Source: https://childprotectionresource.online/tag/adoption/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-11-14 12:31:22
Document Index: 516986739

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'Art 8', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ']

adoption | Child Protection Resource | Page 2
The adoption order has been made – can I overturn it? – this is rare but possible. See discussion below.
The adoption order has been made – can I challenge it?
This is very rare – but possible. However, those cases where adoption orders have been overturned appear to rest on procedural flaws in the application, not on the merits or otherwise of the adoption. The Websters for example, were denied the opportunity to challenge the adoption of their children on the basis that the children had lived apart from them for so long, it would not be in the children’s interests to remove them from their adoptive homes.
The case of, ZH v HS & others [2019] EWHC 2190, gives a clear example of how mistakes made in how the adoption order was applied for and made, were so serious that they undermined the whole basis for the order and it was set aside.
T and her mother ZH tried to come to the UK from Somalia to claim asylum .T ended up with the maternal aunt and uncle who asked social workers to help them regularise T’s status with them. They didn’t get legal advice but went to a CAB and filled in the forms to make an application to adopt T, saying ZH was missing – as they didn’t know where she was. T’s mother then managed to enter the UK two years later. She was clearly out of time to appeal against the making of an adoption order so she applied under the court’s inherent jurisidiction to set it aside. Every one agreed by the time this got to court in 2019, this was the right thing to do and T should be looked after by her mother.
The court was very critical about how the adoption order ever came to be made, calling the process ‘flawed’ and ‘replete with errors and omissions’, not least the correct notice wasn’t given to the LA and there were no checks on the uncle and aunt and no guardian appointed for T.
It is indeed really worrying to think that such an application got through a court process without anyone apparently noticing such significant procedural failings and there is no surprise that the High Court found these errors were so serious they tainted the whole process; the adoption order could not stand.
See further Julie Doughty’s discussion at The Transparency Project, ‘Can an adoption order be undone?’
When will the court agree adoption is necessary?
Adoption proceedings are dealt with by the Adoption and Children Act 2002. I agree that adoptions can be ‘forced’ in that the court can make an adoption order without getting the parents’ consent. But I don’t agree that this equates to a deliberate plot to target ‘adoptable’ children to get them into the system.
I believe that parents’ rights to be heard and produce evidence about what they think is the best outcome for their child are real and usually respected in the system. Judges have warned against the dangers of ‘social engineering’ for many years now.
In this post I consider the relevant case law which the court must have in mind when considering making a final care order which has a plan for adoption. The case of Re B-S in 2013 caused a stir amongst lawyers and social workers and was interpreted by some as changing the law by making it more difficult to convince a court to make an adoption order. The President of the Family Division clarified in the case of Re R in 2014 that his judgment in Re B-S had not intended to change the law and did NOT change the law. Re W in 2016 provided further refinement of the ‘nothing else will test’ and confirmed it is not the right test when the court has to decide between two appropriate placements.
I discuss these cases in more detail below.
BUT note section 22 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA) below; the LA can apply for a placement order if a child is accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act. This does raise some legitimate concerns about ‘adoption by stealth’ which I discuss further here.
Section 21 of the ACA says the court cannot make a placement order unless:
This a high threshold – for obvious reasons. Taking children away from their families is recognised as the most serious interference with people’s family and private lives; it has life long consequences for all concerned.
So if anyone tells you simply that a social worker will take your child and have him adopted, this is not an accurate description of the necessary process.
However, I believe it is clear there is a link between care and adoption proceedings; the LA must set out their plans for the children’s future in the care plans to be considered at the final hearing. So if the LA think adoption is the best option, they need to have made that decision before the final hearing so it can be confirmed by their Agency Decision Maker.
Case law – what have the judges said about the need for adoption?
For further consideration of what the law actually is in other European countries relating to adoption see the study of Dr Claire Fenton-Glynn, to the European Parliament in June 2015 Every European country permits adoption without a parental consent.
Further refinement of the ‘nothing else will do’ test – not appropriate when court needs to chose between two good placements.
Following Re W (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 793, the court decided that the question of ‘nothing else will do’ is not apt as the starting point in cases where the court had to decide between two different households – in this case the potential adopters and grandparents who wanted an SGO. The question to be answered is what outcome will best promote F’s welfare for the rest of her life.
The court said this at para 68 about the phrase ‘nothing else will do’:
69. 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”.
Rare example of court refusing to make an adoption order – reliance on presumption of ‘right’ to placement with birth family that is no longer good law?
BUT – would this case have survived the analysis of the Court of Appeal in Re W (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 793, which rejected the presumption in favour of placement with birth family?
