D-S (A Child: Adoption or Fostering), Re
[2024] EWCA Civ 948
In the matter of M (A Child)
29 August 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 1000
Court of Appeal
A judge refused to let a little girl, M, be adopted, preferring long-term foster care. Later, he learned the foster carers couldn't keep M long-term, and this made him unsure of his decision. A higher court said the judge didn't explain his decision well enough and sent the case back to a different judge to decide again.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against HHJ Scarratt's order refusing a placement order for 4-year-old M.
- •Judge initially refused adoption, proposing long-term foster care with contact.
- •Subsequent information revealed foster carers could only commit to 5 years of care.
- •This new information caused the judge to question his decision.
- •Local Authority appealed, arguing the judge erred in dismissing adoption.
- •Mother opposed adoption, supporting long-term fostering.
- •Children's Guardian initially neutral, later supported the appeal.
- •Proceedings involved concerns about domestic abuse, drug misuse, and parental engagement.
Legal Principles
Paramount consideration of the child's welfare.
Adoption and Children Act 2002 section 1(2)
Adoption is the most draconian order and should only be made when nothing else will do.
Re BS
Judges should not use a linear approach when evaluating options, but rather a holistic assessment.
Re B (A Child) (Adequacy of Reasons) [2022] EWCA Civ 407 at [43]
Adequate reasoning is required to justify decisions in children cases.
Re B (A Child) (Adequacy of Reasons) [2022] EWCA Civ 407
Avoid using “nothing else will do” as a shortcut to bypass a full welfare evaluation.
Re W (A child) (Adoption: Grandparents’ Competing Claim) [2017] 1 WLR 889
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The judge's decision was based on a mistaken belief about the foster carers' long-term commitment. The judgment lacked a holistic assessment of adoption vs. fostering, and the reasoning was inadequate.
Case remitted for rehearing before a different judge.
The inadequacies in the original judgment could not be remedied by clarification; a rehearing is necessary for a proper evaluation of all options.