Re C & Ors (Care Proceedings: Adequacy of Reasons)
[2023] EWCA Civ 334
J (Care Plan for Adoption), Re
22 March 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 265
Court of Appeal
A judge made a care order to allow a baby to be adopted, but used the wrong law. The higher court said the judge should have used the stricter law for adoption cases and didn't have enough information. The adoption order was cancelled, and a new judge will decide what happens next.
Key Facts
- •Appeal by a mother against a care order for her 9-month-old son, J.
- •J has four older siblings; children's services involved with the family for over a decade due to neglect, abuse, and drug abuse allegations.
- •Care proceedings initiated in January 2023 for the older children following an assault allegation.
- •Assessments concluded parents could not safely care for any children.
- •Interim care order for J after birth, placed in foster care.
- •No further parenting assessment for J after an initial proposal; judge indicated it was unnecessary.
- •Hair strand toxicology tests detected opiates and cocaine in the mother.
- •Erratic parental attendance at contact visits with J.
- •Final hearing for all five children on 2 and 3 November 2023; one-day time estimate.
- •Placement order application for J not filed due to missing birth certificate.
- •Judge made care orders for all five children, directing the placement order application later.
- •Mother's appeal focussed on the judge's failure to apply the correct legal principles for adoption and the lack of a complete care plan.
Legal Principles
A child's welfare is the paramount consideration in upbringing decisions.
Children Act 1989, section 1(1)(a)
In adoption decisions, paramount consideration is the child's welfare throughout their life.
Adoption and Children Act 2002, section 1(1) and (2)
When a care order plan is for adoption, section 1 of the 2002 Act applies, even without a placement order application.
Re C, Re R, Re B (Adequacy of Reasons)
Severing parent-child relationship requires exceptional circumstances and overriding welfare needs ('nothing else will do').
Re B (Care Proceedings: Appeal)
Proportionality assessment requires evaluating all options holistically.
Re G, Re B-S
Court must consider permanence provisions of the section 31 plan, including adoption plans, current and future needs, and how the plan meets those needs.
Children Act 1989, section 31(3A) and (3B)
A care plan for adoption requires all necessary information for approval before a care order can be made.
Surrey County Council v S
Outcomes
Appeal allowed on grounds 1 and 2.
The judge wrongly applied the Children Act 1989 instead of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, failing to consider the 'nothing else will do' test for adoption and the permanency provisions of the care plan. The court lacked the necessary information to approve the care plan for adoption.
Care order set aside; interim care order substituted.
The care order was not lawful due to the misapplication of legal principles and incomplete information.
Case remitted to HH Judge Hildyard KC for case management.
To determine next steps, including potential further assessments and a placement order application.