Judge rules in favor of adoption for child in O (A Child) case, citing welfare paramountcy and parental incapacity

Citation: [2024] EWFC 9 (B)
Judgment on

Introduction

The case of O (A Child) (Care and Placement Orders), Re: 2024 ([2024] EWFC 9 (B)) revolves around the future of a young child, Oliver, and whether care and placement orders should be made in favor of adoption, considering his parents’ ability to provide a stable and appropriate care environment. This article provides an analysis of the case, focusing on the key legal principles utilized by His Honour Judge Willans in reaching his conclusion.

Key Facts

Oliver is a child born to parents with assessed learning disabilities and a history of inability to effectively care for older children, leading to previous adoptions. The parents, Peter and Sarah, separated post-assessment in a residential unit, with Sarah seeking care supported by a new partner, Chris. Following concerns about Peter’s capability as a sole carer, Oliver was placed into foster care pending the final hearing.

The applicant’s plan advocates for Oliver’s adoption; Sarah requests an adjournment and residential unit assessment with Oliver in her care. Peter oscillates in his position but ultimately opposes the application and suggests he could care for Oliver with support from a network including his father, neighbors, and the installation of CCTV.

The judgment references several legal principles and previous case laws which are pivotal to the analysis:

  1. Welfare of the Child: A fundamental principle in family law is that the child’s welfare is paramount (Children Act 1989, s 1(1)). Judge Willans conducts a thorough welfare analysis, considering all options and their implications for Oliver’s current and future well-being.

  2. Threshold Criteria: The legal threshold under s 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 must be crossed for a court to make a care or placement order. This involves assessing whether the child is likely to suffer significant harm and whether this harm is attributable to the care given is not what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.

  3. Balance and Proportionality: Any order must be proportionate, necessary, and reasonable. Judge Willans refers to the principles outlined by Peter Jackson LJ in F (A Child: Placement Order: Proportionality) [2018] EWCA Civ 2761 and Re K (Children: Placement Orders) [2020] EWCA Civ 1503.

  4. Parents with Learning Difficulties: In H (Parents with Learning Difficulties: Risk of Harm) [2023] EWCA Civ 59, the obligation to provide support to enable a child to remain in their care was emphasized. It is acknowledged that parents with learning difficulties can provide ‘good enough’ parenting with adequate support.

  5. Standard of Proof: The standard to establish the Likelihood of Harm is based on the balance of probabilities, meaning it must be more likely than not that the alleged event occurred.

These principles direct the judge’s approach to assess the adequacy of the parents’ capabilities, the level of support needed, and the potential risk of harm to the child.

Outcomes

Judge Willans concludes that neither Sarah nor Peter can provide suitable care for Oliver. He finds that Sarah’s proposed care plan is not necessary, falls outside Oliver’s timescales, has modest prospects and thus rejects her request for residential assessment. Peter’s proposed care plan, supported by a network and CCTV monitoring, is deemed inadequate to ensure consistent, good enough care and carries a high risk of placement breakdown.

Considering all realistic options and adhering to a holistic approach, Judge Willans concludes that adoption is the only option that meets Oliver’s welfare interests throughout his life. Consequently, a care and placement order is made, dispensing with the parents’ consent as required by Oliver’s welfare (Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33).

Conclusion

In the case of O (A Child) (Care and Placement Orders), Re: 2024, the court applies well-established legal principles to balance the child’s welfare with parental rights and capabilities. The judge’s analytical process incorporates the rendering of judgments in prior case law and reflects an emphasis on the necessity for stability and appropriate support for the child. Oliver’s welfare is found to be best served by a placement order for adoption due to the inability of his biological parents, despite their learning difficulties, to maintain a consistently safe and nurturing environment for him.