RSS Feed

Category Archives: adoption

Revoking adoption and IVF mistakes (again)

 

 

 

The President of the Family Division has been at the forefront of the litigation about IVF clinics that managed to make a mess of the paperwork such that people who fully intended to both be legal parents of a child conceived in that way have ended up not being legal parents and having to go through cost and emotional turmoil. Purely due to failures in using the correct forms. It is a trivial mistake, but one (as you can see from this piece) has huge emotional consequences and cost for those involved.

Case O (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008) [2016] EWHC 2273 (Fam) (13 September 2016)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/2273.html

 

The President notes that there are approximately 90 cases of such anomalies, where due to failure with forms and paperwork parents who intended in good faith to become legal parents of the child they were conceiving with help of the clinic did not actually become the legal parent.

 

In this case, when the parents were told of the mistake, the child had not yet been born.

 

 

 

 

17.When told by the clinic of the mistake which had been made, X and Y were, to use X’s word, “devastated.” Y was at home – in fact she was far advanced in her pregnancy with C2 – when Barts telephoned:

 

 

 

“They told me that I was not [C1’s] legal parent … I rang [X], instantly, I was sobbing. I could not believe what I had been told. Fortunately [she] was very close to home. When I received that telephone call I felt like my whole world had been ripped apart. I was no longer [C1’s] mummy. This still remains very raw.”

 

X remembers Y telephoning:

 

“[She] called me, [she] was sobbing and I could barely make out what she was saying.”

 

The legal advice they got at the time (which was probably right at the time – or at least what most lawyers would have said was the only answer) , before Theis J found the alternative route) was that there would have to be an adoption.

 

 

18.X and Y were told both by the clinic and by the solicitors they instructed – not those involved in the present proceedings – that the only solution was for Y to adopt C1. I have referred on previous occasions to how utterly inappropriate adoption is as a remedy in cases like this: see In re A, para 71(vii), and Case I, para 24. However, as I observed in Case I, para 23, my impression is that this erroneous view, shared at the time both by the HFEA and by the clinics whose actions I have had to consider, and, I might add, by many family lawyers, was based on assumptions, derived from Cobb J’s judgment in AB v CD and the Z Fertility Clinic [2013] EWHC 1418 (Fam), [2013] 2 FLR 1357, which were widespread until, in February 2015, Theis J gave judgment in X v Y (St Bartholomew’s Hospital Centre for Reproductive Medicine Intervening) [2015] EWFC 13, [2016] PTSR 1.

 

 

19.Y accordingly made an application to the Family Court to adopt C1. X and Y found the adoption process – and I can well understand why – very intrusive, very hurtful and a total invasion of their privacy. Y’s account is telling: “I felt I was stared at and judged. I felt that everyone analysed us.” But more fundamentally, as X put it, “the whole adoption process felt wrong.” Y’s anguished words are heart-breaking:

 

 

 

“I feel like a piece of me has been taken away from me. I cannot even start to explain the pain it has brought to us all. We tried our hardest to do things properly and yet it’s like I no longer feel like I am [C1’s] mummy. I was [C1’s] mummy but now I am [C1’s] adoptive mummy. We do not want [C1] to be different to [C2] … We feel disappointed and let down by Barts. We planned our family carefully. We want [C1’s] parenthood to be what it should have been. Adoption is not what we wanted.”

 

X’s words are equally raw:

 

“It broke my heart when I had to hand in [C1’s] original birth certificate. I am so upset that [C1] now has a different status as an adopted child. [C1] is now different to [C2], when [this] should not have been.”

20.The report of the adoption social worker prepared for the adoption proceedings contains this important passage:

 

 

 

“This application is quite unique.” After setting out the circumstances, the writer continued: “The couple have sought legal advice and have been advised that the only way to remedy this is for [Y] to formally adopt [C1]. The couple have found this situation extremely distressing and in all honesty do not want this process. However they want everything for [C1] to be proper and legal and for [Y] to be recognised legally as [C1’s] parent, as was always intended.”

21.In due course – this was all in 2014, before Theis J had given her important judgment – the District Judge made an adoption order. It was not a happy occasion for X and Y. In her report prepared for the present proceedings, C1’s guardian records their feelings:

 

 

 

“The description of that day was very emotional. “There were lots of other couples there celebrating. It was a special day for those families. It was a miserable day for us, a defeat, a horrible occasion.””

 

Having learned of the newer approach of the Family Courts, to fix the deficiencies in the process and make declarations of parentage which would achieve the legal status as the child’s parents without adoption, the couple sought advice and made an application to revoke the adoption order.

 

As readers of the blog will know, that’s a very rare application, and less than a handful of such cases have ever succeeded. Most reported attempts have failed.

 

 

22.The guardian’s report is insightful, empathetic and humane. It is a powerful and moving exploration of what has gone wrong:

 

 

 

“[The adoption] was an unwelcome, unwanted and intrusive process but one in which [Y] and [X] felt compelled to participate for they wanted legal certainty for [C1] and were told they had no other options. They are now, understandably, further distressed to learn that other remedies may have been available to them. They are seeking a Declaration of Parentage and a revocation of the adoption order. I unequivocally support their applications.

 

… The adoption application was made with great reluctance. Particularly cruel was having to hand in the original, and very precious, birth certificate. “We are private people. It was horrible having to talk to strangers about such a personal part of our lives. It was like being public property.” [Y] talked about being asked to leave the room by the Cafcass Reporting Officer who witnessed [X’s] consent. She described sitting in the kitchen and crying.”

23.The guardian comments that at no point in the process did anyone raise any queries about the unusual background circumstances or ask whether there might be a different route to securing parenthood for C1. She continues:

 

 

 

“[C1] now has a new birth certificate and a new status as an adopted child – something [Y] and [X] now know to be completely unnecessary, having been made aware that an alternative could have been made available to them … [They] feel a level of stigma about the adoption and an acute awareness of [C1’s] difference to [C2]. They are concerned that [C1] will worry about why [C1] was adopted and [C2] is not. They are concerned about how to explain this … They are upset and angry on [C1’s] behalf – and anyone hearing their account cannot help but be moved. “We are honourable, honest people. We believed the system and we did what we were told.” They are disappointed that other professionals at the time did not question the adoption process or suggest they seek alternative advice. They feel as if the adoption was entered into under false pretences. I consider their sentiments are both understandable and entirely justified and that [C1] should not have been adopted.”

24.Recognising that revocation of an adoption order is “a most unusual step”, the guardian is nonetheless unequivocal in her recommendations:

 

 

 

“However, from [C1’s] perspective, I can identify absolutely no need or justification for an adoption order, given that a realistic alternative would certainly have been pursued at the time had the parents received different legal advice … On [C1’s] behalf, I have no hesitation in recommending that the court revoke the adoption order and replace it with a Declaration of Parentage – the latter order being one that will equally meet [C1’s] welfare needs and interests. It will afford [C1] the permanence and security that all children should have, and will give effect to the legal relationship that had always been intended when the parents had the fertility treatment. It will remove the unnecessary stigma of [C1’s] status as an adopted child and afford [C1] parity with [C2].”

 

The guardian concludes with the hope that the original birth certificate be returned, this document having, as she says, “enormous significance” for X, Y and C1.

25.I wholeheartedly agree with the guardian’s observations and unequivocally accept her recommendations. For all the reasons she gives, C1’s welfare demands that the adoption order be revoked. Common humanity to X and Y demands the same. They have suffered very greatly from failings in the ‘system’. In the circumstances I have described, to deny them the relief they seek would seem an affront to justice. But does the law enable me to make the desired order? In my judgment, it does.

 

 

26.I have been taken to the authorities: see In re F(R) (An Infant) [1970] 1 QB 385, Re RA (Minors) (1974) 4 Fam Law 182, In re F (Infants) (Adoption Order: Validity) [1977] Fam 165, Re M (Minors) (Adoption) [1991] 1 FLR 458, In re B (Adoption: Jurisdiction to Set Aside) [1995] Fam 239 (affirming Re B (Adoption: Setting Aside) [1995] 1 FLR 1), Re K (Adoption and Wardship) [1997] 2 FLR 221, Webster v Norfolk County Council and the Children (by their Children’s Guardian) [2009] EWCA Civ 59, [2009] 1 FLR 1378, Re W (Adoption Order: Set Aside and Leave to Oppose) [2010] EWCA Civ 1535, [2011] 1 FLR 2153, Re PW (Adoption) [2013] 1 FLR 96, Re W (Inherent Jurisdiction: Permission Application: Revocation and Adoption Order) [2013] EWHC 1957 (Fam), [2013] 2 FLR 1609, Re C (Adoption Proceedings: Change of Circumstances) [2013] EWCA Civ 431, [2013] 2 FLR 1393, and PK v Mr and Mrs K [2015] EWHC 2316 (Fam). See also, in relation to the revocation of a parental order made under section 54 of the 2008 Act, G v G (Parental Order: Revocation) [2012] EWHC 1979 (Fam), [2013] 1 FLR 286.

 

 

27.There is no need for me to embark upon any detailed analysis of the case-law. For present purposes it is enough to draw attention to a few key propositions:

 

 

 

  1. i) Under the inherent jurisdiction, the High Court can, in an appropriate case, revoke an adoption order. In relation to this jurisdictional issue I unhesitatingly prefer the view shared by Bodey J in Re W (Inherent Jurisdiction: Permission Application: Revocation and Adoption Order) [2013] EWHC 1957 (Fam), [2013] 2 FLR 1609, para 6, and Pauffley J in PK v Mr and Mrs K [2015] EWHC 2316 (Fam), para 4, to the contrary view of Parker J in Re PW (Adoption) [2013] 1 FLR 96, para 1.

 

  1. ii) The effect of revoking an adoption order is to restore the status quo ante: see Re W (Adoption Order: Set Aside and Leave to Oppose) [2010] EWCA Civ 1535, [2011] 1 FLR 2153, paras 11-12.

 

iii) However, “The law sets a very high bar against any challenge to an adoption order. An adoption order once lawfully and properly made can be set aside “only in highly exceptional and very particular circumstances””: Re C (Adoption Proceedings: Change of Circumstances) [2013] EWCA Civ 431, [2013] 2 FLR 1393, para 44, quoting Webster v Norfolk County Council and the Children (by their Children’s Guardian) [2009] EWCA Civ 59, [2009] 1 FLR 1378, para 149. As Pauffley J said in PK v Mr and Mrs K [2015] EWHC 2316 (Fam), para 14, “public policy considerations ordinarily militate against revoking properly made adoption orders and rightly so.”

 

  1. iv) An adoption order regularly made, that is, an adoption order made in circumstances where there was no procedural irregularity, no breach of natural justice and no fraud, cannot be set aside either on the ground of mere mistake (In re B (Adoption: Jurisdiction to Set Aside) [1995] Fam 239) or even if there has been a miscarriage of justice (Webster v Norfolk County Council and the Children (by their Children’s Guardian) [2009] EWCA Civ 59, [2009] 1 FLR 1378).

 

  1. v) The fact that the circumstances are highly exceptional does not of itself justify revoking an adoption order. After all, one would hope that the kind of miscarriage of justice exemplified by Webster v Norfolk County Council and the Children (by their Children’s Guardian) [2009] EWCA Civ 59, [2009] 1 FLR 1378, is highly exceptional, yet the attempt to have the adoption order set aside in that case failed.

 

 

 

28.I bear in mind, also, two important observations that appear in the authorities. The first is the observation of Sir Thomas Bingham MR in In re B (Adoption: Jurisdiction to Set Aside) [1995] Fam 239, page 251:

 

 

 

“The act of adoption has always been regarded in this country as possessing a peculiar finality. This is partly because it affects the status of the person adopted, and indeed adoption modifies the most fundamental of human relationships, that of parent and child. It effects a change intended to be permanent and concerning three parties. The first of these are the natural parents of the adopted person, who by adoption divest themselves of all rights and responsibilities in relation to that person. The second party is the adoptive parents, who assume the rights and responsibilities of parents in relation to the adopted person. And the third party is the subject of the adoption, who ceases in law to be the child of his or her natural parents and becomes the child of the adoptive parents.”

 

The other is that of Hedley J in G v G (Parental Order: Revocation) [2012] EWHC 1979 (Fam), [2013] 1 FLR 286, para 33:

 

“the adoption authorities show that the feelings of an injured party are not germane necessarily to consideration of an application to set aside. The hurt of the applicants in both In re B (Adoption: Jurisdiction to Set Aside) [1995] Fam 239 … and Webster v Norfolk County Council and the Children (by their Children’s Guardian) [2009] EWCA Civ 59, [2009] 1 FLR 1378, was immeasurably greater than here and it availed them nothing.”

29.The present case is unprecedented, indeed far removed on its facts from any of the previously reported cases. The central fact, even if no-one recognised it at the time, is that when Y applied for the adoption order she was already, not merely in fact but also in law, C1’s mother. It follows that the entire adoption process was carried on while everyone, including the District Judge, was labouring under a fundamental mistake, not, as in In re B (Adoption: Jurisdiction to Set Aside) [1995] Fam 239, a mistake of fact but a mistake of law, and, moreover, a mistake of law which went to the very root of the adoptive process; indeed, a mistake of law which went to the very root of the need for an adoption order at all. The entire adoption proceeded upon what, in law, was a fundamentally false basis.

