Challenging adoption order using human rights

2 October 2013 by

Adoption blueThe recently released statistics from the Department for Education showing an increase of 15% in the adoption of looked after children in the last year further highlights the government’s preferred strategy for ensuring the welfare of children in care.

In my recent post, I considered the main thrust of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re B-S which concerned the rigour which was expected of evidence, hearings and Judgments before a Placement Order was made.

However, the Court also dealt with the issue which had concerned Lord Justice McFarlane  when he gave permission to appeal  namely, where a Court has already made an order that a child may be placed for adoption and that has happened and the prospective adopter has applied for an Adoption Order, in what circumstances can a parent seek to stop it going ahead?

In contrast to the invasive surgery the Court of Appeal has undertaken on the human rights of Placement Orders, their approach to challenges to Adoption Orders has been more subtle. The Court upheld much (but not all) of the previous case law but added, “we fear it may on occasions have been applied too narrowly and indeed too harshly.”

The Context

A Placement Order gives permission to an adoption agency to place a child with prospective adopters. In the case of a non consensual adoption, the court has to determine whether the welfare of the child requires that the consent of the parents should be dispensed with.

There are certain circumstances in which a parent can apply to revoke a placement order but this comes to an end when the child is placed for adoption. Thereafter there is no opportunity for a parent to challenge the process until an application for an adoption order is issued.

A parent can oppose the making of an adoption order but to do so requires the leave of the Court and the Adoption and Children Act 2002 specifies that the Court cannot give such leave unless it is satisfied that there has been a change of circumstances since the making of the Placement Order.

It is also settled that once such leave is given the Court effectively have to decide afresh whether to dispense with parental consent to adoption in the light of the circumstances that then exist.

A decision by the Court to give leave to a parent is therefore profound. As the Court of Appeal said in Re B-S,

“not merely is the parent able to oppose the making of an adoption order, but the parent, notwithstanding the making of the earlier placement order, is entitled to have the question of whether parental consent should be dispensed with considered afresh and, crucially, considered in the light of current circumstances (which may … be astonishingly different from those when the placement order was made).”

In a system which loves reducing matters to such, the case law is clear that there is a two-stage test:

(1)            has there been a change of circumstances? if so

(2)            should leave to apply be given (in answering this question the child’s welfare is paramount)?

On the first question, the Court of Appeal determined that the law is correctly set out by Wall LJ in Re P (Adoption: Leave Provisions) [2007] EWCA Civ 616; [2007] 2 FLR 1069. The judgment of the court (Thorpe and Wall LJJ and Hedley J) was given by Wall LJ who said:

“The change in circumstances since the placement order was made must … be of a nature and degree sufficient, on the facts of the particular case, to open the door to the exercise of the judicial discretion to permit the parents to defend the adoption proceedings.”

When considering the second test, the Court of Appeal determined that aspects of two Court of Appeal Judgments on section 47 (5) [which concern the necessity to obtain the Court’s leave to oppose the making of an Adoption Order] should no longer be followed (Para 68):

(1)            Thorpe LJ’s phrase, “exceptionally rare circumstances” in Re W (Adoption; Set                                                                       aside and leave to Oppose) [2010] EWCA Civ 1535; [2011] 1 FLR 2153

(2)            the use by the President in Re C (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1431 of the word “stringent”                                                     to describe the test.

To that extent they have removed a gloss on the words of the statute.

In the light of current thinking, the Court of appeal in Re B-S prefer to talk about an exercise of judicial evaluation when considering the second stage, rather than discretion. The Court reiterated that two inter-related questions were apt in particular: as to the parent’s ultimate prospect of success of resisting the making of an adoption order (as opposed to having the child to return to live with the parent) and the impact on the child if the parent was/was not granted leave to oppose.

