- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
R & C (Adoption or Fostering)
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal concerns a local authority's challenge to a judge's refusal to make placement orders for two young children, referred to as R and C, aged approximately 3 years 9 months and 2 years 9 months respectively. The judge refused the orders primarily because he concluded that adoption was inconsistent with the children's need for continuing contact with their birth family, notably their two elder half-siblings, N (age 6) and Y (age 5). The local authority’s care plan envisaged placement only with adopters willing to facilitate continuing direct sibling contact.
The family had been subject to long-running care proceedings beginning in September 2021 after concerns arose about the children's safety due to the mother's inadequate supervision and association with dangerous individuals. Interim care orders were made, and the children were placed in foster care. Subsequent proceedings culminated in a final hearing in May 2024, where the local authority sought placement orders for R and C to be adopted, while the mother sought the return of all four children to her care. The judge made care orders but refused the placement orders, directing that R and C be placed in long-term foster care instead.
The local authority appealed the refusal, and permission to appeal was granted. The appeal focuses on the balance between the benefits of adoption, including permanence and stability, and the importance of maintaining sibling relationships through contact.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the judge was correct to conclude that the sibling relationship could not be preserved if placement orders for adoption were made.
- Whether the judge was correct to refuse placement orders based on the possibility that the mother "could not be completely ruled out" as a future carer.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments (Local Authority)
- The judge erred by assuming a stark dichotomy between adoption's permanence and the preservation of sibling contact, failing to recognize the court’s power under s.26 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to shape contact arrangements at the placement order stage.
- The court can set a “template” for contact that prospective adopters accept prior to placement, rather than imposing contact orders post-adoption against adopters’ wishes, which is rare under current law.
- The judge underestimated the efficacy of statutory powers to facilitate sibling contact and wrongly allowed the inability to guarantee contact to dominate the welfare evaluation.
- Regarding the mother, the judge’s view that she “could not be completely ruled out” conflicted with findings about her inability to care for the children, and thus should not have been a factor against placement orders.
Respondent's Arguments (Mother)
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the mother’s legal arguments beyond her opposition to adoption and desire for the children’s return to her care.
Children's Guardian's Arguments
- The judge failed to conduct a holistic welfare evaluation as required by precedent, relying on general principles rather than detailed analysis of the children's individual needs.
- The judge incorrectly relied on the decision in Re T and R, which involved different fact patterns and a sibling relationship of distinct importance.
- The judge erred by requiring a “guarantee” of contact rather than a nuanced assessment of risks, benefits, and available court powers.
Respondent's Arguments (Judge’s Position Supported by Counsel for Mother)
- The judge’s decision was within his broad welfare discretion, having considered the evidence and submissions thoroughly.
- The judge was entitled to weigh the importance of sibling contact highly and to be cautious about guaranteeing contact post-adoption.
- The judge was entitled to consider the mother as a potential future carer despite current risks, reflecting the strict test for severing parental relationships.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Re B (Care Proceedings: Appeal) [2013] UKSC 33 | Adoption against parents' wishes is a last resort; severance of parental relationship is strict and only in exceptional circumstances. | Reaffirmed the principle that adoption should only be contemplated when all else fails; guided the court’s welfare balancing exercise. |
| Re G [2013] EWCA Civ 965 | Requirement for a detailed balancing exercise evaluating all options’ positives and negatives. | Mandated robust analysis and reasoned judgment by courts in adoption and placement decisions. |
| Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 | Similar to Re G; emphasis on careful welfare evaluation. | Supported the need for detailed welfare analysis in adoption cases. |
| Re C (A Minor) (Adoption Order: Conditions) [1989] AC 1 | Contact with birth family post-adoption is exceptional and should not be imposed against adopters’ wishes except in rare cases. | Recognized the court’s discretion to impose contact conditions but noted it is generally undesirable to do so without adopter agreement. |
| Re R (Adoption: Contact) [2005] EWCA Civ 1128 | Confirmed that imposing contact orders against adopters’ wishes is extremely unusual. | Reiterated the rarity of imposing contact orders without adopter consent. |