 

 

30.Flowing also from this is that the consequence of an order revoking the adoption order will in this case be fundamentally different from in any of the other cases. There will be no uprooting of C1 from one set of parents and return to another set of parents; C1 will remain, as hitherto ever since birth, with the same people, the people who, to C1, as also to X and Y, are and always have been C1’s parents in every sense of the word, parents emotionally, psychologically, socially and legally. X and Y always intended to be, and in law always were, C1’s parents.

 

 

31.To make an order revoking the adoption order, as I propose to do, will not merely right a wrong; it will recognise a legal and factual reality and put an end to a legal and factual fiction, what Ms Fottrell rightly described as a wholly contrived position. And it will avoid for the future – and this can only be for C1’s welfare, now, into the future and, indeed throughout life – all the damaging consequences to which X, Y and the guardian have drawn attention. As Ms Fottrell put it, C1’s welfare will be better served by restoring the status quo ante and setting aside the adoption order. I agree. I can detect no convincing argument of public policy pointing in the other direction; on the contrary, in this most unusual and highly exceptional case public policy marches in step with justice to X, Y and C1; public policy demands that I make the order which so manifestly is required in C1’s best interests.

Law for social workers (part 3)

This time I’m going to deal with Placement Orders and Adoption Orders – and largely of course what the Courts are looking for when deciding whether to approve a care plan of adoption rather than placement with a family member.

I expect to be changing this page a LOT.  Adoption law is changing faster at the moment than Justin Beiber’s views about Instagram.

Quick sidetrack. I like dinosaurs.

Of course I do. That’s surprised none of you, I suspect. I would actually go to a real world Jurassic Park if they built one. I would actually go to a real world Jurassic Park like the one in the last movie where 42% of the guests were eaten to bits. I wouldn’t care. Sign me up, I’m going. Every day I pass Thomson’s window and sigh that there’s still no Jurassic Park brochures.

One of the first dinosaurs found, in fossil form, was Iguanadon, which means “Iguana teeth”.  (and frankly, if I’d dug up something as epic as the first ever dinosaur, I wouldn’t have been naming it after a chuffing IGUANA. I would have gone for Dragon-stone or Me-Grimlock or something. Iguanadon was actually the second, after Megalosaurus – so it’s not like there wasn’t a prompt – Megalosaurus is a great name. Don’t then drop the ball with “Kittendon”  or “Daddylonglegosaur”)

When they found it, there was also a spike. So, reasonable assumption, they put the spike on its nose, like a rhino. And they put it on all fours, like a rhino.

 

Then fossil-hunters found a bunch of iguanadon fossils in Belgium, and the iguanadon idea got flipped turned upside down

Check out THIS dude. I'm getting a time machine, and rebranding him Fonziesaurus. Which would probably stop Happy Days naming their guy Fonzie. And then how would I have ever got the name in my mind? Paradox!

Check out THIS dude. I’m getting a time machine, and rebranding him Fonziesaurus. Which would probably stop Happy Days naming their guy Fonzie. And then how would I have ever got the name in my mind? Paradox!

 

Honestly – when you look at this thing, which incidentally was TEN METRES long, is the first thing that comes to mind “Oh, it’s teeth are quite like an Iguana’s teeth?” what the heck, Victorian Paleontologists?

Okay, so that’s all sorted out viz-a-viz Iguanadons.  Only NO!  It is now believed that whilst the spike things did indeed go on the thumbs and not the nose, that Iguanadon’s weren’t always walking around upright going “Hey!” and possibly “Sit on it”, but that they were largely on all fours but they could rear up on their hind legs when they felt the need. So three completely different ideas about the Iguanadon.

And that’s pretty much what’s happening with adoption. The Court of Appeal keep saying “Hey, I tell you where this spike belongs on adoption” and everyone has to react and nod and go “Ah, yeah, I thought that too” and then just when we all get used to it, they flip on us and go “sucker, you were a damn fool for thinking the spike was on the nose, it’s on the thumbs, dummy” and so forth.

 

Deep breath – putting this off now. Let’s get to it.

 

The Court can’t make a Placement Order unless the parent has consented OR the Court has decided to dispense with their consent. And the LA can’t place a child with prospective adopters with a view to a later adoption application without a Placement Order.  And the Court can only make a Placement Order if the LA apply, and the LA can only apply if their Agency Decision Maker (ADM) makes a decision that adoption should be the plan for the child.

The Adoption and Children Act 2002 uses pretty plain language.

 

52 Parental etc. consent

(1)The court cannot dispense with the consent of any parent or guardian of a child to the child being placed for adoption or to the making of an adoption order in respect of the child unless the court is satisfied that—

(a)the parent or guardian cannot be found or is incapable of giving consent, or

(b)the welfare of the child requires the consent to be dispensed with.

 

If we’re learning anything about the Courts over this three article series (and we may well be learning more about dinosaurs at this precise time) it is that plain language is like anti-matter to Courts. They don’t care for it at all, and will quickly try to eradicate the heck out of it by complicating it.

So, this is the truly astounding bit. Every piece of adoption caselaw in the last three years, that has turned everything upside down and made huge differences to outcomes to children in cases has been about the word ‘requires’ in that section.

You and I and Fonzie know what the word ‘requires’ means. We aren’t going to need to google it. But that’s not enough for the Courts. It took them a long time to get around to it, but they pimped that word up to a level where you’d no longer recognise the word they started with.

Let us begin with the Supreme Court and Re B 2013 .

 

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed114409

This is the case that decided that when considering the application for a Placement Order and thus a plan of adoption, the Court had to be in a position to decide that “nothing else will do”

 

Proportionality
194. Once the threshold is crossed, section 1(1) of the Children Act requires that the welfare of the child be the court’s paramount consideration. In deciding what will best promote that welfare, the court is required to have regard to the “checklist” of factors in section 1(3). These include, at (g), the range of powers available to the court in the proceedings in question. By section 1(5), the court must not make any order unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all. The Act itself makes no mention of proportionality, but it was framed with the developing jurisprudence under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights very much in mind. Once the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, not only the local authority, but also the courts as public authorities, came under a duty to act compatibly with the Convention rights.

195. It is well-established in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights that “the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other’s company constitutes a fundamental element of family life, and domestic measures hindering such enjoyment amount to an interference with the right protected by article 8 of the Convention” (Johansen v Norway (1996) 23 EHRR 33, among many others). However, such measures may be justified if aimed at protecting the “health or morals” and “the rights and freedoms” of children. But they must also be “necessary in a democratic society”. The court has recently summed up the principles in the context of an order freeing a child for adoption, in R and H v United Kingdom (2011) 54 EHRR 28, [2011] 2 FLR 1236, at para 81:

“In assessing whether the freeing order was a disproportionate interference with the applicants’ article 8 rights, the court must consider whether, in the light of the case as a whole, the reasons adduced to justify that measure were relevant and sufficient for the purposes of paragraph 2 of article 8 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, K and T v Finland (2001) 36 EHRR 255, para 154). . . . The court would also recall that, while national authorities enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in deciding whether a child should be taken into care, stricter scrutiny is called for as regards any further limitations, such as restrictions placed by those authorities on parental rights of access, and as regards any legal safeguards designed to secure the effective protection of the right of parents and children to respect for their family life. Such further limitations entail the danger that the family relations between a young child and one or both parents would be effectively curtailed (see Elsholz v Germany (2000) 34 EHRR 1412, para 49, and Kutzner v Germany (2002) 35 EHRR 653, para 67). For these reasons, measures which deprive biological parents of the parental responsibilities and authorise adoption should only be applied in exceptional circumstances and can only be justified if they are motivated by an overriding requirement pertaining to the child’s best interests (see Aune v Norway (Application No 52502/07) 28 October 2010, para 66; Johansen v Norway (1996) 23 EHRR 33, para 78; and, mutatis mutandis, P, C and S v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 31, para 118).”

196. The Strasbourg court itself has consistently applied a stricter standard of scrutiny to the national courts’ decisions to restrict or curtail contact between parent and child than it has to the decision to take a child into care in the first place. This is because, as stated, for example, by the Grand Chamber in K and T v Finland (2001) 36 EHRR 255, at para 178, there is:

“. . . the guiding principle whereby a care order should in principle be regarded as a temporary measure, to be discontinued as soon as circumstances permit, and that any measures implementing temporary care should be consistent with the ultimate aim of reuniting the natural parents and the child. The positive duty to take measures to facilitate family reunification as soon as reasonably feasible will begin to weigh on the responsible authorities with progressively increasing force as from the commencement of the period of care, subject always to its being balanced against the duty to consider the best interests of the child.”

197. Thus it is not surprising that Lewison LJ was troubled by the proportionality of planning the most drastic interference possible, which is a closed adoption, in a case where the threshold had not been crossed in the most extreme way (see para 174 above). However, I would not see proportionality in such a linear fashion, as if the level of interference should be in direct proportion to the level of harm to the child. There are cases where the harm suffered or feared is very severe, but it would be disproportionate to sever or curtail the family ties because the authorities can protect the child in other ways. I recall, for example, a case where the mother was slowly starving her baby to death because she could not cope with the colostomy tube through which the baby had to be fed, but solutions were found which enabled the child to stay at home. Conversely, there may be cases where the level of harm is not so great, but there is no other way in which the child can be properly protected from it.

198. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that the test for severing the relationship between parent and child is very strict: only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child’s welfare, in short, where nothing else will do. In many cases, and particularly where the feared harm has not yet materialised and may never do so, it will be necessary to explore and attempt alternative solutions. As was said in Re C and B [2001] 1 FLR 611, at para 34,

“Intervention in the family may be appropriate, but the aim should be to reunite the family when the circumstances enable that, and the effort should be devoted towards that end. Cutting off all contact and the relationship between the child or children and their family is only justified by the overriding necessity of the interests of the child.”

 

[I cannot stress strongly enough to you that  “nothing else will do” is the spike here, in the Iguanodon metaphor.]

After that, came Re BS 2013, where the Court of Appeal tried to put some rigour into social work statements and judgments and to get professionals to engage with that philosophy set down by the Supreme Court in Re B.

 

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed117048

 

Adoption – essentials: (i) proper evidence
34. First, there must be proper evidence both from the local authority and from the guardian. The evidence must address all the options which are realistically possible and must contain an analysis of the arguments for and against each option. As Ryder LJ said in Re R (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1018, para 20, what is required is:

“evidence of the lack of alternative options for the children and an analysis of the evidence that is accepted by the court sufficient to drive it to the conclusion that nothing short of adoption is appropriate for the children.”

The same judge indicated in Re S, K v The London Borough of Brent [2013] EWCA Civ 926, para 21, that what is needed is:

“An assessment of the benefits and detriments of each option for placement and in particular the nature and extent of the risk of harm involved in each of the options”.

McFarlane LJ made the same point in Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, para 48, when he identified:

“the need to take into account the negatives, as well as the positives, of any plan to place a child away from her natural family”.

We agree with all of this.

35. Too often this essential material is lacking. As Black LJ said in Re V (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 913, para 88:

“I have searched without success in the papers for any written analysis by local authority witnesses or the guardian of the arguments for and against adoption and long term fostering … It is not the first time that I have remarked on an absence of such material from the evidence, see Plymouth CC v G (children) [2010] EWCA Civ 1271. Care should always be taken to address this question specifically in the evidence/ reports and that this was not done here will not have assisted the judge in his determination of the issue.”

In the Plymouth case she had said this (para 47):

“In some respects the reports of the guardian and the social worker, and the social worker’s statement, are very detailed, giving information about health and likes and dislikes, wishes and feelings. However there is surprisingly little detail about the central issue of the type of placement that will best meet the children’s needs … In part, this may be an unfortunate by-product of the entirely proper use, by both witnesses, of the checklist of factors and, in the case of the social worker’s placement report, of the required pro forma. However, the court requires not only a list of the factors that are relevant to the central decision but also a narrative account of how they fit together, including an analysis of the pros and cons of the various orders that might realistically be under consideration given the circumstances of the children, and a fully reasoned recommendation.”

36. Black LJ has not altered the views that she expressed on these earlier occasions and the other members of the court agree with every word of them. We draw attention in particular to the need for “analysis of the pros and cons” and a “fully reasoned recommendation”. These are essential if the exacting test set out in Re B and the requirements of Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention are to be met. We suggest that such an analysis is likely to be facilitated by the use – which we encourage – of the kind of ‘balance sheet’ first recommended by Thorpe LJ, albeit in a very different context, in Re A (Male Sterilisation) [2000] 1 FLR 549, 560.

37. It is particularly disheartening that Black LJ’s words three years ago in the Plymouth case seem to have had so little effect.

38. Consider the lamentable state of affairs described by Ryder LJ in Re S, K v The London Borough of Brent [2013] EWCA Civ 926, where an appeal against the making of a care order with a plan for adoption was successful because neither the evidence nor the judge’s reasoning was adequate to support the order. It is a lengthy passage but it merits setting out almost in full (paras 22-26):

“22 … what was the evidence that was available to the judge to support her conclusion? … Sadly, there was little or no evidence about the relative merits of the placement options nor any evidence about why an adoptive placement was necessary or feasible.