The Court went on to give guidance in such cases including a reminder that the Judge must keep at the forefront of his/her mind the teaching of the Supreme Court in re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33, [2013] 1 WLR 1911  that adoption is only permissible, “if nothing else will do.” As with a Placement Order, the CA recommends drawing up a judicial balance sheet of the positives and negatives for the purposes of evaluation. The Court is enjoined by the statute to have regard to the welfare of the child throughout his life. As such, the Judge must be careful not to attach undue weight to the short term consequences for the child if leave to oppose is given. The mere fact that the child will, inevitably, have already been placed with adopters cannot be determinative.

Comment 

This does represent a nudge to the Courts to think seriously about the possibility of granting more parents leave to oppose adoption orders. These are already very unhappy hearings and tend to cause profound distress to the prospective adopter with whom the child has been placed. They are not assisted by the fact that the Legal Aid Authority does not generally provide public finding for such applications and the parents are usually before the court unrepresented.

The most excruciating of these cases are usually not the ones where a parent or parents have transformed their lives for the better since the Placement Oder was made but where a mother has concealed the birth of the child and the proceedings from a father who only comes to know of the case after the Placement Order is made. Given the likelihood that such fathers – if found – are very likely now to receive leave to oppose adoption orders (and may very well succeed ultimately), this Court of Appeal Judgment should give greater impetus and urgency to efforts to make sure that all parents are properly traced and given notice of proceedings before any Placement order is made.

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

Read more:

5 comments


  1. Pauliboo, I’m sorry but prefixing parent with birth, is delusional. The truth is, they are their parents and that is that. Look into the horrifying cases of children removed from loving parents and forcibly adopted. Adoptive parents are simply adoptive parents, not the ‘real parents’ and never will be.

  2. son4justice2 says:

    Therefore the harm caused to the child by permanant removal is void? In actual fact the permanant removal is in fact child abuse as in most cases the loss to the child far outweighs any good done by intervention and the removal of the child could cause his/her death where genetic medical conditions require a close relative donation.

  3. son4justice2 says:

    What is strange in all the courts concern in ‘the best interests of the child’ is the following:-
    1/ Where are the human rights to the child, Where is it discussed that a child is having a major part taken away. The right to be brought up by his/her own birth parent or parents. The right to his/her true identity, The right not to be made an object of concern and be free from malicious acts by a govenment, LA or court which caused his/her displacement.
    2/ The right to interfere with that right is only gained by the rights to the protection of the child by an LA, police or court So given that a criminal offence must have been committed to give that right to interfere, why are thousands of children being removed where no criminal offence can be proven or has indeed taken place.
    Back to the human rights of the child. False allegations, malicious intervention, wrongful removal of child, displacement, wrongful holding within state care, family name being tarnished (child’s identity) denial of rights to be cared and nurtered for by his/her mother and or father. Denial of rights to life saving future medical treatments/ transplants,which may have to be by close relative donation. Denial of education, often lost through state care. The rights to stay within his/her own country of birth, even neighborhood, school, extended family, friends and everything that has provided stability.
    A child should only be removed from its birth family IF the child would be better looked after elsewhere . In the case of all children in care this has been proven false in far too many cases. In the cases of forced adoptions the idications are clear, that though the parents may have been within crisis, ill health etc at the time a parent who does not give consent would with or without assistance improve the situation for the child and the bond is strong. Therefore the harm caused to the child by permanant removal is void.

  4. pauliboo says:

    You refer to some of there people as parents, I believe if they had parented their children sufficiently then their children would not have found themselves in care.
    Please in future prefix the word parent with ‘birth’ when referring to those who gave life to the child.
    The child’s true parents are the ones who gave them a chance in life – their Foster families & Adoptive Families.

    1. Barry davison says:

      What a lot of rubbish, we have had our grand daughter taken into to care, by lies and false allegations from social workers. They said we won’t suitable to look after her, when we have for the past 2 years, we both have full CRB checks. The ss accused us of sexual abuse, now they have removed it from the report. Of to court next week, for a discharge order, made by me, wish me luck

Comments are closed.

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.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals 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 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation 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 Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


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.

%d bloggers like this: