LRP (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Placement Order)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns the final hearing of a local authority's application for care and placement orders relating to an infant born on 1st October 2013, who is 10 weeks old at the time of the hearing. Neither parent, both represented by experienced legal counsel, attended the initial day of the hearing, which was intended to last three days. The parents communicated with their lawyers by telephone and participated in a meeting with social workers regarding contact arrangements. The court considered it appropriate to proceed with the hearing despite the parents' absence, due to the seriousness of the case and the urgency given the infant's age.

The child is the subject of previous proceedings involving her parents and two older siblings. Earlier findings established significant risks posed by the father and concerns about the mother’s ability to protect the children from harm. The infant was born seven months after these findings, and care proceedings commenced shortly after her birth. Following initial arrangements for the mother and infant to reside together in a specialist foster home, the mother returned to live with the father after 11 days. Contact between the parents and the infant has been irregular and problematic, with concerns about the father's aggressive behavior and the mother’s failure to attend contact sessions.

An independent social worker conducted a detailed assessment and concluded that no support or services could ensure the infant’s safety if returned to either parent. Both parents expressed a desire to remain together and have shown little motivation to engage with interventions. The local authority applied for a placement order to allow adoption, and the court was satisfied that the statutory threshold criteria for intervention were clearly met.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the statutory threshold criteria under section 31 are satisfied to justify care and placement orders for the infant.
2. Whether it is in the infant’s best interests to be placed for adoption rather than returned to parental care.
3. Whether there are any viable alternatives to adoption, including long-term foster care or placement with family friends.
4. Whether the court should dispense with parental consent to the placement order under section 52(1) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

Arguments of the Parties

Mother's Arguments

• The mother was aware of the placement order application and the implications but chose not to attend the hearing or give detailed instructions, though she expressed that she "does not want it to happen."
• She wished to attend a final 'farewell' contact visit with the father before the infant’s placement.
• The mother requested indirect contact after adoption, including the exchange of photographs.

Father's Arguments

• The father acknowledged that adoption was likely the eventual outcome and accepted the hearing would proceed in his absence.
• He had no complaints about the process and did not seek an adjournment.
• The father opposed the placement order but requested indirect contact arrangements similar to those in place for his other children.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by reaffirming the paramountcy of the child’s welfare and the legal presumption favoring upbringing within the natural family, citing established authorities. It acknowledged the gravity of adoption as a permanent and "very extreme" intervention, to be considered only when all other options have failed.

The court found the statutory threshold criteria under section 31 decisively met, based on prior findings of significant risk posed by the father and the mother’s inability to protect the child. It considered the independent social worker’s assessment that no services or interventions could ensure the infant’s safety if returned to either parent.

The court evaluated realistically available options: return to parental care or adoption. It rejected alternative proposals such as placement with family friends due to their unsuitability and concerns about long-term foster care, which it described as legally precarious and lacking the permanency and security of adoption.

The court noted the parents’ continued relationship and lack of engagement with interventions, indicating a low likelihood of meaningful change within a reasonable timeframe. It emphasized the importance of permanency and stability for the infant, which adoption could provide.

In balancing the advantages and disadvantages, the court acknowledged the emotional loss to the parents but concluded that adoption best served the infant’s welfare needs. The court was satisfied that dispensing with parental consent was justified under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 given the child’s welfare requirements.

Holding and Implications

The court granted the care and placement orders and dispensed with the parents’ consents to the placement order pursuant to section 52(1) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

This decision results in the infant being placed for adoption with a permanent family, ensuring stability, security, and protection from harm. The parents’ requests for indirect contact were acknowledged but do not alter the core outcome. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling applies well-established principles to the facts of this case, emphasizing the child’s welfare as the overriding consideration.