C (A Child)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns the care of a child, referred to as J, born in October 2011 to very young parents. Early concerns about J's safety led to a residential assessment between April and July 2012. Subsequently, the local authority obtained an interim care order placing J with foster parents, where he has remained. The local authority applied for care and placement for adoption orders. The appellant, EB, a maternal grandparent of J and registered blind, intervened seeking a special guardianship order to place J with her. EB had undergone gender reassignment between 2007 and 2009. Other family members involved included EG, the maternal grandmother who is also registered blind, and W, J's maternal uncle, who supported the mother and offered assistance to EB. The mother supported EB's application and opposed adoption, while the father was disengaged from the proceedings. The judge heard evidence from social workers, the children's guardian (CG), the mother, and EB over four days in May 2013. The local authority and CG supported care and adoption orders, whereas an independent social worker supported EB's application for special guardianship.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the care and placement for adoption orders should be made in the best interests of the child, J.
2. Whether a special guardianship order placing J with EB was appropriate.
3. Whether the judge properly conducted a balancing exercise considering the proportionality and necessity of adoption as a last resort under the relevant statutory frameworks and case law.
4. Whether the judge's assessment of EB's suitability as a carer was correct and proportionate.
5. Whether the appellate court should intervene in the judge's decision based on the Supreme Court's guidance in Re B (a child) regarding the standard of review and proportionality.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• EB challenged the judge’s conclusion that she would be unable to manage the practical aspects of caring for J, citing her intelligence and resourcefulness.
• She disputed the judge's concerns regarding difficulties with the mother and the underestimation of potential conflict.
• EB argued that the judge failed to properly consider the likely continuing support from other family members, including EG and W, and the value of maintaining those relationships.
• She submitted that the judge did not give sufficient weight to the advantage of J maintaining a relationship with his mother.
• EB contended that the judge overlooked inadequacies in the local authority’s support plan and their failure to advise her adequately.
• She claimed the judge misinterpreted evidence regarding J’s distress during contact at her home.
• EB submitted that any risk posed by the father's contact could be managed and contained.
• She argued that the judge gave insufficient weight to the evidence of the independent social worker who supported her application.
• EB contended that the judge failed to conduct a proper balancing exercise comparing the options of placement with her versus adoption and did not effectively address the necessity and proportionality of adoption as a last resort.

Respondents' Arguments

• The local authority and CG supported the judge’s decision, emphasizing the priority of finding a settled, secure, and permanent home for J.
• They submitted that despite the succinctness of the judgment, the judge’s reasoning was clear, and his adverse findings against EB were justified and proportionate.
• They argued that the judge was properly focused on the long-term welfare of J and that the appeal should be dismissed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged that the judge’s judgment was structured in a linear fashion, which made it challenging to discern a clear balancing exercise between the two primary options: placement with EB or adoption. The judge evaluated each potential carer individually, identifying positives and negatives, before concluding that EB could not provide the settled and secure home J required. Despite the linear structure, the court found that the judge had the relevant long-term welfare factors in mind, including the enhanced welfare checklist under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002). The judge’s adverse findings against EB were based on significant concerns about her ability to manage practical care, relationship difficulties with the mother, and the need for family support, which were all long-term considerations. The judge also recognized the draconian nature of adoption and the interference with family life but concluded that adoption was justified and proportionate in J’s best interests. The appellate court emphasized the importance of a holistic, global evaluation of welfare options, as established in Re G and Re B-S, and the need for adequately reasoned judgments. However, it accepted that the judge had engaged sufficiently with the core welfare decision and that his conclusion was not wrong or disproportionate. The appellate court also applied the clarified standard of review from Re B, allowing it to reassess proportionality and not merely defer to the judge unless plainly wrong. Ultimately, the court found no basis to overturn the judge’s decision given the evidence and reasoning presented.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is DISMISSED.

The court upheld the decision of the lower court to grant care and placement for adoption orders, rejecting the appellant’s application for a special guardianship order. The ruling confirms that despite structural criticisms of the judgment, the judge’s findings on EB’s suitability and the proportionality of adoption as a last resort were justified and not erroneous. The decision directly affects the parties by affirming the adoption plan for J and does not establish any new legal precedent beyond reaffirming the application of existing principles regarding welfare evaluations, proportionality, and appellate review in child care cases.