T (A Child)

Factual and Procedural Background

A former grandmother (the Appellant) appealed against the dismissal by His Honour Judge Tyzack QC in the Exeter County Court of her application for an order for contact with her grandson (the Child), who was born on 27 April 2008 and adopted on 2 February 2010. Following the adoption order, the Appellant and Child were no longer legally related. The appeal concerns the difficulty arising from differing understandings between the adoptive parents and the Appellant regarding the possibility of future contact post-adoption.

The local authority responsible for placing the Child (Company A) was directed to provide a position statement regarding the adoptive parents' stance on contact. A guardian ad litem was appointed for the Child. The hearing before the judge was initially for directions only, but after hearing oral evidence from the guardian, the judge dismissed the Appellant's application without receiving witness statements from either party.

The Appellant contended that the dismissal was premature and that further directions should have been given to investigate what Company A had communicated to both the Appellant and the adopters about future contact. The adopters and the Child’s guardian opposed the appeal.

The background includes a care plan and psychological report recommending contact between the Appellant and the Child post-adoption, subject to the Appellant meeting certain conditions such as affirming the adoptive parents’ role and working constructively with them. The adopters initially accepted the possibility of contact but became increasingly apprehensive following a difficult meeting with the Appellant shortly before the Child’s placement. The adopters preferred indirect contact and wished for an assessment before any direct contact could occur.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in dismissing the Appellant’s application for contact without further investigation or evidence.
2. Whether the Appellant was denied a fair trial by the judge’s decision to rely solely on the guardian’s oral evidence and not call the adopters as witnesses.
3. The extent to which the court can impose contact orders against the wishes of adoptive parents following an adoption order.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The dismissal of the application was premature and lacked sufficient factual investigation.
• The court should have ordered disclosure of Company A’s files to clarify what was communicated to the parties about contact.
• The Appellant maintained that she understood a firmer expectation of contact remained despite the adopters’ concerns.
• The Appellant contended she was entitled to a fair hearing, including the opportunity to challenge the adopters’ position through evidence.

Adopters and Child's Guardian's Arguments

• The adopters never committed to direct contact and preferred indirect contact at most.
• The adopters were anxious and felt threatened by the proceedings, which adversely affected their ability to bond with the Child.
• The guardian recommended dismissal of the application to protect the Child’s welfare and stability of the adoptive placement.
• They opposed the appeal, supporting the judge’s exercise of discretion in dismissing the application.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the complexity of contact issues post-adoption, especially where there is a "may be" stance on contact from adopters. It emphasized the paramountcy of the Child’s welfare over other considerations. The judge had to balance the Appellant’s attachment and desire for contact against the adopters’ anxiety and the potential destabilization of the adoptive placement.

The judge dismissed the application based primarily on the guardian’s oral evidence that the adopters were distressed by the proceedings and opposed direct contact, and that continuing the litigation was harming the Child’s placement stability. The court found no error in the judge’s discretion to take this "shortcut" and proceed without further evidence, given the guardian’s recent contact with the adopters and the opportunity for cross-examination.

The court noted that although there was initial support for contact in the pre-adoption reports and care plan, the position had changed by the time of the adoption order, with the adopters expressing concerns and requiring assessments before any direct contact could occur.

The court also highlighted the risk of misunderstandings between the local authority, adopters, and family members about contact arrangements, stressing the local authority’s duty to minimize such misunderstandings. However, the court declined to speculate on the precise communications or assign blame, focusing instead on the judge’s proper exercise of discretion.

Finally, the court confirmed that it remains highly unusual to impose contact orders against the adoptive parents’ wishes and found no realistic prospect that an order for contact would have been made if the application had proceeded.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL.

The direct effect is that the Appellant’s application for contact with the Child post-adoption remains dismissed. The decision reaffirms the principle that contact orders against unwilling adopters are exceptional and must be approached with caution, prioritizing the child’s welfare and the stability of the adoptive placement. No new legal precedent was established. The court expressed hope that, outside of adversarial proceedings, the adopters and Appellant might develop a constructive approach to future contact, facilitated by the local authority’s planned review.