Court of Appeal sets aside adoption order after judge prematurely ruled out birth family placement

The Court of Appeal has set aside an adoption order on the grounds that it had been premature for judge to rule out the possibility of a birth family placement for child B.

In W (A Child: Leave To Oppose Adoption) [2020] EWCA Civ 16 Lord Justice Peter Jackson said that by excluding the possibility of B being cared for by his parents, Judge Wallwork “was inevitably prevented from weighing up all the matters that are likely to be relevant to his lifelong welfare”.

B is now aged two years and nine months, and was removed from his parents' care when two days old and later made subject to a placement order.

Prospective adopters with whom he was placed applied in April 2019 to adopt him.

B's children's guardian appealed against Judge Wallwork’s decision to refuse leave to oppose the making of an adoption order, supported by his parents.

Peter Jackson LJ said B’s parents had had “a punitive style of parenting and difficulties in the mother's mental health”.

The mother suffered an acute breakdown and the oldest of her children complained to his school that his mother had pressed a knife to his throat.

Other serious allegations of physical mistreatment by both parents also related to a second child.

B was born while their are proceedings were in progress. Judge Wallwork made “significant findings of fact adverse to the parents…involving a cumulative picture of poor emotional parenting and significant physical abuse in the form of over-chastisement”.

In January 2019, the parents pleaded guilty to cruelty offences and neglect and were sentenced to a community order.

After this they worked closely with professionals and the mother completed cognitive behavioural therapy and her mental health has improved.

The parents undertook a three-month parenting course and showed insight and remorse leading by December 2018 to “all professionals [being] impressed with the warmth of the family relationships and the local authority described the situation as ‘hugely different’”.

Two older children returned to the parents’ care, but B had never lived with them and he had “formed a strong and positive attachment with his prospective adopters”.

Judge Wallwork concluded that over time and the changes in attachment to carers, a second move would be "a devastating blow emotionally and in every way" for B.

Peter Jackson LJ said: “To rule out the possibility of a birth family placement for B, even at this late stage, was premature.

“The decision depended on a view of attachment that was not agreed as between the social work witnesses or supported by expert evidence. This was a case where all the evidence, including expert evidence about the emotional and psychological effect on B of a further move, needed to be fully considered.

“Nothing less than that could adequately resolve the professional disagreement in this case. The firm stance taken by the guardian and his own initial instinct that expert evidence may be needed should have alerted the judge to the fact that the parents' opposition to B's adoption needed to be fully considered.”

He said the negative aspects of a contested adoption hearing must always be taken into account, but “in the absence of specific disadvantages, they cannot in themselves be given much weight” and nor could further short-term delay “be very influential when seen alongside the lifelong significance of the decision about adoption”.

Mark Smulian