A (A Child): Contested Adoption and Local Authority Conduct, Re
[2024] EWFC 192 (B)
Prospective Adopters v London Borough of Ealing & Ors
14 November 2023
[2023] EWFC 294 (B)
Family Court
A little boy, E, was living happily with his adoptive parents. His birth parents wanted him back, but the judge said no because they weren't honest about secretly still being together and didn't fully understand how dangerous that was for E. The judge decided it was better for E to stay with his adoptive parents where he's safe and happy.
Key Facts
- •Care proceedings concerning E, a two-year-old boy, involved a final hearing on an adoption application.
- •E's birth parents, SK and NS, opposed the adoption.
- •The Local Authority and Children's Guardian supported the adoption application.
- •The Court had previously made findings of fact against NS for physical assault and against SK for failure to protect.
- •The parents had separated, but there were concerns about their continued contact and honesty with professionals.
- •A DV Act assessment raised concerns about SK's insight into domestic abuse and her honesty.
- •Mobile phone records revealed extensive contact between SK and NS.
- •E had a strong attachment to his prospective adopters.
- •The court considered the potential harm to E of moving him from his prospective adopters.
Legal Principles
The paramount consideration is the child's welfare throughout their life.
Adoption and Children Act 2002, section 1
Measures depriving biological parents of parental responsibilities should only be applied in exceptional circumstances and are justified only by an overriding requirement pertaining to the child's best interests.
Re B (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33; R and H v UK [2011] ECHR 844; YC v UK [2010] ECHR 1228; Re W (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 793; Re W [2017] EWCA Civ 829
If there's a conflict between a child's welfare and the rights of a parent, the child's welfare takes precedence.
Re B [2013] UKSC 33
Outcomes
Adoption order granted.
The risks of moving E to his birth parents (continued parental contact, lack of insight, dishonesty) outweighed the risks of leaving him with his prospective adopters. E's strong attachment to his adopters and the significant harm of removal were key factors. The court determined that neither parent fully accepted the Court's findings, and the dishonesty would make it difficult to manage any placement with the parents.
Parents' consent to adoption dispensed with.
Based on the decision to grant the adoption order, the court also determined that the parents' consent was not in the best interest of the child.
Application for further assessment of father rejected.
The father failed to demonstrate an understanding or acceptance of the court's findings and risks posed by his behaviour.
No post-adoption contact order made.
The court determined that due to the parents' opposition to adoption and their lack of honesty, a contact order would not be in E's best interests. Indirect contact would be kept under review.