23  The allocated social worker in her written statement recommended that [S] needed:

“a permanent placement where her on-going needs will be met in a safe, stable and nurturing environment. [S]’s permanent carers will need to demonstrate that they are committed to [S], her safety, welfare and wellbeing and that they ensure that she receives a high standard of care until she reaches adulthood

Adoption will give [S] the security and permanency that she requires. The identified carers are experienced carers and have good knowledge about children and the specific needs of children that have been removed from their families …”

24  With respect to the social worker … that without more is not a sufficient rationale for a step as significant as permanent removal from the birth family for adoption. The reasoning was in the form of a conclusion that needed to be supported by evidence relating to the facts of the case and a social worker’s expert analysis of the benefits and detriments of the placement options available. Fairness dictates that whatever the local authority’s final position, their evidence should address the negatives and the positives relating to each of the options available. Good practice would have been to have heard evidence about the benefits and detriments of each of the permanent placement options that were available for S within and outside the family.

25  The independent social worker did not support adoption or removal but did describe the options which were before the court when the mediation opportunity was allowed:

“Special Guardianship Order: This is the application before the Court and which would afford [S] stability, in terms of remaining with the same primary carer and the opportunity to be raised within her birth family. I do not consider that the situation within the family is suitable at present for this Order to be made.

Adoption: [S] could be placed with a family where she should experience stability and security without conflict. This may be the best option for [S] if current concerns cannot be resolved in a timely manner.”

26  In order to choose between the options the judge needed evidence which was not provided. The judge’s conclusion was a choice of one option over another that was neither reasoned nor evidenced within the proceedings. That vitiated her evaluative judgment which was accordingly wrong.”

39. Most experienced family judges will unhappily have had too much exposure to material as anodyne and inadequate as that described here by Ryder LJ.

40. This sloppy practice must stop. It is simply unacceptable in a forensic context where the issues are so grave and the stakes, for both child and parent, so high.

Adoption – essentials: (ii) adequately reasoned judgments
41. The second thing that is essential, and again we emphasise that word, is an adequately reasoned judgment by the judge. We have already referred to Ryder LJ’s criticism of the judge in Re S, K v The London Borough of Brent [2013] EWCA Civ 926. That was on 29 July 2013. The very next day, in Re P (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 963, appeals against the making of care and placement orders likewise succeeded because, as Black LJ put it (para 107):

“the judge … failed to carry out a proper balancing exercise in order to determine whether it was necessary to make a care order with a care plan of adoption and then a placement order or, if she did carry out that analysis, it is not apparent from her judgments. Putting it another way, she did not carry out a proportionality analysis.”

She added (para 124): “there is little acknowledgment in the judge’s judgments of the fact that adoption is a last resort and little consideration of what it was that justified it in this case.”

42. The judge must grapple with the factors at play in the particular case and, to use Black LJ’s phrase (para 126), give “proper focussed attention to the specifics”.

43. In relation to the nature of the judicial task we draw attention to what McFarlane LJ said in Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, paras 49-50:

“In most child care cases a choice will fall to be made between two or more options. The judicial exercise should not be a linear process whereby each option, other than the most draconian, is looked at in isolation and then rejected because of internal deficits that may be identified, with the result that, at the end of the line, the only option left standing is the most draconian and that is therefore chosen without any particular consideration of whether there are internal deficits within that option.

The linear approach … is not apt where the judicial task is to undertake a global, holistic evaluation of each of the options available for the child’s future upbringing before deciding which of those options best meets the duty to afford paramount consideration to the child’s welfare.”

We need not quote the next paragraph in McFarlane LJ’s judgment, which explains in graphic and compelling terms the potential danger of adopting a linear approach.

44. We emphasise the words “global, holistic evaluation”. This point is crucial. The judicial task is to evaluate all the options, undertaking a global, holistic and (see Re G para 51) multi-faceted evaluation of the child’s welfare which takes into account all the negatives and the positives, all the pros and cons, of each option. To quote McFarlane LJ again (para 54):

“What is required is a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared, side by side, against the competing option or options.”

45. McFarlane LJ added this important observation (para 53) which we respectfully endorse:

“a process which acknowledges that long-term public care, and in particular adoption contrary to the will of a parent, is ‘the most draconian option’, yet does not engage with the very detail of that option which renders it ‘draconian’ cannot be a full or effective process of evaluation. Since the phrase was first coined some years ago, judges now routinely make reference to the ‘draconian’ nature of permanent separation of parent and child and they frequently do so in the context of reference to ‘proportionality’. Such descriptions are, of course, appropriate and correct, but there is a danger that these phrases may inadvertently become little more than formulaic judicial window-dressing if they are not backed up with a substantive consideration of what lies behind them and the impact of that on the individual child’s welfare in the particular case before the court. If there was any doubt about the importance of avoiding that danger, such doubt has been firmly swept away by the very clear emphasis in Re B on the duty of the court actively to evaluate proportionality in every case.”

46. We make no apologies for having canvassed these matters in such detail and at such length. They are of crucial importance in what are amongst the most significant and difficult cases that family judges ever have to decide. Too often they are given scant attention or afforded little more than lip service. And they are important in setting the context against which we have to determine the specific question we have to decide in relation to Re W (Adoption: Set Aside and Leave to Oppose) [2010] EWCA Civ 1535, [2011] 1 FLR 2153.

Adoption – the current reforms to the family justice system
47. First, however, we need to see how all this fits in with the current reforms to the family justice system and, in particular, with the revised Public Law Outline.

48. Our emphasis on the need for proper analysis, argument, assessment and reasoning accords entirely with a central part of the reforms. In his ‘View from the President’s Chambers’ the President has repeatedly stressed the need for local authority evidence to be more focused than hitherto on assessment and analysis rather than on history and narrative, and likewise for expert reports to be more focused on analysis and opinion: see ‘The process of reform: the revised PLO and the local authority’, [2013] Fam Law 680, and ‘The process of reform: expert evidence’, [2103] Fam Law 816. What the court needs is expert opinion, whether from the social worker or the guardian, which is evidence-based and focused on the factors in play in the particular case, which analyses all the possible options, and which provides clear conclusions and recommendations adequately reasoned through and based on the evidence.

49. We do not envisage that proper compliance with what we are demanding, which may well impose a more onerous burden on practitioners and judges, will conflict with the requirement, soon to be imposed by statute, that care cases are to be concluded within a maximum of 26 weeks. Critical to the success of the reforms is robust judicial case management from the outset of every care case. Case management judges must be astute to ensure that the directions they give are apt to the task and also to ensure that their directions are complied with. Never is this more important than in cases where the local authority’s plan envisages adoption. If, despite all, the court does not have the kind of evidence we have identified, and is therefore not properly equipped to decide these issues, then an adjournment must be directed, even if this takes the case over 26 weeks. Where the proposal before the court is for non-consensual adoption, the issues are too grave, the stakes for all are too high, for the outcome to be determined by rigorous adherence to an inflexible timetable and justice thereby potentially denied.

Following the one-two punch of Re B and Re B-S,  “nothing else will do” became a mantra, a yardstick, a soundbite that was taken literally. The Court of Appeal did not help in this regard, because for about 15 months, they granted just about every appeal against a Placement Order – including at its low-point an appeal where a Judge had made a Placement Order where both parents had been recently sentenced to prison but hadn’t explained specifically in his judgment why “nothing else will do”

At this point, the spike is firmly on the nose.

We then have a shift.  The Court of Appeal had started to get cold feet about the bare mantra “nothing else will do”  – they were drowning in appeals, nobody seemed to know how to produce the judgments that would satisfy them and make a decision bullet-proof and the adoption statistics were utterly tanking, leading to Government raised eyebrows and hand-wringing in the Press.  A few cases had started to say “oh, you’re not supposed to mean ‘nothing else will do’ literally”

Re R 2014

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed138081

 

50. The fundamental principle, as explained in Re B, is, and remains, that, where there is opposition from the parent(s), the making of a care order with a plan for adoption, or of a placement order, is permissible only where, in the context of the child’s welfare, “nothing else will do”. As Baroness Hale of Richmond said in Re B, para 198:

“the test for severing the relationship between parent and child is very strict: only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child’s welfare, in short, where nothing else will do.”

She reiterated the point, para 215:

“We all agree that an order compulsorily severing the ties between a child and her parents can only be made if “justified by an overriding requirement pertaining to the child’s best interests”. In other words, the test is one of necessity. Nothing else will do.”

This echoes what the Strasbourg court said in Y v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 33, [2012] 2 FLR 332, para 134:

“family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to ‘rebuild’ the family. It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing. However, where the maintenance of family ties would harm the child’s health and development, a parent is not entitled under article 8 to insist that such ties be maintained.”

In essence, the Court do have to apply the whole of Baroness Hale’s fomulation, not just the easily remembered soundbite element.

But the Court is looking at all of the REALISTIC alternatives to adoption and analysing them, not every single fanciful possibility and having to rule out everything.

52. At the end of the day, of course, the court’s paramount consideration, in accordance with section 1(2) of the 2002 Act, is the child’s welfare “throughout his life.” In this regard I should refer to what Macur LJ said in Re M-H, para 8, words with which I respectfully agree:

“I note that the terminology frequently deployed in arguments to this court and, no doubt to those at first instance, omit a significant element of the test as framed by both the Supreme Court and this court, which qualifies the literal interpretation of “nothing else will do”. That is, the orders are to be made “only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by the overriding requirements pertaining to the child’s best interests.” (See In Re B, paragraph 215). In doing so I make clear that this latter comment is not to seek to undermine the fundamental principle expressed in the judgment, merely to redress the difficulty created by the isolation and oft subsequently suggested interpretation of the words “nothing else will do” to the exclusion of any “overriding” welfare considerations in the particular child’s case.”

53. Likewise of importance is what Black LJ said in Re M, paras 31-32:

“31 … steps are only to be taken down the path towards adoption if it is necessary.

32  What is necessary is a complex question requiring an evaluation of all of the circumstances. As Lord Neuberger said at §77 of Re B, speaking of a care order which in that case would be very likely to result in the child being adopted:

“It seems to me inherent in section 1(1) [Children Act 1989] that a care order should be a last resort, because the interests of the child would self-evidently require her relationship with her natural parents to be maintained unless no other course was possible in her interests.” (my emphasis)

I emphasise the last phrase of that passage (“in her interests”) because it is an important reminder that what has to be determined is not simply whether any other course is possible but whether there is another course which is possible and in the child’s interests. This will inevitably be a much more sophisticated question and entirely dependent on the facts of the particular case. Certain options will be readily discarded as not realistically possible, others may be just about possible but not in the child’s interests, for instance because the chances of them working out are far too remote, others may in fact be possible but it may be contrary to the interests of the child to pursue them.”

54. I repeat and emphasise: At the end of the day, the court’s paramount consideration, now as before, is the child’s welfare “throughout his life.” 

58. The nature of that exercise has been helpfully illuminated by Ryder LJ in CM, para 33. Put more shortly, by Ryder LJ himself, in Re Y, para 24:

“The process of deductive reasoning involves the identification of whether there are realistic options to be compared.  If there are, a welfare evaluation is required.  That is an exercise which compares the benefits and detriments of each realistic option, one against the other, by reference to the section 1(3) welfare factors.  The court identifies the option that is in the best interests of the children and then undertakes a proportionality evaluation to ask itself the question whether the interference in family life involved by that best interests option is justified.”

I respectfully agree with that, so long as it is always remembered that, in the final analysis, adoption is only to be ordered if the circumstances meet the demanding requirements identified by Baroness Hale in Re B, paras 198, 215.

59. I emphasise the words “realistically” (as used in Re B-S in the phrase “options which are realistically possible”) and “realistic” (as used by Ryder LJ in the phrase “realistic options”). This is fundamental. Re B-S does not require the further forensic pursuit of options which, having been properly evaluated, typically at an early stage in the proceedings, can legitimately be discarded as not being realistic. Re B-S does not require that every conceivable option on the spectrum that runs between ‘no order’ and ‘adoption’ has to be canvassed and bottomed out with reasons in the evidence and judgment in every single case. Full consideration is required only with respect to those options which are “realistically possible”.

60. As Pauffley J said in Re LRP (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Placement Order) [2013] EWHC 3974 (Fam), para 40, “the focus should be upon the sensible and practical possibilities rather than every potential outcome, however far-fetched.” And, to the same effect, Baker J in Re HA (A Child) [2013] EWHC 3634 (Fam), para 28:

“rigorous analysis and comparison of the realistic options for the child’s future … does not require a court in every case to set out in tabular format the arguments for and against every conceivable option. Such a course would tend to obscure, rather than enlighten, the reasoning process.”

“Nothing else will do” does not mean that “everything else” has to be considered.

61. What is meant by “realistic”? I agree with what Ryder LJ said in Re Y, para 28:

“Realistic is an ordinary English word. It needs no definition or analysis to be applied to the identification of options in a case.”

