R (A Child), Re

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns a dispute over contact arrangements between two half-sisters, referred to as K and L. K is 17 years old, and L is nearly 7. Their shared parent, the mother, failed to care adequately for L, resulting in L being placed in foster care and subsequently subject to a care order by the local authority. The care plan was for L to be permanently placed outside the natural family through adoption by prospective adoptive parents. While it is agreed that L should be adopted by these prospective adopters, the dispute arises over the amount and nature of contact K should have with L post-adoption.

K applied to the court for leave to make an application for contact with L, which was refused by a family judge. K sought permission to appeal, and this appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal. The key issue is balancing the importance of the relationship between the half-sisters with the need to secure stability in L’s adoptive placement. The prospective adopters and the local authority support limited contact, while K wishes for more substantial contact. The proceedings have involved multiple rounds of correspondence, position statements, and reports, including input from the guardian.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether K should be granted leave to apply for a contact order with L following L’s adoption.
2. The appropriate standard and test to be applied by the court when deciding on an application for leave to make a section 8 contact order under section 10(9) of the Children Act 1989.
3. The extent to which the court should impose contact orders against the wishes of prospective adopters in adoption proceedings.
4. The impact of the local authority’s changing position on contact arrangements and the weight to be given to the recommendations of the adoption panel and the guardian’s views.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge below failed to give sufficient weight to the original adoption panel’s recommendation of three times per year contact and did not adequately explain the change to a reduced contact level.
• The judge improperly rejected the guardian’s submission that further investigation was necessary before dismissing the application.
• The judge failed to sufficiently consider the close relationship and history between the half-sisters.
• The judge erred by dealing with the matter summarily without evidence or proper investigation.
• The reliance on confidentiality concerns and L’s unsettled behavior was unjustified and inconsistent with earlier local authority reports.
• The decision in Re C should be applied only after full investigation and at a final hearing, not as a basis to refuse leave at an early stage.
• The refusal to grant leave was a peremptory dismissal lacking proper reasoning and consideration of the statutory test under section 10(9).

Respondents' Arguments (Local Authority and Prospective Adopters)

• The application should be dealt with summarily, relying on the precedent in Re B.
• Section 10(9) of the Children Act 1989 applies, but contact orders in adoption proceedings are unusual and should not be made against the wishes of adoptive parents except in exceptional circumstances (citing Re C).
• They have agreed to facilitate indirect contact and one direct contact per year, balancing the importance of contact with the need for L’s placement stability.
• Concerns exist regarding the confidentiality of L’s placement and potential destabilization caused by frequent contact.
• The application is unlikely to succeed, and continuation of proceedings causes unnecessary anxiety and stress.

Guardian's Position

• The guardian did not oppose the application for leave but did not necessarily support an order being made.
• The guardian’s overriding concern is the stability of L's placement.
• The guardian noted changes in the local authority’s position and the close relationship between the children, suggesting the court may consider the application reasonable to try.
• The guardian viewed the matter as complex and recommended transfer to the High Court.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by acknowledging the sensitivity of the case and the genuine positions held by all parties. It recognized the importance of the relationship between the half-sisters but emphasized the paramount need for L’s adoptive placement to be stable and secure.

The court analyzed section 10(9) of the Children Act 1989, which sets out the criteria for granting leave to apply for a section 8 order, including the nature of the application, the applicant’s connection to the child, risk of disruption, and the local authority’s plans. The court stressed that the statutory test must be applied properly and not substituted with a test based on the applicant’s prospects of success.

While the appellant argued the judge below misapplied the test by focusing on the likely outcome rather than the statutory criteria, the court found that the judge was entitled to consider the nature of the application—specifically, that contact orders post-adoption are unusual and generally not made against the adoptive parents’ wishes.

The court noted that although the judge’s reasoning was terse and lacked detailed analysis of the statutory checklist, the conclusion was correct in context. The prospective adopters’ position, supported by the guardian and local authority, was reasonable, offering limited direct contact and indirect contact with potential for future increases.

The court also recognized the risk of disruption to L’s placement posed by ongoing litigation and the polarizing effect of proceedings. It accepted the prospective adopters’ concerns about confidentiality and the need for L to form secure attachments in her adoptive home.

The court concluded that further formal investigation or evidence would not materially assist, given the well-understood positions and the guardian’s latest report. It emphasized that the matter is primarily one for the parties involved on the ground rather than for legal intervention.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the refusal to grant leave for K to apply for a contact order with L post-adoption. The decision confirms the principle that contact orders in adoption proceedings are exceptional and unlikely to be made against the reasonable opposition of adoptive parents. The ruling emphasizes the primacy of securing a stable and happy adoptive placement for the child over the imposition of contact orders through court intervention.

The direct effect is that the proposed contact arrangements—one direct contact per year and indirect contact four times per year—will stand, with potential for future review if L settles well. No new precedent was established; rather, the decision applies established legal principles to the facts of the case.