| Re P (Placement Order: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535 | Contact decisions at placement order stage are for the court, not local authority or adopters. | Supported the principle that the court must retain control over contact arrangements and welfare decisions. |
| Oxfordshire CC v X, Y and J [2010] EWCA Civ 581 | Reaffirmed the rarity of imposing contact orders on unwilling adopters. | Supported the established approach limiting imposition of contact orders post-adoption. |
| Re T (A Child) [2010] EWCA 1527 | Similar principle regarding contact orders and adopters’ agreement. | Reinforced the importance of adopter consent in contact orders. |
| Re B (A Child: Post-Adoption Contact) [2019] EWCA Civ 29 | Statutory regime for post-adoption contact; confirms imposition of contact orders on unwilling adopters remains extremely unusual. | Clarified the legal framework and maintained the principle of rarity in imposing contact orders against adopters’ wishes. |
| Re T and R (Children) (Refusal of Placement Order) [2021] EWCA Civ 71 | Importance of sibling contact and cultural context can justify refusal of placement orders. | Distinguished on facts; supported the judge’s discretion in refusing placement orders where contact was critical and unlikely post-adoption. |
| Re D-S (A Child: Adoption or Fostering) [2024] EWCA Civ 948 | Adoption preferred where sibling relationships not overriding; contact arrangements to be honoured as far as possible. | Allowed appeal to make placement order; balanced permanence against sibling contact. |
| Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5 | Appellate courts should be cautious in overturning trial judges’ evaluations based on full evidence. | Referenced to emphasize deference to trial judge’s welfare evaluations generally. |
| Re LRP (A Child) (Care Proceedings – Placement Order) [2013] EWHC 3974 (Fam) | Differences in permanence between adoption and long-term fostering. | Used to illustrate the relative security adoption provides compared to fostering. |
| Re V (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 913 | Adoption creates permanent family membership for the child. | Supported the importance of adoption’s permanence in welfare considerations. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by emphasizing the paramount importance of the child's welfare throughout their life, as mandated by s.1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. It noted that the judge had erred in construing adoption as necessarily entailing a complete and irrevocable severance from the birth family, disregarding the modern concept of open adoption that contemplates ongoing contact where appropriate.
The Court found that the judge underestimated the court’s power under s.26 to set contact arrangements at the placement order stage, which can shape the expectations of prospective adopters before placement, rather than imposing contact orders post-adoption against adopters’ wishes. The local authority’s commitment to seek adopters willing to facilitate sibling contact was a relevant factor that the judge failed to give sufficient weight.
The Court distinguished the present case from Re T and R, where cultural factors and the nature of sibling relationships made adoption inappropriate. Here, the evidence supported the likelihood of maintaining sibling contact post-adoption, making adoption a viable and preferable option.
The Court further criticized the judge’s suggestion that adoption amounted to “social engineering,” clarifying that recognizing the benefits of permanence and stability in adoption is a proper welfare consideration, not an inappropriate policy-driven decision.
The judge’s comment that the mother “could not be completely ruled out” was found to be speculative and unsupported by evidence, thus inappropriate to weigh against adoption.
Overall, the Court concluded that the judge’s welfare analysis lacked the necessary balance and rigorous evaluation of competing factors, as required by established case law. The Court was satisfied it had sufficient evidence to make a decision without remitting the case for further hearing, noting that delay would likely prejudice the children’s welfare.
Applying the statutory welfare checklist, the Court found adoption in accordance with the local authority’s plan to be the only option meeting the children’s needs for security, belonging, and sibling contact. The Court would therefore allow the appeal, set aside the judge’s order, and make placement orders, including a s.26 contact order requiring arrangements for sibling contact six times per year.
Holding and Implications
The Court's final decision is to ALLOW THE APPEAL, set aside the judge’s refusal, and make placement orders authorizing the local authority to place the two children for adoption.
Additionally, the Court will make a contact order under s.26 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 requiring that the children placed for adoption have direct sibling contact six times per year in accordance with arrangements made by the local authority.
This decision directly affects the parties by enabling adoption to proceed with safeguards for sibling contact, reflecting modern principles of open adoption. No new legal precedent is established beyond the reaffirmation and application of existing statutory provisions and case law principles.
Alert