(Bearing in mind that we spent two years bickering about what ‘requires’ means, it still amuses me that the President confidently asserted that we need no definition of the word ‘realistic’)

And the key punchy bit, where the spike was well and truly installed on the thumb of adoption and we were told that adoption stands on two legs

44. I wish to emphasise, with as much force as possible, that Re B-S was not intended to change and has not changed the law. Where adoption is in the child’s best interests, local authorities must not shy away from seeking, nor courts from making, care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders. The fact is that there are occasions when nothing but adoption will do, and it is essential in such cases that a child’s welfare should not be compromised by keeping them within their family at all costs.

We all understood adoption now. It has spiked thumbs, and stands on two legs.  You need to apply the WHOLE of Baroness Hale’s formulation

“We all agree that an order compulsorily severing the ties between a child and her parents can only be made if “justified by an overriding requirement pertaining to the child’s best interests”. In other words, the test is one of necessity. Nothing else will do.”

Not just the easy to recall last bit.

We now have Re W 2016

It’s really tricky to explain, but this was my attempt at it

Re W – no presumption for a child to be brought up by a member of the natural family

In a soundbite (because that’s NEVER led us into any trouble in family law)

There’s not a LEGAL PRESUMPTION that a child is better off with the birth parents or within the birth family, not even what’s called a REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION  (i.e “you start with the idea that the child should be with the family, but if the LA can prove that this is harmful, they have rebutted that presumption”)

There is no RIGHT for the child to grow up within the birth family.

If you’re thinking that all of that just flies in the face of everything you just read, that’s why it is a judgment whose implications have not yet been established.

It MIGHT apply solely to cases like the facts of Re W itself – prospective adopters v birth family, and the Court saying that it is a straight welfare shoot out. It MIGHT not.

There are three really big paragraphs in the judgment

  1. Plunging a stake into the heart of nothing else will do

 

  • Since the phrase “nothing else will do” was first coined in the context of public law orders for the protection of children by the Supreme Court in Re B, judges in both the High Court and Court of Appeal have cautioned professionals and courts to ensure that the phrase is applied so that it is tied to the welfare of the child as described by Baroness Hale in paragraph 215 of her judgment:

“We all agree that an order compulsorily severing the ties between a child and her parents can only be made if “justified by an overriding requirement pertaining to the child’s best interests”. In other words, the test is one of necessity. Nothing else will do.”

The phrase is meaningless, and potentially dangerous, if it is applied as some freestanding, shortcut test divorced from, or even in place of, an overall evaluation of the child’s welfare.

2. Once threshold is crossed, decisions about the child are on straight welfare  and proportionality grounds (not any presumption or right or duty)

As the judgments in Re B, and indeed the years of case law preceding Re B, make plain, once the s 31 threshold is crossed the evaluation of a child’s welfare in public law proceedings is determined on the basis of proportionality rather than by the application of presumptions. In that context it is not, in my view, apt to refer to there being a ‘presumption’ in favour of the natural family; each case falls to be determined on its own facts in accordance with the proportionate approach that is clearly described by the Supreme Court in Re B and in the subsequent decisions of this court.‘

3. There’s however, some sort of credit for parents BEFORE placement orders

As Mr Feehan helpfully observed in his closing submissions, it is all very well to purport to undertake a balancing exercise, but a balance has to have a fulcrum and if the fulcrum is incorrectly placed towards one or other end of that which is to be weighed, one side of the analysis or another will be afforded undue, automatic weight. Taking that point up from where Mr Feehan left it, in proceedings at the stage prior to making a placement for adoption order the balance will rightly and necessarily reflect weight being afforded to any viable natural family placement because there is no other existing placement of the child which must be afforded weight on the other side of the scales. Where, as here, time has moved on and such a placement exists, and is indeed the total reality of the child’s existence, it cannot be enough to decide the overall welfare issue simply by looking at the existence of the viable family placement and nothing else.

If you can’t quite understand what the difference is between a fulcrum that is placed so as to reflect weight being afforded to any viable natural family placement and a presumption, you’re not alone. I haven’t yet met anyone that understands this.  I suspect that I am going to see the word ‘fulcrum’ in dozens of law reports until someone explains that actually, the spike is underneath the Iguanadon’s chin, and that it was used to pick up litter because Iguanadon was really a pre-historic womble.

I hope this has been useful, feel free to pass it on, email it around, print it out and stick it on notice boards.

If this is your first encounter with Suesspicious Minds – normally there is more sarcasm and 80s pop culture, and weird cases that might make you wince or cry or laugh, so pop in again.

If you enjoyed the piece, or the blog, please visit the website about my book, and if it takes your fancy, pre-order it.  I’m 89% of the way to getting it published now, thanks to loads of support and help from very cool people. Be like Fonziesaurus and be cool too.

https://unbound.com/books/in-secure

Re W – no presumption for a child to be brought up by a member of the natural family

 

This was a Court of Appeal case decided today.  It has taken a LOT of chewing over to make sense of it. I’m still not quite sure that I get it.

 

Re W (A child) 2016

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/793.html

 

The facts

A, a young girl, was born on 1st May 2014. Care proceedings took place and on 21st October 2014 a Care Order and Placement Order were made.  A was placed with prospective adopters, Mr and Mrs X in December 2014. An adoption application was lodged by Mr and Mrs X on 1st April 2015.

In June 2015, the parents went on to have another child, J, and in those care proceedings, the paternal grandparents were approached and wanted to care for J. This was the first time that they learned of A’s existence. They wanted to also care for A.

They made an application for leave to oppose the adoption (which was wrong in law, but understandable – only parents can apply for that) and for a Child Arrangements Order for A to come and life with them.  [Yet another child K was born in April 2016 and K was placed with paternal grandparents and J]

The case came before Bodey J in April 2016. He dismissed the adoption application and made a Special Guardianship Order to the paternal grandparents. Mr and Mrs X appealed.

 

A powerful comment

 

This is not legally significant, but it was very punchy and wise, from Jackson LJ

 

 

  • As things stand at the moment, no party is proposing a compromise solution whereby A has contact with both families. The court is therefore faced with two unattractive options:

 

i) Shall A be removed from the home of Mr and Mrs X, where she is thriving and much loved? That will be involve the brutal and traumatic transfer of a two-year-old girl from her perceived parents to a family whom she has never met; or

ii) Shall A be kept apart from her two siblings and her birth family? Shall she grow up without meeting them?

 

  • If the court adopts the first course, what will be the long term effects on A (who has already had one change of carers) of such a huge upheaval at the age of 2? Alternatively, if the court adopts the second course, what will be the consequences a decade from now when A discovers that Mr and Mrs X through court orders have kept her away from her ‘real’ family and that her ‘real’ family were in a position to care for her? The teenage years are not always trouble-free and this could be a devastating discovery when A is a teenage girl.
  • I agree with McFarlane LJ that the shortcomings in the evidence and in the judgment at first instance are such that this case must be remitted to the Family Division for rehearing.
  • I express the hope that the next judge will not face the same “all or nothing” options which were put before Bodey J. The option should also be considered of A enjoying contact with both families. Mr and Mrs X love A dearly and have brought her up for almost two years. The paternal grandparents and A’s two siblings will, no doubt, love A dearly when eventually they meet her. Both families have the potential to enrich A’s life after its troubled start. Above all else what matters is the welfare of A, not the wishes of the opposing couples in this litigation.
  • The final tribunal in this case is not us or the Supreme Court. It is A herself. In later life A will probably read these judgments on the Internet. She will decide whether the positions adopted by the Xs and by the grandparents were reasonable. She will also make up her own mind about whether we were right or wrong to allow the present appeal.

 

Powerful stuff.  I hope that heed is taken of it.

 

Another powerful point, and one that I think was long overdue – children cases seem to barely be about children anymore. They are about timescales, and capacity to change, and resources, and whether professionals can be criticised, and whether parents can be blamed, and about 26 weeks and statistics, and about getting all of the case law window-dressing in place. But they’re not about the children very much.  So HOORAY for this

 

 

This case was all about A. She is a person. Her personality, her attributes, her achievements should have been centre stage in these proceedings. Yet she does not shine out from any reading of the court papers or from the judge’s judgment, indeed, the opposite is the case. It is, of course, on one level meaningless, given her age, to say that A was not “heard” or that she did not have ” a voice” within the proceedings but, for the reasons I have given, particularly the failure to allow the judge to hear directly from Mr and Mrs X and the failure of the Guardian to provide any description of A and her world, the way the case was presented, did, in a very real sense, rob the court of this essential dynamic.

 

Issues for the appeal

 

 

  • This appeal raises the following issues which may be of general importance:

 

a) The approach to be taken in determining a child’s long-term welfare once the child has become fully settled in a prospective adoptive home and, late in the day, a viable family placement is identified;

b) The application of the Supreme Court judgment in Re B [2013] UKSC 33 (“nothing else will do”) in that context;

c) Whether the individuals whose relationship with a child falls to be considered under Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 1(4)(f) is limited to blood relatives or should include the prospective adopters;

d) Whether it is necessary for a judge expressly to undertake an evaluation in the context of the Human Rights Act l998 in such circumstances and, if so, which rights are engaged.

I think most of us thought that with the President’s clarification in Re R, we were pretty much done with ‘nothing else will do’   (don’t take the soundbite literally, use the entireity of Lady Hale’s formulation, it is about realistic alternative options not fanciful ones). But the Court of Appeal have grabbed hold of a can opener and opened about a dozen cans that were labelled  “WORMS, Do not open”

Because they can can can

Because they can can can

The Court of Appeal were very very critical of the ISW and the Guardian (chiefly the Guardian) who they felt had got the law seriously wrong. Their mistake as to the law meant that their recommendations and conclusions were so flawed that the Judge’s reliance on them made the judgment flawed and the appeal succeed. So what did they get wrong?

All of them had approached the case in this way :-

A) This is an adoption application

B) The grandparents are a realistic option to care for A – they are caring for two siblings and doing a good job

C) There is nothing to rule them out as a carer for A

D) To make the adoption order, the Court must be satisfied that “nothing else will do”

E) Unless the risks of moving A are too great, she should be moved

I have to say, that this is exactly the way that I think almost every social worker, Guardian and lawyer in the country would have approached matters.  And candidly, how I would have approached it too. Of course look at the risks in E and weigh them up very carefully, but the starting point is that this is only a “nothing else will do” case and thus an adoption order case IF those risks mean that a placement with grandparents is not a realistic option. The starting point is surely that the child should be placed within the birth family if possible.  (That’s exactly the way that Bodey J –  one of the smartest men I’ve ever been in a room with – looked at it as well)

The Court of Appeal ire was particularly drawn by the word ‘right’ in the evidence of those professionals.    [Of course what a professional means by ‘right’ does not necessarily mean the same as what a lawyer means – but in any event, the article 8 right to family life seems rather to encompass that the child has a right to the family life that they were born into and should only be deprived of that where it is proportionate and necessary – hence Y v UK, hence Re B, hence Re B-S, so I’d have said there was a legal right as well as the context that social workers and Guardians would have been using the term – a moral right rather than a legal one.  If you had to have lived with a person to acquire a family life with them, there’d be no article 8 rights in cases where the child was removed at birth, and that’s just not the way the Court approaches such cases]

So these are the critical passages. They need a LOT of careful reading

“Nothing else will do”

  • Since the phrase “nothing else will do” was first coined in the context of public law orders for the protection of children by the Supreme Court in Re B, judges in both the High Court and Court of Appeal have cautioned professionals and courts to ensure that the phrase is applied so that it is tied to the welfare of the child as described by Baroness Hale in paragraph 215 of her judgment:

“We all agree that an order compulsorily severing the ties between a child and her parents can only be made if “justified by an overriding requirement pertaining to the child’s best interests”. In other words, the test is one of necessity. Nothing else will do.”

The phrase is meaningless, and potentially dangerous, if it is applied as some freestanding, shortcut test divorced from, or even in place of, an overall evaluation of the child’s welfare. Used properly, as Baroness Hale explained, the phrase “nothing else will do” is no more, nor no less, than a useful distillation of the proportionality and necessity test as embodied in the ECHR and reflected in the need to afford paramount consideration to the welfare of the child throughout her lifetime (ACA 2002 s 1). The phrase “nothing else will do” is not some sort of hyperlink providing a direct route to the outcome of a case so as to bypass the need to undertake a full, comprehensive welfare evaluation of all of the relevant pros and cons (see Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, Re R [2014] EWCA Civ 715 and other cases).

  • Once the comprehensive, full welfare analysis has been undertaken of the pros and cons it is then, and only then, that the overall proportionality of any plan for adoption falls to be evaluated and the phrase “nothing else will do” can properly be deployed. If the ultimate outcome of the case is to favour placement for adoption or the making of an adoption order it is that outcome that falls to be evaluated against the yardstick of necessity, proportionality and “nothing else will do”.

