T (A Child) (Adoption Hearing: Involvement of Applicants), Re

Prospective adopters are parties to their adoption proceedings. Under the Family Procedure Rules 2010, the court must give them notice of hearings and they may attend and be heard. A direction that they need not attend excuses attendance; it does not authorise prohibition. Where confidentiality is necessary, the court must arrange anonymous participation, ordinarily remotely. A party may require a hearing transcript unless the court directs otherwise on judicial and reasonable grounds. A request should ordinarily be granted where the party was excluded from the hearing, absent clear and specific reasons. Celebratory visits cannot replace proper process.

Prospective adopters applied under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to adopt a child placed with them. The Family Court listed a hearing but did not serve the applicants with the order or notice, stated that they were not permitted to attend, and did not arrange remote attendance. After the hearing was adjourned, the applicants sought a transcript. HHJ Richards refused the request, stating that permission was required because the hearing was private. A final adoption order was later made. The Court of Appeal considered whether the applicants had rights to notice, attendance and a transcript, and how those rights should operate alongside confidentiality.

1. Appeal allowed. The appeal succeeded on all three grounds. The final adoption order had already been made, so no further order was required beyond allowing the appeal.
2. Prospective adopters are parties under the Family Procedure Rules 2010, r 14.3. The court must give them notice of hearings under r 14.15. The default position that they need not attend is permissive, not prohibitive. Under r 14.16(1), they may attend the final hearing and be heard. Rules 14.16(6) and (7) permit the court to excuse attendance, but do not give it a general power to prevent attendance.
3. A fair trial ordinarily includes the right of an applicant to attend a hearing concerning the applicant’s own application. Prohibiting physical attendance may exceptionally be justified by safety concerns, but the court should normally arrange remote or other participation. In a serial-number adoption case, anonymity can be preserved through arrangements such as a remote link with the applicant’s camera and microphone disabled.
4. Under r 27.9(3) and (4), a party may require a transcript unless the court directs otherwise. Any discretion to refuse must be exercised judicially and on reasonable grounds. Privacy does not reverse the ordinary position. Where a party has been prevented from attending, a transcript should be supplied unless there are clear and specific reasons for refusal. The court’s refusal was erroneous because no reason was given and the order did not record attendance or explain the adjournment.
5. The failure of the local authority’s solicitor to make a proper note of the hearing was serious. The obligation to take a full note, identified in Hertsmere Borough Council v Harty [2001] EWCA Civ 1238, applies equally to a short hearing where no formal judgment is given.
6. The court should notify applicants of every hearing, send them orders, keep them informed, ascertain whether they intend to attend, and make directions protecting anonymity. The usual practice of adopters attending only a later celebratory visit cannot displace these requirements. Paragraph 19 of the President’s Guidance was erroneous insofar as it suggested a general power to prohibit attendance.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2024] EWCA Civ 189, the appeal from the Family Court was allowed on all three grounds.
• Truro Family Court — HHJ Richards refused the applicants’ request to attend the adoption hearing and refused their request for a transcript.