When adoption without parental consent breaches human rights

1 October 2013 by

adoption-network-law-centerRe B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 – Read judgment 

is the latest Judgment of the Court of Appeal on non-consensual adoption since the Supreme Court authorized a closer scrutiny of first instance decisions In re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33, [2013] 1 WLR 1911 (see comment by Rosalind English here)

It is also the most authoritative (the case was allocated to Lord Dyson MR, the President of the Family Division and Black LJ) and uses to strong language about the current inattention to Human Rights in care and adoption proceedings.

The Family courts have been bracing themselves for this Judgment since McFarlane LJ gave permission to appeal on 14 June 2013 (Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 813) and deployed the phrase audit to describe the kind of scrutiny of human rights issues required in public law family cases since In re B. As anticipated the Judgment goes beyond the issue for which appeal was given, namely whether the test for permission to oppose an adoption order complies with Article 8. Unusually, this post concerns that part of the Judgment (which is arguably about 60% of the Judgment) which is not about the point in contest in the  case but which is, nevertheless, likely to have the widest ramifications.

The Judgment expresses concern about, the recurrent inadequacy of the analysis and reasoning placed before Courts in support of adoption by Children’s Guardians and Local Authorities but also, “in too many judgments.” With reference to the anodyne and inadequate material served up as analysis in many such cases it adds, “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.”

The Judgment seeks to be a synthesis of the recent quartet of Judgments emanating from the Court of Appeal since Re B namely: Re G [2013] EWCA Civ 965 (McFarlane LJ)

Re P [2013] EWCA Civ 963 (Black LJ); Re V (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 913 (Black LJ) ; and Re S, K v The London Borough of Brent [2013] EWCA Civ 926 (Ryder LJ) . In particular, it identifies two essentials in proceedings where a Placement Order is envisaged:

(1) proper evidence both from the local authority and from the guardian which address all the options which are realistically possible and must contain an analysis of the arguments for and against each option with a fully reasoned recommendation. They recommend the use of the ‘balance sheet’ first recommended by Thorpe LJ in Re A (Male Sterilisation) [2000] 1 FLR 549, 560.

(2) an adequately reasoned judgment by the judge which includes a “global, holistic evaluation of all the options. It cites the Judgment of McFarlane LJ in Re G [2013] EWCA Civ 965 that, there is a danger that the use of words such as draconian 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.”

Essential Conditions for Non-Consensual Adoption

When considering the legal test that must be addressed before deciding whether a child should be placed for adoption outside his or her birth family, the Court emphasise a number of essential conditions that Judges must have in mind at every stage of the process. Deploying the language of Baroness Hale in Re B they stress that the statute and Article 8 requires that the consent of the parent with capacity can only be dispensed with if, “nothing else will do.”

The Court cites with approval the Judgment of Wall LJ in Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535, [2008] 2 FLR 625, para 126 where he makes the point that,

“A child’s circumstances may ‘require’ statutory intervention, perhaps may even ‘require’ the indefinite or long-term removal of the child from the family and his or her placement with strangers, but that is not to say that the same circumstances will necessarily ‘require’ that the child be adopted. They may or they may not. The question, at the end of the day, is whether what is ‘required’ is adoption.”

The Court also reiterates three points made by Lord Neuberger in Re B.

(1) the child’s interests include being brought up by the natural family, ideally by the natural parents, or at least one of them, unless the overriding requirements of the child’s welfare make that not possible;

(2) the Court must consider all the options before coming to a decision; and

(3) before making an adoption order the court must be satisfied that there is no practical way of the authorities (including the Health Service) providing the requisite assistance and support and Judges must explore rigorously whether a Local Authority is seeking a Placement Order because resource issues make it unwilling to provide the necessary support.


The primary lesson from the Judgment is confirmation of how seriously non-consensual adoption is to be treated in the family justice system. This sits uneasily with the revised PLO and even more so with Part 2 of the Children and Families Bill which is making its way through parliament with their emphasis on the speed of decision making. I suspect that many a skeleton argument in the coming months will be citing the following passage from the Court of Appeal in support of an application for the court to take a step that will take the case outside the 26 week limit,

 “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.”

Perhaps the next most cited passage will be the following:

“before making an adoption order the court must be satisfied that there is no practical way of the authorities (including the Health Service) providing the requisite assistance and support and Judges must explore rigorously whether a Local Authority is seeking a Placement Order because resource issues make it unwilling to provide the necessary support.”

Andrew Pack in his excellent post on this case provocatively raises the question whether this can literally be true given that there has to be a limit to the resources that can be expended on any one family. I wonder also whether the Health Service will be drawn increasingly into these cases e.g. over the provision of therapy.