Natural family presumption/right

  • With respect to them, it is clear to me that both the Children’s Guardian and the ISW fell into serious error by misunderstanding the need to evaluate the question of A’s future welfare by affording due weight to all of the relevant factors and without applying any automatic “presumption” or “right” for a child to be brought up by a member of her natural family. The extracts from the reports of both of these witnesses indicate that they determined their recommendation for A on just that basis. Mrs Fairbairn repeatedly described the child as having a “right” to be brought up by the natural family where there is a viable placement available. The Guardian advised that adoption is not in A’s best interests because the grandparents can provide her with a home. Putting the correct position in lay terms, the existence of a viable home with the grandparents should make that option “a runner” but should not automatically make it “a winner” in the absence of full consideration of any other factor that is relevant to her welfare; the error of the ISW and the Guardian appears to have been to hold that “if a family placement is a ‘runner’, then it has to be regarded as a ‘winner'”.
  • The repeated reference to a ‘right’ for a child to be brought up by his or her natural family, or the assumption that there is a presumption to that effect, needs to be firmly and clearly laid to rest. No such ‘right’ or presumption exists. The only ‘right’ is for the arrangements for the child to be determined by affording paramount consideration to her welfare throughout her life (in an adoption case) in a manner which is proportionate and compatible with the need to respect any ECHR Art 8 rights which are engaged. In Re H (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 1284 this court clearly stated that there is no presumption in favour of parents or the natural family in public law adoption cases at paragraphs 89 to 94 of the judgment of McFarlane LJ as follows:

’89. The situation in public law proceedings, where the State, via a local authority, seeks to intervene in the life of a child by obtaining a care order and a placement for adoption order against the consent of a parent is entirely different [from private law proceedings], but also in this context there is no authority to the effect that there is a ‘presumption’ in favour of a natural parent or family member. As in the private law context, at the stage when a court is considering what, if any, order to make the only principle is that set out in CA 1989, s 1 and ACA 2002, s 1 requiring paramount consideration to be afforded to the welfare of the child throughout his lifetime. There is, however, a default position in favour of the natural family in public law proceedings at the earlier stage on the question of establishing the court’s jurisdiction to make any public law order. Before the court may make a care order or a placement for adoption order, the statutory threshold criteria in CA 1989, s 31 must be satisfied (CA 1989, s 31(2) and ACA 2002, s 21(2)).

94. It is clear that for Russell J the outcome of this case did not turn on the deployment of the ‘presumption’ that she describes, and this point was not taken within the appeal. My attribution of some prominence to it is not therefore determinative of the appeal. My aim is solely to point out the need for caution in this regard. The House of Lords and Supreme Court have been at pains to avoid the attribution of any presumption where CA 1989, s 1 is being applied for the resolution of a private law dispute concerning a child’s welfare; there is therefore a need for care before adopting a different approach to the welfare principle in public law cases. As the judgments in Re B, and indeed the years of case law preceding Re B, make plain, once the s 31 threshold is crossed the evaluation of a child’s welfare in public law proceedings is determined on the basis of proportionality rather than by the application of presumptions. In that context it is not, in my view, apt to refer to there being a ‘presumption’ in favour of the natural family; each case falls to be determined on its own facts in accordance with the proportionate approach that is clearly described by the Supreme Court in Re B and in the subsequent decisions of this court.

[As a sidebar, I think that particular point rather slid by, and the thrust of it is that threshold is extraordinarily important. Once threshold is crossed, the Court does not have a presumption that the child ought to be placed within the natural family – it is a straight welfare test.  My forecast is that disputes about threshold will probably increase once practitioners grasp the full import of that]

  • In the present appeal the point has more prominence because of the central focus afforded to the ‘right’ or presumption by both the ISW and the Guardian and by the fact that the judge relied upon their evidence without drawing attention to this erroneous approach.
  • It may be that some confusion leading to the idea of their being a natural family presumption has arisen from the use of the phrase ‘nothing else will do’. But that phrase does not establish a presumption or right in favour of the natural family; what it does do, most importantly, is to require the welfare balance for the child to be undertaken, after considering the pros and cons of each of the realistic options, in such a manner that adoption is only chosen as the route for the child if that outcome is necessary to meet the child’s welfare needs and it is proportionate to those welfare needs.
  • The total absence of any reference in the evidence of either the Guardian or the ISW to the welfare checklist in ACA 2002, s 1(4) and/or to the need to undertake a Re B-S compliant analysis only goes to reinforce my conclusion that both of these seasoned professionals fell into the trap that I have described and did indeed use the existence of a viable family placement as a hyperlink to the outcome of the case without taking any, in the case of the Guardian, or any proper, in the case of the ISW, regard to any other factor that might weigh to the contrary arising from A having achieved a full and secure placement with Mr and Mrs X.
  • As Mr Feehan helpfully observed in his closing submissions, it is all very well to purport to undertake a balancing exercise, but a balance has to have a fulcrum and if the fulcrum is incorrectly placed towards one or other end of that which is to be weighed, one side of the analysis or another will be afforded undue, automatic weight. Taking that point up from where Mr Feehan left it, in proceedings at the stage prior to making a placement for adoption order the balance will rightly and necessarily reflect weight being afforded to any viable natural family placement because there is no other existing placement of the child which must be afforded weight on the other side of the scales. Where, as here, time has moved on and such a placement exists, and is indeed the total reality of the child’s existence, it cannot be enough to decide the overall welfare issue simply by looking at the existence of the viable family placement and nothing else.

 

The problem with that formulation, of course, is that ‘necessary’  in the context of Adoption, means  “nothing else will do”  or to put it fully from Re B  “We all agree that an order compulsorily severing the ties between a child and her parents can only be made if “justified by an overriding requirement pertaining to the child’s best interests”. In other words, the test is one of necessity. Nothing else will do.  ”      .    It is almost impossible to read that in any way other than there being a presumption that the child should be brought up within the birth family – a rebuttable presumption, but a presumption.  If there’s not that overriding requirement, the child would be with the birth family.

One might say, ah well that’s applicable when the Court are considering making the Placement Order, but once one is made, then the presumption or right or starting point is dislodged – the Court have already decided that there is such an overriding requirement when they MADE the Placement Order, so it doesn’t need to be found again. However, the Court of Appeal expressly said in Re B-S that when considering an application for leave to oppose an adoption order, and the making of an adoption order, the Re B test still applies, notwithstanding that the Court earlier made a Placement Order.   Para 74  iii) Once he or she has got to the point of concluding that there has been a change of circumstances and that the parent has solid grounds for seeking leave, the judge must consider very carefully indeed whether the child’s welfare really does necessitate the refusal of leave. The judge must keep at the forefront of his mind the teaching of Re B, in particular that adoption is the “last resort” and only permissible if “nothing else will do” and that, as Lord Neuberger emphasised, the child’s interests include being brought up by the parents or wider family unless the overriding requirements of the child’s welfare make that not possible. That said, the child’s welfare is paramount.

 

 

After a LOT of chewing, I think the critical passage to understand is the last one, and thank Heaven for Mr Feehan QC putting it in a way that one can understand.

 

As Mr Feehan helpfully observed in his closing submissions, it is all very well to purport to undertake a balancing exercise, but a balance has to have a fulcrum and if the fulcrum is incorrectly placed towards one or other end of that which is to be weighed, one side of the analysis or another will be afforded undue, automatic weight. Taking that point up from where Mr Feehan left it, in proceedings at the stage prior to making a placement for adoption order the balance will rightly and necessarily reflect weight being afforded to any viable natural family placement because there is no other existing placement of the child which must be afforded weight on the other side of the scales.

 

At the time that a Placement Order application is being considered then, there is a leaning towards placement within the birth family (not a right, or  presumption)  – but all things being equal, the scales will tip that way.  However, AFTER a Placement Order has been made and the child is placed with prospective adopters

 

Where, as here, time has moved on and such a placement exists, and is indeed the total reality of the child’s existence, it cannot be enough to decide the overall welfare issue simply by looking at the existence of the viable family placement and nothing else.

 

So in a post placement case, the issue becomes that of welfare of the child  with both sides to be weighed in the balance.  (I don’t really know where that leaves the Re B-S pronouncement that post Placement Order, “nothing else will do” applies to making of the Adoption Order. ..   Possibly the last sentence  of Re B-S para 74 iii) “That said, the child’s welfare is paramount” is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting – meaning that EVEN where there re no overriding requirements for the child’s welfare to be brought up outwith the birth family a simple ‘better for the child’s welfare’ can still make adoption possible.  Man, that’s a LOT of weight to carry.)

 

 

The Court of Appeal also looked at the article 8 issues

 

 

  • The issue of the lack of an HRA l998 analysis was not argued before this court at the oral hearing. If my Lords agree that this appeal must be allowed and there should be a re-hearing, it will be for the next judge to consider what, if any, HRA evaluation is justified. I shall therefore be both short and careful in the words that now follow. In human rights terms the present case may be unusual and out of the norm. As is well established, the existence of “family life” rights under Article 8 is a question of fact. It must be beyond question, as a matter of fact, that the relationship that now exists between Mr and Mrs X and A is sufficient to establish family life rights that justify respect under Article 8 in relation to all three of them. It does not, however, follow as night follows day, that the paternal grandparents have any Article 8 family life rights with respect to A at all. They have never met her. She does not know of their existence. They have no relationship whatsoever. Their son, A’s father, has never had parental responsibility for A. The same is likely to be the case with respect to family life rights of A with respect to her grandparents. It may well be, however, that A has some “private life” rights with respect to her natural family.
  • If the tentative formulation offered above is correct, the only relationships which fall to be afforded respect in the context of Article 8 “family life” are those between Mr and Mrs X and A. What effect, if any, that state of affairs may have on the outcome of the proceedings requires consideration at first instance.

 

[If the grandparents were not caring for A’s two siblings, I think that I would probably agree. But that’s a magnetic fact that I think does give A some article 8 family life with the grandparents as a family unit , despite never having met them or lived with them. Those are two full siblings, whom she might be placed with, or might grow up a stranger from. I’d give that some weight, myself]

 

 

So the upshot for this case is that there will be a re-hearing, and of course, the impact on A of moving her only becomes greater with the passage of time. I hope that all involved are looking at the words of Jackson LJ, because that seems to me to represent the best hope for the long-term future of this case.

 

And get ready for appeal after appeal as to presumptions and rights, and where exactly on the balancing scales Mr Feehan QC’s fulcrum should be in any case. The obvious immediate line of appeals will be the 11th hour relatives, who at the moment, if viable, force an adjournment for full assessment if the alternative is adoption because how are the Court to exclude them as a realistic option and thus be able to say that there are overriding requirements for the child’s welfare which warrant adoption?

The one thing that we REALLY didn’t need with adoption law was more complexity and more uncertainty and we’ve just been handed both.

 

What's in the box, Jokey? What's IN THE BOX?

What’s in the box, Jokey? What’s IN THE BOX?

 

 

Woo Woo Woo (You know it)

 

A sad case, where parents found themselves in care proceedings and if they had worked with professionals or taken the advice their lawyers would have given them, they probably would have overcome the problems and left the proceedings with the child, or at least with the child placed with grandparents.

 

Re A Child 2016

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B50.html

However, they instead took the route that shouting during the hearings that the Court had no power or authority over them was going to be the best approach. That and getting heavily involved with the Freedom of the Land movement, and thinking that their magic words and spells could save the day. They can’t. They never do.

This is all just Woo – pseudo-science dressed up as something real, selling an idea or a substance that’s too good to be true.   [What, I just walk into Court and call myself “He who is Named David of the Family Hasslehoff” and the Court has no power over me at all? Awesome!  Not true. Woo.]

Instead of taking up the free legal advice from people who know how to conduct care proceedings, know how best to get your child back and understand English law, they instead took advice from self-styled Federal Judge David Wynn-Miller.

If the fact that David Wynn-Miller is NOT a Federal Judge, but instead an American welder  doesn’t raise some alarm bells about his suitability, just look at how many people who followed his suggestions ended up in prison.  I counted eleven. Of twelve.

 

If even that doesn’t worry you, how about this, from his own words  Miller remarked that the genesis of Truth-language was when he “turned Hawaii into a verb” 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wynn_Miller

 

I know that there are good and bad lawyers, and some people have had awful experiences with lawyers that they had no confidence in or felt were lazy. That does happen. You can sack them and get a better one. But there really are not any lawyers who claim to have ever turned Hawaii into a verb.

Woo. Woo. Woo.