The court said at paragraph 71 of the judgment
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.
Judges must not pay ‘lip service’ to the necessary analysis
A useful case is In the matter of P (a child) [2016] EWCA Civ 3 where the Judge was criticised for not conducting the necessary analysis required of the ‘realistic’ options. At paragraph 56 the Court of Appeal commented:
While ostensibly aware of the need to adopt a ‘holistic’ approach to the evaluation of the options for P (and the guidance offered by Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, [2014] 1 FLR 1935 at [36] and at [46]), we are not convinced that Judge Ansell delivered on his intentions. It is, as this Court has emphasised in Re B-S and in Re R (A Child) (Adoption: Judicial Approach) [2014] (above)) “essential” that a judge provides an adequately reasoned judgment at the conclusion of a case such as this. We very much regret that after the extensive, perhaps overly discursive, review of the evidence this judgment is light on analysis of at least one of the two realistic options (i.e. adoption) to the degree of detail necessary, nor does the judgment contain a comparison of each option or options (see McFarlane LJ in Re G (Care Proceedings: Welfare Evaluation) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, [2014] 1 FLR 670 at [54]), or a proportionality evaluation. In this respect, Mr. Horrocks makes good his submission.
There is no specially prescribed form for a judge undertaking the exercise outlined above; the judge is doing little more than performing an ‘old-fashioned welfare balancing exercise’ (Re F [2015] EWCA Civ 882 at [48]); the term ‘holistic’ does not have any special meaning. Neither the parties, nor this Court, will readily conclude that a judge has performed the necessary welfare balancing exercise just because he or she acknowledges the need to do so. The debate about whether the analysis of the realistic options is a ‘balance sheet’ of the pros and cons or an aide memoire of the key welfare factors and how they match up against each other is sterile. What is expected is that the benefits and detriments of each option are considered and there is an evaluation of each option as against the other based on that analysis.
No duty to assess wider family members – but it may be desirable
The case of RE H (Care and Adoption : Assessment of wider family) 2019 confirms that there is no ‘absolute duty’ to seek out wider family members and assess them. The court commented:
First, repeating a point made earlier (see [22]), none of the provisions of statute, regulations or rules to which I have referred, impose any absolute duty on either the local authority or the Children’s Guardian, or indeed the court, to inform or consult members of the extended family about the existence of a child or the plans for the child’s adoption in circumstances such as arise here. However, the ethos of the CA 1989 is plainly supportive of wider family involvement in the child’s life, save where that outcome is not consistent with their welfare .
Image is from AdoptHelp
This entry was posted in Placement and Adoption orders and tagged adoption, last resort, nothing else will do, proportionality, Re B, Re B-S on August 29, 2014 by Sarah Phillimore.
A child’s perspective – Tammy’s story
Thanks to the TaKen UK website for letting us share this. Obviously, we don’t know all the details of what happened to Tammy’s family – the fact that care proceedings lasted from 1989 – 1992 suggests that the case was about more than just one accident in the kitchen.
But whatever happened in this case, her perspective on her pain and hurt about what she believes happened to her and her family emphasises the emotional cost of decisions in the family courts; something we should not lose sight of.
Tammy’s story – told in 2006
“In the best interest of the child” that’s what the professional’s state, but even the professionals and the family courts can be wrong as they were in my case.
Let me explain about my birth family, and myself. I am a young adopted adult; I was taken from my mum nearly 17 years ago on a false allegation, I was seven months old and sitting in my bouncing chair, my mum had gone into the kitchen to make me a night feed. I was happily playing with an activity toy, which I dropped on the floor; I leant forward to reach the toy but the chair followed me arid tipped forward falling on top of me. I sustained a bruise on my cheek. And that’s where my life was changed forever.
Time passed and Cameron reached the age of 21 months old, when the social services actually reached a date for my freeing order, which was in the year of 1992; there were no concerns to Cameron’s welfare. She was an excellent mother to him.
The judge who heard my case made his decision on the basis that social services had delayed my case for over two and a half years. On reading his decision to my mum (he stated) “Miss Coulter if I return your daughter home to you, you will be a stranger to her” and on that decision I was freed for adoption and my whole future was completely changed.
1) For medical evidence used in the courts to not be based on probabilities when determining a child’s future, it must be fact.
The opening of the family courts would make it a fairer, non judgmental and a more impartial system which would help children that are left in the hands of abuser’s and would also work by stopping children from being wrongfully removed and injustices from taking place.
This entry was posted in Children's Views and tagged adoption, Children's views, return to birth family on February 5, 2014 by Sarah Phillimore.