Key Facts
- •Appeal against placement orders for two siblings, H (6) and J (5), by their mother.
- •Five children in total; H and J have three older half-siblings.
- •Care proceedings initiated due to domestic abuse, alcohol misuse, and chaotic lifestyle.
- •Initial placement of H and J with foster carers; carers willing to be assessed for long-term care if adoption not chosen.
- •Sibling relationship was a key factor; assessment recommended open adoption to maintain sibling contact.
- •Proceedings delayed by various applications and hearings.
- •Final hearing resulted in placement orders for adoption, with a six-month time limit.
- •Foster placement breakdown after the placement order.
- •Appeal based on insufficient weight given to sibling relationship, improper time limit on placement order, and imbalance of evidence.
Legal Principles
Welfare of the child is paramount.
Adoption and Children Act 2002, section 1
Robust and rigorous analysis of advantages and disadvantages of realistic options is required.
Re B (Care Proceedings: Appeal) [2013] UKSC 33; Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146
Court cannot impose conditions on a placement order.
Re A (Placement Order: Imposition of Conditions on Adoption) [2013] EWCA Civ 1611
Court can dispense with parental consent to a placement order only if parents cannot be found, lack capacity, or the child's welfare requires it.
Adoption and Children Act 2002, section 52(1)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
Recorder conducted a thorough analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of adoption and long-term fostering, considering the sibling relationship. The court found the recorder's decision to prioritize the children's need for stability through adoption was justified, even though it meant severing ties with their siblings and parents. The time limit on the search for adoptive parents, while poorly worded, was not seen as an unlawful condition on the placement order but rather a reflection of the agreed care plan.