 

The parents in this case followed this lead. With the usual results. (On the plus side for them,they didn’t get sent to prison, so that counts as a major plus by Wynn-Miller’s usual track record)

 

 

  • The application was listed for hearing before myself on the 14th March 2016. On that occasion the parents represented themselves having dispensed with the services of their legal representation. Sadly on that occasion neither parent would respect the authority of the Court. The Father shouted at myself and was ejected from the Court. The parents were removed from the Court on 2 occasions. After the first occasion they were informed that they could re-enter the Court provided they respected Court procedures but sadly despite assurances that they would, they did not do so and they were ejected again from the Court. It was quite frankly impossible to hold any form of a hearing with them being present as they refused to respect the authority of the Court or the Court’s procedures. I asked the Mother at one point whether they were going to register the birth of their child (those assurances having been given to the Court on the 19th February 2016 that they would do so without delay) but at that point the Mother commenced reading a prepared script when she questioned the authority of the Court. As a consequence of that she was removed from the Courtroom as she refused to stop reading her script, and clearly had no intention of answering my questions or respecting the courts authority.
  • At that hearing the Court was very concerned about the evidence produced by the Local Authority, documented in the Social Worker’s statement of the 7th March 2016. The parents had entered into a Contract of Expectations on the 11th February 2016 which set out the expectations of the parents during contact sessions and the role of the contact practitioners to ensure that contact ran smoothly and was a positive experience of the child. However the social workers statement documented that the parents had failed to comply with that contract in that in almost every contact session that had taken place there was a refusal by the parents to accept or act on advice, they were being disrespectful to the contact supervisors and there was an increasing concern about the Mother’s presentation during contact sessions and the impact that this was having on the quality of contact. The Local Authority were also concerned about the behaviour displayed by both of the parents which was becoming increasingly threatening and disruptive to the contact which, in turn, impacted on the quality of the contact and the emotional experience for their baby.
  • The Court was clearly concerned given the age of this baby that the parents should be given an opportunity to reflect on the position in the hope that further contact between themselves and their baby could take place. The order therefore of the 14th March records the Local Authority agreement to arrange contact between the baby and the parents twice a week provided the parents attend a meeting with the Local Authority to discuss the management and arrangements for the contact and that they sign a Contract of Expectations. It was on that basis, the Court taking that agreement into account, made the order under Section 34(4) Children Act 1989 which was of course a permissive order only, permitting, if appropriate, the Local Authority to refuse contact. The anticipation of the Court and the expectation of both the Guardian and the Local Authority was that following that hearing the parents would meet with the Social Worker, sign a free contract of expectations and that then further contact would take place.
  • Sadly that has not been the case and these parents have not attended the Social Services offices nor have they made any attempt to re-instate contact and therefore they have not seen their baby since the 4th March 2016. Some four and a half months ago.
  • On the same day the Local Authority made application to Mr Justice Baker under the Inherent Jurisdiction for orders as the parents were publishing information on Facebook and other social media outlets concerning these Court proceedings.
  • From documents that the Court considered on that occasion it was apparent that the parents had dispensed with legal representation in this country and had consulted with a self-styled Chief Federal Judge, David-Wynn Miller.
  • Various documents have been served on parties and the Court and on that occasion the court considered a document headed “Educational – Correspondence – Claim. It is a bizarre document which makes quite frankly not a word of sense but is a clear claim by them that the Local Authority have kidnapped their child. This has been a theme which has run through the documentation which has been on Facebook and on YouTube and has persisted throughout despite the injunctions which were made by Mr Justice Baker on the 14th March 2016.

 

 

A hint as to why the parents might have fallen for this Woo can be found in the concerns about them

 

 

Given the father’s medical beliefs, there are concerns that the child may have been treated indirectly with harmful alternative medication through the mother’s breast milk or may be treated with harmful medication in future:

3.1 . An investigative journalism piece in 2015 discovered that the father was selling Master Mineral Solution (MMS) as a treatment for cancer and autism. MMS is a sodium chlorite solution equivalent to industrial-strength bleach; the Food Standards Agency has warned it should not be consumed as to do so as directed could cause severe nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea, potentially leading to dehydration and reduced blood pressure;

3.2. The father advocates the use of MMS and his personal website includes paraphernalia for the administration of such products to babies.

 

 

Yes, let’s treat cancer and autism with industrial-strength bleach. And let’s give this to babies.

This website debunking MMS explains the science very clearly and carefully – note particularly ‘one hundred thousand times the amount for safe drinking water’  calculations.

https://thechronicleflask.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/a-horrifying-story-autism-miracle-mineral-solution-and-the-cd-protocol/

 

This is nasty, nasty stuff, preying on people who are sick and desperate. It is super nasty when it is pushed as a cure for children.

(some of my sympathy for these parents has evaporated. I remain very sorry for them, but not anywhere near as sorry as I do for anyone who purchased some of this cancer treatment. By the way, it remains a criminal offence under the Cancer Act 1939 to advertise for sale a substance or treatment that purports to cure cancer.  If you are thinking of posting a comment about how it is just Big Pharma that has supressed MMS as a cure for cancer because they know it works and they want to keep it off the market, don’t bother. )

The Judge set out that the concerns about the parents were quite capable of being resolved, if they had engaged with assessments, but their bizarre behaviour meant that there was no alternative save for adoption in the case.

 

  • This is an extraordinary case where there could well have been an alternative option or outcome for this child. Whilst the circumstances which resulted in the care proceedings being instituted by the Local Authority were concerning there was certainly a real prospect that the concerns of the Local Authority could have been allayed during the course of the assessments which were to be undertaken by them of the parents and grandparents.
  • In addition to the health concerns and the parents’ conduct towards those in those early days of the baby’s life there were of course the other particularly worrying concerns in relation to the Father’s beliefs and in relation to the administering of Master Mineral Solution (MMS). Those concerns again could have been allayed by the Local Authority and Court being satisfied that despite his beliefs such a solution would not be provided to the baby and/or that the Mother would be a sufficient protective factor to ensure that nothing untoward was ever administered to the baby. Also as a backstop position if the Court were not sufficiently satisfied in relation to the Father it may well be given the Mother’s position at the commencement of proceedings that she, herself, could have cared for the baby on her own. All of these seemed very realistic options available to the Court at the commencement of these care proceedings.
  • Sadly in this case however as can be seen from the chronology which has been detailed in this judgment the parents and the parents’ family have left this Court with no other realistic options other than the one proposed by the Local Authority.

 

The Hungarian Games

 

A peculiar case where the parents were agreeing to adopt their child and the fight was about whether that would be in the UK or Hungary.

Hence the title. And not by any stretch of the imagination, a cheap opportunity for a Jennifer Lawrence photo.  Goodness looking through those photos to find a decent one was a terrible hardship.

 

 

I mean, seriously, I had to research the heck out of J Law for this piece

I mean, seriously, I had to research the heck out of J Law for this piece

 

Re AO (Care proceedings) 2016

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/36.html

 

And yes, this Judge was setting me up for an A-O Let’s Go, Ramones * title, and I spurned it. I feel bad and all, but c’mon. J Law!

(*yes I lost my mind in first draft and put the Buzzocks)

In this case then, the parents were both Hungarian, but had been living in England for some time. They had a baby and didn’t feel able to care for the baby, so they contacted the Local Authority to say that they wanted to relinquish the baby for adoption. They understood what was involved and freely agreed to it.  The LA felt that the baby should really grow up in Hungary, to be in touch with the parents culture.  The parents were adamantly against this. That argument meant that the only way the baby could be adopted in Hungary would be if the LA obtained a Placement Order. And in order to do that, they would need to prove that the section 31 Children Act threshold criteria were met – that the child was suffering significant harm, or likely to do so.

Tricky to do.

Let us see how the LA argued that threshold was met.

 

 

  • In this case, the local authority’s case was that, by failing to care for AO themselves and by relinquishing her to be looked after by the local authority, the parents had caused her to suffer significant emotional harm and to be likely to suffer further such harm, that harm being attributable to the care given to her not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to provide. The local authority further contended that the fact that the parents said that they were content for AO to be placed for adoption in England did not reduce the harm in question because the harm and likelihood of harm arose from AO

 

(a) having to be permanently removed from her mother at birth;

(b) having to be cared for by a foster carer, however caring and competent, rather than her own parents;

(c) having in due course to be moved to another carer, whether in England or in Hungary;

(d) being deprived of any relationship with her birth parents and possibly with their extended family;

(e) being deprived in her early weeks and months of experiences consistent with her Hungarian culture and heritage;

(f) being likely to become an adopted person rather than being brought up by her birth family, and having in due course to learn that her parents chose not to bring her up themselves.

 

  • In oral submissions, Mr Stuart Fuller on behalf of the local authority conceded that not every case where a child is given up for adoption would satisfy the threshold criteria. He submitted that in this case, however, the parents’ actions in not only giving AO up but also insisting that she should not be placed in Hungary either with her birth family or with adoptive parents was unreasonable and was causing, or likely to cause, harm to AO in depriving her of the opportunity to live with her birth family and/or in her birth culture.

This position was supported by the children’s guardian. He submitted that neither parent had in fact provided AO with any care at all. He concluded that it was in her best interests to live in Hungary. The parents’ withholding of information concerning the family would prevent her having a complete understanding of her background and history and would impinge on her emotional welfare

 

I think this is skilfully put together, but it is nowhere near establishing threshold.

Unusually, the parents here shared the same silk, Frank Feehan QC, but each had their own junior counsel. I haven’t ever come across that before. But if you think that Frank Feehan QC (of Re B fame) was going to swallow that threshold, you haven’t been paying attention.

 

 

  • On behalf of the parents, Mr Frank Feehan QC, leading Ms Grainne Mellon for the mother and Ms Katherine Dunseath for the father, submitted that the threshold criteria were not satisfied in this case. They reminded me of the definition of “harm” in section 31 (9), and also reminded me of the provisions of section 31(10):

 

“where the question of whether harm suffered by a child is significant turns on the chart’s health or development, his health or development shall be compared with that which could reasonably be expected of a similar child”.

Mr Feehan and the juniors representing the parents further cited the well-known observation of Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050 at para 70:

“society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.”

 

  • The core submission made on behalf of the parents was that the factual assertions made by the local authority and accepted by the mother did not amount to a finding of significant harm. It was submitted that to find that, as a relinquished child born in this country and now highly adoptable, AO would suffer significant harm as a result of growing up English rather than Hungarian would be a distortion of the statutory criteria. These parents took a decision as to the future of their child which many do not take: that they are simply not ready and not able to care for her and others should do so. They were in early contact with the authorities and fully cooperated with arrangements to ensure more than adequate care. In addition, it was submitted that, contrary to the suggestion that no information had been given by the parents as to AO’s background, the parents had in fact given brief but full details of their own families and background and upbringing.

 

 

 

The Judge, Mr Justice Baker, was also mindful of public policy issues – if you make it too difficult and too onerous and too intrusive for a parent who wants to give their child up for adoption to do so, well then you’ll return to the days of children being left in wicker baskets on the doorsteps of hospitals and police stations. There has to be a balance

 

 

  • In my earlier judgement, I considered earlier reported cases in which a child had been given up by parents for adoption. In particular, I cited the observations of Holman J in Z County Council v R [2001] 1 FLR 365 :

 

“Adoption exists to serve many social needs. But high among them has been, historically, the desire or need of some mothers to be able to conceal from their own family and friends, the fact of the pregnancy and birth. So far as I know, it has not previously been suggested, nor judicially determined, that that confidentiality of the mother cannot be respected and maintained. If it is now to be eroded, there is, in my judgment, a real risk that more pregnant women would seek abortions or give birth secretly, to the risk of both themselves and their babies …. There is, in my judgment, a strong social need, if it is lawful, to continue to enable some mothers, such as this mother, to make discreet, dignified and humane arrangements for the birth and subsequent adoption of their babies, without their families knowing anything about it, if the mother, for good reason, so wishes.”

I observed (at para 47 of Re JL, Re AO)):

“It might be thought that giving up a baby for adoption is a dereliction of responsibility. In many such cases – perhaps most – the truth will be very different. Anyone who has read the accounts of persons who have given up a baby in those circumstances will soon come to see that it is usually a decision taken only after a great deal of thought and anguish, by parents who realise that they cannot look after the baby and wish to give the baby the best opportunity to grow up in a loving home.”

 

  • As I pointed out in the earlier judgment, very few babies nowadays are given up for adoption at birth. In the first half of the 20th century, when illegitimacy still carried great social stigma, the numbers of babies adopted at birth were very much greater. As the stigma has evaporated, so the numbers of deduction so the numbers of babies relinquished for adoption have dwindled. New techniques for reproduction have provided different ways of meeting the requirements of couples who are unable to have children themselves. But there remain a few isolated cases where a mother concludes that she is unable to look after her child. It may be because her past history demonstrates that she is incapable of caring for a child. Or it may be that she feels that she cannot keep the baby for other reasons. A civilised society must accommodate such feelings and decisions, as societies always have. These feelings and decisions come within the range of diverse parenting to which Hedley J was referring in Re L. If society does not tolerate and facilitate such decisions, mothers who feel that they cannot keep them babies will be driven to take other measures.
  • It follows, therefore, that the fact that the mother has given up her baby does not by itself satisfy the threshold criteria under section 31. When a baby has been simply abandoned on a doorstep, it is likely that criteria will be satisfied – each case will, as always, turn on its own facts. In cases where the mother has reached the difficult decision that she cannot keep the baby, notified the local authority in advance, and made responsible plans for the relinquishment of the baby in a way which minimises the risk of harm, it is in my judgment unlikely to be the case that the threshold criteria will be satisfied. It is likely that a baby deprived of her mother’s care will suffer some form of harm but that will be diminished if the baby is swiftly moved to another carer in a planned way. Even when a baby suffers harm from being deprived of her mother’s care, it does not follow in these circumstances that the harm can be described as being attributable to the care given to the child not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give. A mother who concludes that she cannot care for her baby, and who notifies the authorities and makes responsible plans for relinquished in the baby at birth, is not, in my judgment, acting unreasonably.
  • The local authority argued that, in this case, the relinquishment has been accompanied by an insistence on the baby being placed in England, and a reluctance to co-operate with attempts to contact the Hungarian extended family or place the child in that country. As a result, A had suffered harm through being deprived of links with her extended family and culture. I agree that on one view this could be considered detrimental, but it is doubtful that it can be regarded as significant harm and, even if it can, I do not consider that the parents can be said to be acting unreasonably. It is not unreasonable for them to want the baby to be placed for adoption in this country. Such views also fall within the range of diverse parenting identified by Hedley J. Unless society tolerates and facilitates such decisions, mothers who want their children to be placed in this country will be driven to take other steps.
  • Accordingly, I concluded that the local authority has failed to prove the threshold criteria for making a care order under section 31 in this case.

