N-S (Children), Re

Factual and Procedural Background

The proceedings concerned seven of eight children born to their mother and her two partners, with allegations of neglect and emotional harm prompting local authority involvement since 2000. Despite extensive support, care proceedings were initiated in 2016. The children remained with their mother and her current partner until a final order in January 2017. At the final hearing, all parties agreed the statutory threshold for intervention was met. The parents accepted that the three eldest children should be placed in alternative care, but disputed the care plan for the four youngest children. The local authority, supported by the children's guardian, sought care orders and placement for adoption orders for the four youngest children, acknowledging challenges in placing the siblings together. The judge made care and placement for adoption orders for these four children following a nine-day hearing and issued a reserved judgment in January 2017.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What is the extent of a judge's responsibility to provide reasons supporting orders made at the conclusion of public law children proceedings?
2. Where a failure to give adequate reasons occurs but there is no substantive challenge to the orders, what remedial steps should the appellate court take?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge failed to provide sufficient reasons for making placement for adoption orders for the four youngest children, particularly why adoption was necessary over long-term fostering and why only "closed" adoption was appropriate.
• The judgment lacked an overall welfare evaluation applying relevant case law and statutory welfare checklists to justify dispensing with parental consent for adoption.
• The judge did not adequately address the option of long-term fostering or the arrangements for post-adoption contact, both statutory considerations.
• Counsel for the parents did not request further reasons from the judge, but others (local authority and children's guardian) did, and the judge declined to provide additional reasoning.

Respondent's Arguments (Local Authority and Children's Guardian)

• Accepted the judgment was deficient in expressly analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of adoption and explaining why adoption met the children's welfare needs better than other options.
• Argued that the judge was entitled to rely on counsel to present the case and that only rehabilitation or adoption were realistically before the court, with long-term fostering not actively pursued as an alternative.
• Submitted that the reasons for adoption orders, particularly for the three youngest children, were clear and flowed logically from the rejection of rehabilitation.
• Maintained that the judge’s reliance on expert and guardian analysis sufficed to meet the requirement for reasons, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the well-established principle that judges must provide adequate reasoning in children proceedings judgments, not only for the parties but also for professionals, carers, and appellate review. The trial judge’s detailed factual findings were contrasted with a striking absence of reasoning explaining why adoption was preferred over other options, particularly long-term fostering, and why parental consent was dispensed with.

The court noted that the judge had been invited multiple times by counsel for the local authority and the children's guardian to clarify his reasoning on adoption but declined to do so. This failure fell short of the standards articulated in English v Emery Reimbold, which requires that vital issues be identified and the manner of their resolution explained.

However, the court balanced this deficiency against the substantive context: the evidence clearly ruled out rehabilitation to the parents, and the only realistic alternative care plan for the three youngest children was adoption. The judge’s decision to reject rehabilitation effectively made the adoption plan the only viable option, rendering the lack of explicit reasoning less prejudicial.

Regarding the eldest of the four children, the court acknowledged that long-term fostering was discussed only as a fallback plan and not actively pursued by any party, and direct contact arrangements post-adoption were not clearly raised as a live issue. The court emphasized that judges should normally raise issues not presented by parties before deciding on them.

The court further reflected on the importance of clarity in identifying live issues at hearings and suggested that a clear agenda of issues for determination would have avoided the present difficulties.

Ultimately, the court found no overall error in the judge’s determination and concluded that the justification for adoption was clear from the detailed findings, despite the lack of explicit reasoning on that point.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that although the trial judge’s judgment lacked adequate reasoning on the adoption decision, this deficiency did not amount to an error warranting setting aside the orders or a rehearing. The direct effect is that the care and placement for adoption orders for the four youngest children remain in force. No new precedent was established; rather, the judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of clear judicial reasoning and issue identification in family proceedings.