County Council v Mother & Ors

Consent to adoption may be dispensed with only where the child’s welfare throughout life requires adoption. The court must consider every realistically available option and decide whether, in the particular circumstances, nothing else will do. This requires a holistic and rigorous comparison of the options, including their benefits, risks, stability, permanence, sibling relationships and the support available to the family. Adoption is not a punishment for parental wrongdoing. Findings of dishonesty matter only where their likely effect on the child’s welfare is identified. In proceedings involving competing parental and child rights under Article 8, the child’s welfare rights prevail where the rights cannot be reconciled.

The local authority applied for care and placement orders for two young children. The mother and one father were serving prison sentences arising from the killing of a family member. The children had experienced domestic abuse, instability and prolonged foster care. The eldest child was living successfully with her father, while the younger children remained together in foster care.

The court considered proposed family and connected-person placements, long-term foster care, adoption, sibling contact, the mother’s future release, and the applications for a prohibited steps order, contact and a section 91(14) restriction. The central issue was whether adoption was required by the younger children’s welfare and whether the eldest child’s placement and emotional security required protective orders.

1. Placement orders. The applications for placement orders for the two younger children were granted and parental consent was dispensed with. Under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the court had to apply the welfare checklist and determine whether the children’s welfare throughout their lives required adoption. The high threshold required consideration of all realistic alternatives and a conclusion that nothing else would do.
2. The court carried out a holistic evaluation. It rejected the proposed family and connected-person carers because of dishonesty, lack of insight into domestic abuse, unrealistic expectations, family pressure and the risk that the children’s placements would be destabilised after the mother’s release. Assessment of the paternal grandparents in Pakistan was too late and would not realistically resolve the same concerns.
3. Remaining in foster care pending the mother’s release would prolong instability and leave the children in an uncertain position. Long-term foster care also carried risks of placement breakdown and loss of the sibling relationship. Adoption together offered the younger children the best prospect of a stable and permanent home within a reasonable timeframe.
4. The sibling relationship was of very substantial importance. The court accepted that adoption might make contact between the eldest child and the younger children difficult, but considered adoption the only realistic route to meeting the younger children’s needs. To maximise the prospect of sibling contact, the eldest child’s direct contact with the mother had to be substantially restricted.
5. A prohibited steps order was made to protect the eldest child’s settled placement with her father and his partner. No order for contact with the mother was made, although the court encouraged safe future contact if it could be facilitated. A section 91(14) order was also made as a protective filter, with permission potentially available if the mother demonstrated relevant work and greater insight.