Key Facts
- •Public law proceedings concerning two children, HK (7) and BK (1 year 11 months).
- •Parents are NK (Mother) and FK (Father).
- •Calderdale MBC (LA) seeks final Care Order for both children, Placement Order for BK (adoption).
- •Mother opposes plans, primarily seeking return of children; secondarily, supports HK in foster care but delays decision for BK until foster carer assessment.
- •Father supports Mother's position.
- •Children's Guardian supports LA's plans.
- •Fact-finding judgment (20 Nov 2023) found Father inflicted abusive head trauma on BK, and both parents failed to seek medical attention.
- •Father also showed anger and frustration towards HK.
- •After fact-finding judgment, parents claimed separation but evidence revealed continued communication and deliberate data deletion from phones.
- •Court found both parents dishonest and acted to sabotage forensic analysis.
Legal Principles
Welfare of the child is paramount.
Children Act 1989, section 1
In adoption cases, child's welfare throughout life is paramount.
Adoption and Children Act 2002, section 1
Placement Order only if parental consent is given or dispensed with due to child's welfare.
Adoption and Children Act 2002, sections 21(3), 52
Children should be raised by natural parents or extended family where possible.
Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33
Adoption should only be considered when 'nothing else will do'.
Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33
Court must consider realistic options and advantages/disadvantages of each.
Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146
Adoption is a legitimate option even if long-term foster care is a contingency.
Re P (A Child) [2008] EWCA Civ 535
Court must consider the whole range of powers available and only make an order if it is better for the child.
Adoption and Children Act 2002, section 1(6)
Outcomes
Final Care Order for HK with long-term foster care plan.
Best interests of HK, given his witnessed trauma and parents' dishonesty.
Placement Order for BK with adoption plan.
Best interests of BK, given his young age and need for permanency; parents' dishonesty and failure to protect.
No section 26 order for direct sibling contact.
Risk of deterring potential adopters outweighs benefits; prioritizes BK's need for adoption.