X and X & Anor v Lincolnshire County Council

When considering adoption of siblings separately, the court must treat the sibling relationship as an important aspect of family life. Separate adoption remains a draconian step, but it may be justified where adoption together is realistically unavailable and removal would cause certain, significant harm. The court must balance that harm against the potential lifelong benefits of growing up with a sibling. A relationship maintained through contact is not equivalent to being raised together, but remains highly significant. The child’s established bond with proposed adopters, attachment needs, placement history and the evidential reality of alternative placements are central to the welfare assessment.

Mr and Mrs X applied for an adoption order concerning NG, an 18-month-old child in the care of Lincolnshire County Council and placed with them. NG’s younger sibling, IG, was also subject to care and placement proceedings. The local authority initially sought adoption of both siblings together, but Mr and Mrs X later concluded that they could not care for IG. Searches found no realistic current option for placing the children together.

The court considered whether NG should be removed from a successful placement to preserve the possibility of joint adoption, and whether an enforceable sibling-contact order should be made.

1. Adoption order granted. The court concluded that NG’s best interests were served by adoption by Mr and Mrs X.
2. The sibling relationship is an extremely important family-law relationship, and courts will be reluctant to authorise separate adoption unless there is a very good reason. The analysis must nevertheless avoid giving decisive weight to theoretical or illusory benefits where those benefits lack an evidential foundation.
3. The relevant factors included the exemplary care provided by Mr and Mrs X; the results of three placement searches, which showed no current realistic prospect of joint adoption; the certain short- and medium-term harm caused by removing NG from an established placement and subjecting him to further moves; the possibility of preserving the sibling relationship through contact; and the fact that the siblings had not lived together and had little consciousness of their relationship.
4. The court balanced the certain harm of removal against the theoretical long-term benefits of being raised together. Contact could not substitute for shared upbringing, but it remained an important means of preserving family relationships.
5. Under section 46(6) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the court had to consider contact arrangements before making the adoption order. It ordered contact between NG and IG at least six times yearly, while recording the hope that contact would be more frequent and focused on quality.