 

 

 

As it was not possible to make a Placement Order without either parental consent or satisfying the threshold criteria, it wasn’t NECESSARY for the Judge to rule whether it might be better for the child to grow up in Hungary rather than England  – but Baker J made it plain that he would not have done so in any event

 

Welfare

 

  • In the light of my decision as to the threshold criteria, it was strictly speaking unnecessary to determine whether the local authority plan for placing AO in Hungary would be the best outcome for her welfare, having regard to the provisions of section 1 of the Children Act. As I indicated at the conclusion of the hearing, however, it is my view, having considered the arguments, that such a plan would not be in AO’s overall interests, and I here set out the brief reasons for so concluding.
  • The local authority’s consistent view throughout these proceedings was that it was in AO’s interests to be brought up in Hungary. She is a Hungarian citizen whose heritage is Hungarian. Other than the place of her birth and placement with her foster carer for the last six months, she has no connection with this country. She has no extended family here. In addition, the local authority submitted that, were she to be adopted here, she would in due course be told of her background and would learn that she has Hungarian parents and extended family. It was argued that, were she then to learn that she had been “turned into” an English child because that was what her Hungarian parents wanted, she would be likely to suffer identity confusion which in turn could lead to emotional harm and stress within her adoptive family. In addition, if she is brought up in England, by the time she learns of a Hungarian background it will be extremely difficult if not impossible for her to make any meaningful connection with her heritage.
  • In reply, the parents’ consistent view throughout these proceedings has been that it would be better for AO to be brought up in this country. In addition, she was by the date of the hearing nearly seven months old and settled with her English carer. If she was moved to Hungary, she would move to a country where she is unfamiliar with the surroundings and language. In addition, if placed in Hungary, she would be subjected to at least two further moves of family – an initial preliminary foster placement to be followed by a move to a permanent family. In contrast, if she remained in this country, she would stay with the current carers until such time as an adoptive placement has been found.
  • The children’s guardian supported the local authority’s plan for moving AO to Hungary. He attached particular importance to her cultural heritage which would not be sustained if she was placed with an English family. A further concern highlighted by the guardian was that Hungary would be unlikely to recognise the adoption in England of a Hungarian child. This could create difficulties were AO to visit Hungary. Her ability to get to know Hungarian culture and background would therefore be impeded. The guardian feared that this might impinge adversely on her ability to gain a true sense of her identity, which in turn could lead to a sense of injustice with adverse consequences for her self-esteem, development and behaviour.
  • Set against that, however, the guardian expressed concern that with every passing week AO was becoming more attached to her current placement. He also pointed out that, if she was to be adopted here, a transition plan would be formulated involving both carers offering reassurance to help her with the change of primary care. In contrast, if she were to be placed in Hungary, the transition timespan would inevitably be much shorter which might cause difficulties in adjustment. Although it had been agreed that her carer and social worker would take AO to Hungary and take part in the transition arrangements, that process would, as the guardian identified, inevitably take place over a shorter period of time than in England. While supporting the local authority’s plan, the guardian was concerned that the details of how a Hungarian adoption would be arranged remained unclear, in contrast to the clarity of the process by which an adoption would be arranged in this country.
  • I accept that, other things being equal, it would be in AO’s advantage to grow up in her own culture. However, other things are not equal. AO is settled with her English foster carer and a move to Hungary would in my judgment be far more disruptive and damaging than an adoptive placement in this country which will involve only one change of carer, no language difficulties, and a transition that can be arranged at a pace and in a way that best meets AO’s needs. It is, of course, very important that AO should be brought up with an awareness of her cultural background, but in my judgment this can be addressed by carefully selecting adopters who are able and willing to accept that she has such needs which they as her permanent parents will have to meet. I acknowledge the potential difficulties if Hungary refuses to recognise an English adoption of a child that it regards as Hungarian, but in my judgment this factor, and the others identified by the local authority, do not outweigh the clear benefits of proceeding to place her for adoption in this country. Accordingly, had I been required to do so, I would not have accepted the local authority care plan as being the right option to meet AO’s needs.

 

 

 

A good decision, in my book. And it clarifies the position for other Local Authorities, and indeed parents.

 

Sometimes the law can be fair and kind, despite all the complex language and mystique.

Oh boy, did someone say “Mystique?”

 

Yes, these images are completely necessary to convey the legal niceties of the case

Yes, these images are completely necessary to convey the legal niceties of the case

Trying to get child back after adoption order made

This case made quite a lot of news last year – parents of a boy born in 2012, who suffered significant fractures. Within care proceedings, there was a finding of fact that the parents had caused these injuries and in 2013, a Care Order and Placement Order was made. In 2014, the child was placed with prospective adopters and an adoption order was made. In late 2015 (3 years after the injuries, and a year after the adoption order was made) the parents were acquitted at the criminal trial.  In fact, the Judge at the criminal trial directed the jury to acquit as there was no case to answer.  (That’s obviously a lot stronger than the case going before a jury and the Jury not reaching a 12 or 10 juror verdict that they were sure the parents were guilty. This was a criminal Judge saying that the evidence showed no case to answer)

Understandably, there’s a lot of public disquiet about whether there’s been a miscarriage of justice here, and what would happen.

 

The law isn’t very helpful to the parents in terms of their ultimate aim to get their child back. An adoption order being overturned after it has been made is very very unusual. I’ve found only 2 reported cases where that happened. One was a step-parent adoption which the birth father had agreed to and later learned that the mother had lied to him, concealing the fact that she had a terminal illness and he would never have agreed to the adoption. The other was

PK v Mr and Mrs K 2015

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2015/2316.html

 

Where the child had been adopted by family members who had physically abused the child, who later left them and went back to live with mother. Everyone in the case was supportive of the adoption order being revoked.  I wrote about the difficulties here:-

Revocation of adoption order

 

The lead case on ‘oh, maybe we got this wrong, but the adoption orders have been made now’ is  Webster, where adoption orders were made on the basis of physical injuries and a Court was later persuaded that the injury had been the result of scurvy, itself the result of a failure of a brand of formula milk to have sufficient vitamin C.  The Court there, as a result of the passage of time and public policy issues declined to revoke the adoption orders.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/59.html

 

“Adoption is a statutory process; the law relating to it is very clear. The scope for the exercise of judicial discretion is severely curtailed. Once Orders for Adoption have been lawfully and properly made, it is only in highly exceptional and very particular circumstances that the court will permit them to be set aside.”

 

 

Anyway, in this case

Re X (A Child) 2016

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/1342.html

 

the parents went to the Court of Appeal, and all parties there *  supported a hearing taking place to DECIDE whether there should be a re-hearing of the finding of facts taking place, for the benefit of the child having the truth about their life and childhood and the public confidence in fairness of the justice system.

 

(* I add the asterisk, because as you can see from Re X, the adopters – who were at that point the child’s legal parents and had been for over a year, were not told about the circumstances or the litigation and were not parties to the proceedings. I’m not at all sure how that is fair or compliant with their article 6 rights. They were and are in law, the legal parents of the child, and it clearly had an impact on their family life.

Ms Fottrell QC made that same point, and I absolutely agree with her. The President bravely ducks the issue.

At the adjourned hearing, Ms Fottrell set out her clients’ position as being that they “appreciate and accept that in the interests of fairness the birth family are entitled to have a hearing on the facts following on from the outcome of the criminal trial”, but opposing any application to set aside the adoption order. Although making clear that her clients made no point against any of the parties, Ms Fottrell submitted that the decision to exclude the adoptive parents – X’s legal parents – from the appeal process and the permission hearing in the Court of Appeal was wrong and in breach of both Article 6 and Article 8 of the Convention. I record Ms Fottrell’s submission on the point; it is not a matter on which it would be proper for me to comment.)

 

The case has now come before the President, and he has published this judgment.   Bear in mind that the re-hearing has not taken place, so at this stage the family Court hasn’t decided whether the threshold criteria was wrongly found in 2013, or even whether it was right then on what was known at the time, but on what we know now it can’t stand.  The parents have been cleared and pretty comprehensively in a criminal Court, but the standard of proof is higher there, so it doesn’t automatically follow that any re-hearing would be bound to clear them. It very well might, but it might not.

 

As a matter of law, there isn’t really an easy legal framework for this to operate in. The parents aren’t able at this stage to apply to revoke the adoption application, because the findings in the care proceedings still stand, it isn’t an appeal out of time. So we of course use the Court’s magical sparkle powers of the inherent jurisdiction to have a decision as to whether to have a re-hearing. That’s not automatic legal aid, but it doesn’t say in the judgment that the parents  lawyers are acting pro-bono (for free) so they must have been one of those rare cases where the Legal Aid Agency grant exceptional funding under s10 LASPO.

 

The President reminded everyone that if there was a re-hearing and the findings were overturned, that would not automatically lead to the return of the child, and that the Court are not dealing with that application at all (yet), but of course, it is a prelude to the parents making such an application if the re-hearing vindicates them.

 

 

  • I am not concerned today with any application which may hereafter be made by the birth parents seeking to challenge the adoption order. That is a matter for another day and, in all probability, for another court. It is relevant only because Ms Cover has made it clear on instructions, both in her position statement and again orally, that the present application before me is, at least in part, what might be called the springboard for such a further application. However, as I observed in In re C, paras 44-46:

 

“44 The law sets a very high bar against any challenge to an adoption order. An adoption order once lawfully and properly made can be set aside “only in highly exceptional and very particular circumstances”: In re W (Children), para 149. In that case, the adoption orders “were made in good faith on the evidence then available” (para 177) and therefore stood, even though the natural parents had suffered a “serious injustice”: para 148. In re W (Children) can be contrasted with In re K (A Minor) (Adoption: Foreign Child) [1997] 2 FLR 221 where an adoption order was set aside in circumstances where there had been (p 227) “inept handling by the county court of the entire adoption process” and (p 228), failure to comply with the requirements of the Adoption Rules, “procedural irregularities go[ing] far beyond the cosmetic”, “a fundamental injustice … to [the child] since the wider considerations of her welfare were not considered” and “no proper hearing of the adoption application”. Butler-Sloss LJ held (p 228) that: “there are cases where a fundamental breach of natural justice will require a court to set an adoption order aside.”

45 Whether the natural father would have succeeded in meeting that very stringent test is, in my judgment, open to serious question. I do not want to be understood as saying that he would not; but equally I do not want to be understood as saying that he would. It certainly should not be assumed that his appeal would have succeeded.

46 In relation to this aspect of the matter I propose to add only this: I am bound to say that I find Judge Altman’s decision to proceed in the full knowledge that there was a pending application to this court for permission to appeal very difficult to understand, let alone to justify.”

 

  • Likewise here I express no view on a point of no little difficulty and which is, as I have said, a matter for anther day. The significance of it for present purposes is simply that, as Ms Fottrell correctly submitted, success by the birth parents (if they are successful) on the re-hearing of the facts by no means assures them of success in seeking to have the adoption order set aside.

 

 

 

In terms of whether there should be a re-hearing, the President summed up the arguments

 

 

  • The case put forward by the birth parents is simple and compelling. They have been, they say, just like the parents in Webster, the victims of a miscarriage of justice. They seek to clear their names, both so that they may be vindicated and also so that there is no risk of the judge’s findings being held against them in future, whether in a forensic or in any other context.
  • For different reasons, their desire for there to be a re-hearing is supported by X’s guardian, who submits that it is in X’s best interests that he should know the truth about his birth parents and about what did or did not happen to him.
  • I agree with the guardian. X has a right (I put the matter descriptively rather than definitively) to know the truth about his past and about his birth parents. This has long been recognised in our domestic law. In S v McC (Otherwise S) and M (DS Intervener), W v W [1972] AC 24, 57, Lord Hodson, in the context of disputed paternity, said that:

 

“The interests of justice in the abstract are best served by the ascertainment of the truth and there must be few cases where the interests of children can be shown to be best served by the suppression of truth.”

In In re H (A Minor) (Blood Tests: Parental Rights) [1997] Fam 89, 106, Ward LJ said, apropos paternity:

“every child has a right to know the truth unless his welfare clearly justifies the cover-up.”

To the same effect, in Re H and A (Paternity: Blood Tests) [2002] EWCA Civ 383, [2002] 1 FLR 1145, para 29, Thorpe LJ identified one of the principles to be drawn from the cases as being:

“that the interests of justice are best served by the ascertainment of the truth.”

 

  • But this principle is not confined to issues of paternity, as is clear from Strasbourg law, which recognises it as an ingredient of the rights protected by Article 8: Gaskin v United Kingdom (1990) 12 EHRR 36, [1990] 1 FLR 167, and Mikulic v Croatia (2002) 11 BHRC 689, [2002] 1 FCR 720. It is also recognised in Articles 7 and 8 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
  • The wide impact of the principle that, from a child’s perspective, their interests are best served by the ascertainment of the truth, whatever that truth may be, is illustrated by Re Z (Children) (Disclosure: Criminal Proceedings) [2003] EWHC 61 (Fam), [2003] 1 FLR 1194, para 13(vii):

 

“the children … have a direct and important interest … in ensuring that the truth, whatever it may be, comes out. As they grow older they will need to know, if this is the case, and however painful it may be, that their father is a murderer … In this as in other respects, better for the children that the truth, whatever it may be, comes out.”