Since the Supreme Court in Re B advocated a closer scrutiny of Adoption Judgments by the higher courts, the Court of Appeal has gone about its work with a will. Thus far the judgments under scrutiny have been written before the Judges had the benefit of Re B. Expectations of those written with the benefit of Re B and the subsequent Court of Appeal Judgments are likely to be even higher. However, from Re B-S it is clear that Local Authorities and Children’s Guardians are expected to help. Given the inherent tendency of the system to over-compensate and given the current pressures to keep all statements etc… as short as possible (the latest missive from the President envisages court bundles being confined to one lever arch file), I fear that the Court (unless checked) could face a substantial quantity of analysis but very little by way of factual information.

I would also question how lay magistrates are expected to make decisions about non-consensual adoption given the level of scrutiny to be anticipated in this area. How can they possibly be said to be applying an independent mind to the problem when even their reasons have to be written by somebody else (usually the Local Authority).

In any event, further Judgments of the Court of Appeal (at least one other on this topic is reserved) may answer some of these questions.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more:


  1. Fay Moore says:

    What happens to the potential adoptive parents in all this who have been given evidence of neglect and abuse by social services and want the child envolved to have a stable family life. Adoptive parents who already have a placement order are left stressed and feeling as though they have no human rights themselves!!!

  2. Social Services never make every attempt to exhaust all possibilities to keep mother and baby together, quite the opposite. They make every attempt to separate mother and baby and leave both traumatised. Humans right are breached and simply ignored in family courts. Positive parenting assessment are ignored, postive contact records are ingnored. No previous history of crime, drugs, mental illness, ignored. No history of harming or hurting a child, ignored. Fabricated evidence by social workers, ignored, perjury commited by social workers, ignored. Evidence to support a parent, kept out of site of judge.

  3. And all of these fine words by the judges mean nothing when the appeal is then dismissed !

  4. marilyn says:

    With reference to the anodyne and inadequate material served up as analysis in many such cases it adds, “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.” – one of the reasons for our first negative assessment was that we had turned the lights off to allow our baby granddaughter to get to sleep – according to the idiot who wrote this we turned off the lights as we did not wish our granddaughter to wake up ….anodyne in the extreme…..

  5. tracey barrett says:

    What about the cases that have been past for adoption forcibly where its been corrupt and families children extended family and the perants have been ripped to pieces and tossed aside who is going to put this right isn’t it thier human right

    1. Then the child should be returned using the proceeds of crime act as a criminal offence of perjury may have been committed.

  6. Mrs whippy says:

    No were in this have i heard about the child’s rights to be brought up free from fear,neglect or abuse as usuall out adoption policey is based around the parents needs and wants, and not the childs

    The real question should be

    When dose keeping a child with a unfit parent breach the childs human rights

    1. EXACTLY! Children’s wishes are NOT heard adequately. Besides, adoption is the ‘paper sanctioning’ of the physical reality of removal which is the crime in the first place! And of all removals only 4% are adopted…

  7. Doug Summers JP says:

    As a retired family magistrate the comment about reasons being written by someone else is highly insulting. In my experience the magistrates take full responsibility for the reasons and often spend considerable time over them, with full collaboration with a legal adviser. In some circumstances, to save time, magistrates may adopt draft reasons prepared by the local authority but this will not happen in any contentious case.

  8. forcedadoption says:

    Lord Dyson is Master of the Rolls (what are Rolls?) NOT President of the Family Division as that office is occupied by Sir James Munby !I have read the
    judgemenf B-S (children) and despite the lofty sentiments therein referring to proportionality and adoption as a last resort the reality is somewhat
    different……. A more accurate summing up comes from Thorpe .L.J when he said ““There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing, because the
    parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter.” ie the parents have literally no chance ! ;actually 1 in 400 as that is the number of care applications refused (judicial statistics ).
    In thousands of cases domestic violence (often confined to noisy shouting) leads to foster care followed by adoption even when the mother has split from her husband/partner several months beforehand. Grandparents are turned down as alternative carers as “too old in their fifties” or” too friendly with the mother” . In none of the cases in which I have been involved has the judge carefully weighed up all the alternatives to adoption and given reasons for discarding them as decibed in the newly published judgement B–S(children).It just does not happen except in special cases cherrypicked by appeal judges to fool the world into believing that parents and children receive justice in our appalling family courts…………In the vast majority of cases parents and their children suffer “punishment without crime” ,and the worst punishment of all “forced adoption” is dished out to parents who have committed no crimes against children or anyone else for that matter! In 40 years time or thereabouts a shamefaced British Prime Minister will I predict make a fulsome apology for the outrageous cruelties that are now perpetrated in our family (kangaroo) courts but as usual it will for most be far too late……….

    1. Darla Watlet says:

      I see no reason for all these adoptions! They have real parents and family that most children will seek out when older. Why can’t it be guardians? things change in life and one or both parents change as time goes by and so does the family structure. What is the purpose of adoptions, to punish parents? Terrible injustice to families!

  9. forcedadoption says:

    I answer in one word the question ” When does adoption without parental consent breach human rights?” Yes the answer is ALWAYS . When parents oppose it in court closed adoption should always fail;

  10. dw says:

    I had to check the judgment to clarify that “non-consensual adoption” means “adoption without the consent of the biological mother/parents”.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: