Introduction

The case of M (A Child: Leave To Oppose Adoption) [2023] EWCA Civ 404 adjudicated by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) delves into the intricate balance between parental rights and the welfare of a child within the framework of adoption proceedings. Central to this case is the interpretation and application of Sections 47(5) and 47(7) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which regulate a parent's ability to oppose an adoption order post-placement.

The appellant, the local authority, challenged a lower court's decision to grant permission to the mother to oppose the adoption of her child, W. The mother, having a history of mental health challenges, sought to revoke the placement order and retain custody. This commentary unpacks the judgment, exploring its implications for future adoption cases and the legal standards governing parental opposition.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed the local authority's appeal against the Recorder's decision to grant the mother leave to oppose the adoption. The appellate judges, Lord Justice Holroyde and Lady Justice Macur, concurred with Lord Justice Peter Jackson's reasoning, emphasizing that the Recorder erred in assessing the sufficiency of the mother's changed circumstances and the overarching welfare of the child.

The appeal highlighted that while the mother had demonstrated some improvement in her mental health, the Recorder failed to adequately weigh this against the long-standing and severe nature of her prior conditions and the professional assessments indicating that rehabilitation was not in W's best interests. Consequently, the appellate court deemed the Recorder's decision to permit the opposition premature and not sufficiently substantiated by the evidence presented.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several pivotal cases that have shaped the legal landscape surrounding adoption and parental opposition:

• Re P (A Child)(Adoption Proceedings) [2007] EWCA Civ 616 - Established a two-stage process for applications to oppose adoption: determining a change in circumstances and evaluating whether such change warrants revisiting the adoption plan.
• Re B-S (Children) (Adoption Order: Leave to Oppose) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 - Clarified that the provision for opposing adoption should be a meaningful remedy, not to be applied too narrowly.
• Re SA (A Child) [2021] EWCA Civ 605 - Addressed the necessity of preserving transcripts of placement order proceedings to assess subsequent changes accurately.
• Prospective Adopters v SA [2015] EWHC 327 (Fam) and Prospective Adopters v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2020] EWFC 26 - Discussed whether changes in circumstances need to be unexpected or unforeseen, with the appellate court ultimately rejecting this requirement.

These precedents collectively underscore the judiciary's commitment to balancing parental rights against the child's welfare, ensuring that opposition to adoption is grounded in substantive and relevant changes rather than procedural or minor alterations.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on interpreting the statutory provisions within the Adoption and Children Act 2002, particularly focusing on the necessity of demonstrating a meaningful change in circumstances since the placement order. The two-stage test derived from Re P serves as the cornerstone:

1. Has there been a change in circumstances since the placement order was made?
2. Should the court revisit the adoption plan based on this change, prioritizing the child's lifelong welfare?

The Recorder's decision was scrutinized for not sufficiently integrating the severity and persistence of the mother's mental health issues against the improvements claimed. The appellate court emphasized that a balanced assessment must consider both the positive changes and the underlying, enduring challenges, ensuring that W's welfare remains paramount.

Furthermore, the court dismissed the notion that changes in circumstances must be unexpected, reaffirming that any relevant change, foreseeable or not, could be grounds for permitting opposition if it serves the child's best interests.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the judicial precedence that while parents possess fundamental rights regarding their children, these rights are subordinate to the child's welfare. The case delineates the threshold for what constitutes sufficient change in circumstances, thereby guiding lower courts in future adoption proceedings.

Additionally, by rejecting the requirement for changes to be unexpected, the judgment broadens the scope under which parental opposition can be considered, potentially allowing for a more nuanced and flexible application of the law in diverse familial situations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 47(5) and 47(7) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002

Section 47(5) restricts parents or guardians from opposing an adoption order without the court's permission once a placement order is in effect. Section 47(7) mandates that the court can only grant such permission if there has been a significant change in circumstances since the placement order was issued.

Placement Order

A placement order temporarily places a child with prospective adopters while safeguarding their welfare. It precedes the final adoption order and is intended to stabilize the child's living situation while the adoption process is concluded.

Leave to Oppose

"Leave" refers to the court's permission granted to parents to contest the adoption order. Without this leave, parents cannot legally oppose the adoption once a placement order is in place.

Welfare Checklist

This is a statutory list of factors that courts must consider when making decisions about a child's upbringing, including the child's physical, emotional, and educational needs.

Two-Stage Process

A legal procedure where the first stage assesses if there has been a change in circumstances, and the second stage evaluates if that change justifies revisiting the adoption plan, prioritizing the child's welfare.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in M (A Child: Leave To Oppose Adoption) [2023] EWCA Civ 404 underscores a critical reaffirmation of the legal framework governing adoption in England and Wales. By scrutinizing the Recorder's assessment of the mother's changed circumstances and prioritizing W's welfare, the court set a stringent precedent for future cases.

This judgment serves as a clarion call for courts to meticulously evaluate both the substantive changes in a parent's situation and the overarching best interests of the child. It ensures that parental opposition to adoption is not merely procedural but grounded in genuine, impactful shifts that warrant reconsideration of the child's placement.

Ultimately, the case reinforces the judiciary's role in safeguarding children's welfare while judiciously balancing parental rights, thereby contributing to the nuanced evolution of family law in complex, emotionally charged adoption scenarios.