 

  • There is also, however, a wider and very important public interest which, in my judgment, is here in play. I make no apologies for repeating in this context what I said in Re J (Reporting Restriction: Internet: Video) [2013] EWHC 2394 (Fam), [2014] 1 FLR 523, paras 29-30:

 

“29 … We strive to avoid miscarriages of justice, but human justice is inevitably fallible. The Oldham and Webster cases stand as terrible warning to everyone involved in the family justice system, the latter as stark illustration of the fact that a miscarriage of justice which comes to light only after the child has been adopted will very probably be irremediable: W v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council [2005] EWCA Civ 1247, [2006] 1 FLR 543, Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council v GW & PW [[2007] EWHC 136 (Fam), [2007] 2 FLR 597] and Webster v Norfolk County Council and the Children (By Their Children’s Guardian) [2009] EWCA Civ 59, [2009] 1 FLR 1378. Of course, as Wall LJ said in Webster, para [197], ‘the system provides a remedy. It requires determined lawyers and determined parties’. So, as I entirely agree, the role of specialist family counsel is vital in ensuring that justice is done and that so far as possible miscarriages of justice are prevented. But that, if I may say so with all respect to my predecessor, is only part of the remedy. We must have the humility to recognise – and to acknowledge – that public debate, and the jealous vigilance of an informed media, have an important role to play in exposing past miscarriages of justice and in preventing possible future miscarriages of justice.

[30] Almost 10 years ago I said this (Re B (A Child) (Disclosure), para [103]):

‘… We cannot afford to proceed on the blinkered assumption that there have been no miscarriages of justice in the family justice system. This is something that has to be addressed with honesty and candour if the family justice system is not to suffer further loss of public confidence. Open and public debate in the media is essential.’

I remain of that view. The passage of the years has done nothing to diminish the point; if anything quite the contrary.”

 

  • In my judgment, and giving appropriate weight to the terrible burden which what is proposed will inevitably impose on the adoptive parents, although bravely and responsibly they do not oppose what is proposed, the claims of the birth parents, the best interests of X, and the public interest all point in the same direction: there must be a re-opening of the finding of fact hearing, so that the facts (whatever they may turn out to be) – the truth – can be ascertained in the light of all the evidence which is now available.

 

 

 

The law on re-opening a case is Re Z, and the President quickly skates through that (having already decided above that there is going to BE a re-hearing)

 

The re-hearing is going to take place in October 2016. That will be four years after the injury, three years after the Care Order, two years after the Adoption Order, and a year after the parents were exonerated at the criminal trial.  If nothing else, this case has not shown that the legal process can react swiftly. The President has also indicated that there may be before then a hearing about how the Press can report the re-hearing (thinking of the Poppi Worthington case, and the press interest there is going to be in this, it might for example include almost-live reporting and tweeting)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/09/parents-cleared-of-abuse-launch-legal-battle-to-win-custody-of-adopted-baby

 

IF the findings are overturned at that re-hearing, there’s still a massive legal mountain to climb for the parents. The guidance in Webster is from the Supreme Court, so it isn’t open to the President to simply ignore it. It does however, give the small chink of light  An adoption order once lawfully and properly made can be set aside “only in highly exceptional and very particular circumstances”:

So a Court could potentially find that these ARE highly exceptional and very particular circumstances.  (though showing why very similar circumstances in Webster didn’t meet the test but this one does is going to require some particularly skilful footwork.)

 

I appreciate that people’s FEELINGS about this will be very strong, and many of you will strongly support the parents getting the child back. If I was doing the odds, based on the Webster decision, it is at best a 20% chance, even if they overturn the findings.  The Webster decision, in law, is a really high mountain to climb.  That test, as a Supreme Court decision, is a test that really only Parliament or the ECHR could change. So it is not hopeless for these parents, but legally they have a mountain to climb.

It is certainly true that the public debate and the judicial position on adoption is rather different than it was in 2008 when Webster was decided. It is possible that this will have an impact.

 

A dreadful set of circumstances for everyone involved – if the parents are found both to the criminal AND civil standard of proof to have not injured their child then what has happened to them has been the most awful thing one can imagine. They will have been completely let down by the British justice system.

It is almost impossible to understand how the child would make sense of it. The child’s adopters, who have had this child in their home for two years and who are now the legal parents of that child and consider him as part of the family, and who went into that process in complete good faith have to face months of doubt and anxiety about the future.  It would be nice if whatever the Court finally decide about the adoption order, both his adoptive parents and his birth parents get to play a strong part in his future life, but that in itself would be a brand new arrangement, never tried before in England, and litigation doesn’t often foster that spirit of all parties wanting to work together to do what is best for the child.

 

One thing is for sure, we are going to have a huge public debate about adoption in October 2016 when this case is decided, and an even bigger one if the parents are cleared but the adoption order still stands  (as the precedents suggest that it would)

Children and social work Bill

Long way to go, of course, but this lays out what the Goverment would hope to do with the new law.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2016-2017/0001/17001.pdf

 

The thing that most of us are interested in are the proposed reforms to adoption law. So here they are:-

 

Section 8

Care orders: permanence provisions
In section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (care and supervision orders), for
subsection (3B) substitute—
“(3B)For the purposes of subsection (3A), the permanence provisions of a
section 31A plan are—
(a) such of the plan’s provisions setting out the long-term plan for the upbringing of the child conc
erned as provide for any of the following—
(i) the child to live with any parent of the child’s or with any other member of, or any friend of, the child’s family

 (ii) adoption;
(iii) long-term care not within sub-paragraph (i) or (ii);
(b)such of the plan’s provisions as set out any of the following—
(i)the impact on the child concerned of any harm that he or she suffered or was likely to suffer;
(ii) the current and future needs of the child (including needs arising out of that impact);
(iii)the way in which the long-term plan for the upbringing of the child would meet those current and future needs.
This really just says that when considering the care plan (i.e what the child’s future should be), the Court need to take these specific things into account. It is just bringing any care plan in line with the additional things added to consider when making a Special Guardianship Order. I suspect, just as with the SGO formulations, that there is going to be a lot of argument before the Court of Appeal decide for us whether these provisions amount to ‘reparative care’ and if so, how one person’s ‘reparative care’ doesn’t become another’s ‘social engineering’ and putting children from poor families into middle-class families with greater resources.
What it is NOT, is anything that would make the Courts retreat from Lady Hale’s formulation in Re B. To be fair, the Government couldn’t, because so much of that was derived from the ECHR decision of Y v UK, and if the new Act tried to make a provision that adoption was not a last resort, only to be used where there was an overriding requirement for the child’s welfare, the cases would just be stacking up in the ECHR to fight that.
I’m a bit surprised that we didn’t end up with some sort of fudgy compromise like the shared parenting provision in the Children and Families Act – you know, something like “Where the Court is satisfied that adoption is in the best interests of the child, a Placement Order may be made”, but it isn’t there.
All of the things specified here are things that I think the Court’s DO consider, but it doesn’t hurt to have them set down clearly that they HAVE to be considered. It certainly isn’t something which shifts the legal test on adoption notably or is likely to ensure that the Prime Minister’s declared aim to double the number of children being adopted (sorry, he gave it in an interview to the Times, which uses a paywall, so I can’t link to it).
What else on adoption?
9Adoption: duty to have regard to relationship with adopters

(1) Section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (matters to which court is to have regard in coming to a decision relating to the adoption of a child) is
amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) For the purposes of this section as it applies in relation to a decision by a court, or by an adoption agency in England—
(a) references to relationships are not confined to legal relationships,
(b)references to a relative, in relation to a child, include—
(i)the child’s mother and father, and
(ii)any person who is a prospective adopter with whom the child is placed.
(7B)In this section “adoption agency in England” means an adoption agency that is—
(a)a local authority in England, or
(b)a registered adoption society whose principal office is in England.”
(3)In subsection (8) (meaning of “relative” etc), in the words before paragraph (a),
after “section” insert “as it applies in relation to a decision by an adoption
agency in Wales”
This section binds Courts, and means that they must take account in the welfare checklist, when considering making an adoption order, or the second stage of leave to oppose adoption application, of the child’s relationship with the prospective adopters.  Again, I think mostly they already did (well, on the odd occasion when they didn’t, the Court of Appeal stepped in).  This doesn’t affect anything that the Court of Appeal said in Re B-S about the test for leave to oppose adoption – but it doesn’t hurt to have it spelled out.
If these two clauses went through unchanged, tomorrow, I think that it would change final evidence a bit, change submissions a bit, and add a paragraph to judgments. I would be very shocked if any case that would today have been a placement with parents, or with relatives, or long-term fostering, would become a Placement Order and approved plan of adoption tomorrow.
There’s nothing like a duty on social workers to favour or prioritise adoption, or even to favour or prioritise adoption over say long-term fostering.
It is nowhere near the Gove/Cameron rhetoric, but then whilst we remain part of the ECHR, it couldn’t be. The drafters have done as much as they can, given the existence of Y v UK.
I rather like the Local Authorities corporate responsibilities to children – I mean, I loathe mission statements with the whole of my little black tiny heart, but I think that actually spelling out what the State should be doing for the children in its care is no bad thing.

 

Corporate parenting principles for English local authorities
1Corporate parenting principles
(1)A local authority in England must, in carrying out functions in relation to the
children and young people mentioned insubsection (2), have regard to the
need—
(a)to act in the best interests, and promote the health and well-being, of
those children and young people;
(b)to encourage those children and young people to express their views,
wishes and feelings;
(c)to take into account the views, wishes and feelings of those children
and young people;
(d)to help those children and young people gain access to, and make the
best use of, services provided by the local authority and its relevant
partners;
(e)to promote high aspirations, and seek to secure the best outcomes, for
those children and young people;

(f)for those children and young people to be safe, and for stability in their

home lives, relationships and education or work;
(g)to prepare those children and young people for adulthood and
independent living.
The extension of some leaving care provisions to the age of 25 is good for children, but until we see whether there will be any funding for it, rather meaningless. Without fresh money for those services, they can only be provided by making cuts elsewhere, and there’s not many places that can be cut without hurting other vulnerable people badly now.
The Secretary of State will have powers to create a Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, and it will be the Secretary of State who decides who will sit on the Panel, and she or he can remove members from that Panel if she or he thinks they are unfit or have behaved badly. This is a bit vague. It sort of reads as though they are going to take over the most Serious (read political or newsworthy)  Serious Case Reviews from Local Children Safeguarding Boards. Whether that is after, or instead of, I’m not sure.  The Panel does have power to compel any person to provide information to the Panel and they MUST do so. So a bit like a Commons Select Committee.
LA’s must notify the Panel where any of these criteria are made out
“16C Events to be notified to the Panel
(1)A local authority in England must notify the Child Safeguarding
Practice Review Panel of any of the following that occur in their area—
(a)the death of a child who is known or suspected by the local
authority to have been abused or neglected;
(b) serious harm to a child who is known or suspected by the local
authority to have been abused or neglected;
(c) the death of a child who was looked after by a local authority (within the meaning given by section 22(1) of the Children Act
1989);
(d) the death of a child in a regulated setting.
(That might be potentially very wide on (b) – given that the threshold for care proceedings is ‘significant harm’, what’s going to be the distinction between ‘significant harm’ which is all children in care proceedings and ‘serious harm’?
The definition says  :-

“serious harm” includes serious or long-term impairment of mental health or intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural
development.
So on the face of it, a skull fracture that a child survives is not serious harm, but failure by a parent to ensure the child goes to speech therapy, causing delay in language development which takes time to recover from might be…)
There’s some tightening up/refreshing of the Sectretary of State’s power to make regulations about social workers – their training, qualifications, disciplinary process and so on.
If you do adult work, the regulation of AMPHs and Best Interest Assessors is also in there at sections 39 and 40.
Section 15 is a bit chilling, and Community Care have written about that here.
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/05/21/social-work-bill-gives-government-power-exempt-childrens-services-legal-duties/
My reading is that the Secretary of State’s powers to make regulations meaning that a Local Authority is exempted from large chunks of legislation to “allow it to try new methods of working” only apply where the Local Authority THEMSELVES ask for it (section15(3) ) , but I guess that in a scenario where the Secretary of State has appointed someone independent to run the LA children’s services  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35088879 then the Secretary of State’s puppet sorry, independent appointee, may have the power.
I don’t much like the idea of there being chunks of law that don’t apply to certain Local Authorities. It also opens the door to Academy style incentives – become an “Academy” social work team in the Government’s new shiny model and look, we’ll get rid of the expensive leaving care provisions for you, and you get three years break from Ofsted, up to six if you play your cards right…
On the whole, I don’t think the Bill says a great deal, it doesn’t say anything particularly harmful – with the possible exception of s15, and a lot of it is just making it clear that things that are being done as voluntary best practice should be done by everyone, as a statutory requirement. It could have been a LOT worse. The Children and Families Act 2014, for example, was a LOT worse.