W & Ors (Implementation of Adoption Plan Pending Appeal)

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns three appeals arising from care and placement orders made following care proceedings involving four children, referred to as W (female, nearly 9 years old), X (male, 4 years old), Y (female, 3 years old), and Z (male, 2 years old). The appellants include the father of all four children, the paternal grandmother, and the mother of the three younger children (M2), while the mother of the eldest child (M1) and the children's guardian appear as respondents.

The family has been known to social services since the eldest child was a baby due to concerns including neglect, parental substance abuse, and domestic violence. Over time, child protection plans were made for the children, and care proceedings were initiated following a dangerous driving incident involving the father with the eldest child present in the vehicle.

The children were initially placed with the paternal grandparents under interim care orders, but the grandparents later withdrew from care due to health and other commitments, leading to the children moving to foster placements. Parenting assessments of the father, M1, and M2 were negative. The local authority filed final care plans proposing long-term foster care for W and adoption for the three younger children, with placement orders sought accordingly.

At the final hearing, applications by the father and M2 for adjournments and further assessments were refused, and the paternal grandmother's application for reassessment as a long-term carer was also dismissed. Care and placement orders were made, and applications for permission to appeal were refused initially.

Subsequently, appeals were lodged by the father, grandmother, and M2, with the local authority initially opposing but later conceding certain grounds of appeal. The appeals were ultimately compromised by concession or withdrawal on the morning of the hearing.

Following the hearing, the local authority arranged a "farewell" visit between the children subject to placement orders and their family, despite knowledge of pending appeals. This was found to be an inappropriate step. The Court granted permission to appeal and stayed further placement actions pending determination of the appeals, but the local authority proceeded with adoption matching and placement decisions contrary to the stay.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in refusing the paternal grandmother’s application for reassessment as a long-term carer.
2. Whether the judge failed to properly apply the welfare checklist under s.1(3) of the Children Act 1989 and s.1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 in relation to the children.
3. Whether the judge failed to conduct adequate evaluations and risk assessments regarding the care plans and placement options for the children.
4. Whether the local authority acted unlawfully by proceeding with adoption planning and arranging a farewell visit while appeals were pending and a stay was in place.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Grandmother: The judge was wrong to refuse her reassessment as a carer, especially given her prior positive assessment as a Special Guardian, and this refusal deprived the court of necessary evidence to conduct a proper welfare balancing exercise.
• Father: The judge failed to adequately analyze statutory checklists, evaluate realistic placement options, and assess proportionality of care plans for the children, particularly by not permitting further assessment of the grandmother.
• M2 (Mother of younger children): Adopted grounds similar to the father concerning the three younger children, focusing on failures to properly evaluate care plans and consider further assessments.

Local Authority and Guardian

• Initially opposed the appeals but later conceded that an independent social worker assessment of the grandmother was appropriate and agreed to remit the matter for further case management.
• Conceded the father's and M2's appeals on the basis of the failure to permit further assessment of the grandmother.
• Continued to oppose the father's appeal in respect of the eldest child until the father withdrew it before the hearing.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court identified that the local authority had taken inappropriate steps by arranging a farewell visit between the children and family members while knowing that appeals against the placement orders were pending. The local authority mistakenly believed the appeal application had been refused due to the Court of Appeal Office rejecting bundles for procedural reasons, but this was a misunderstanding as the application remained live.

The Court emphasized that no steps to implement placement orders should be taken during the 21-day appeal period or while an application for permission to appeal is pending unless a stay is lifted or not granted. The local authority's decision to proceed with the farewell visit and later to approve the adoption match despite a Court-ordered stay was a grave error and unlawful, potentially amounting to contempt of court.

The Court acknowledged the pressures faced by the local authority but stressed the paramount importance of adhering to procedural safeguards to protect the welfare and interests of the children. The appeals were compromised by consent after the local authority and guardian conceded key grounds, particularly relating to the failure to allow further assessment of the grandmother.

The Court issued guidance outlining the proper conduct for local authorities in similar circumstances, including communication obligations, timing for implementation of placement orders, and the necessity to respect stays granted by the Court.

Holding and Implications

The Court granted permission to appeal on the applications and stayed the proceedings, directing that no further steps be taken regarding the placement of the children under the placement orders pending determination of the appeals.

The care and placement orders concerning three of the children were set aside, and the proceedings were remitted for further case management and reassessment, including instruction of an independent social worker to assess the father, M2, and the grandmother.

The decision directly affects the parties by halting the adoption process and allowing contact between the children and their birth family to resume. It does not establish new legal precedent but provides important procedural guidance to local authorities to avoid similar errors in future care proceedings.