Hello and welcome back everybody. So this is then the session through data law where I'm taking you through local authority duties, assessments, placement, contact and adoption. So this is session two of the two part sessions for this course that I'm taking you through. So I'm so on my mood and uh the aim very much with these sessions is to give you a good grounding of the law practice and procedure surrounding local authority duties when it comes to not just assessing but also a placement of Children duties in relation to contact and all those duties that relate to adoption. So you remember in the previous session, I did spend a fair bit of time going through with you to place two Children, both with parents and also with family members. We looked at the regulations in England and Wales. So the care planning regulations in England of 2010, the care planning regulations in Wales of 2015. So we spent a fair bit of time with that. We looked at assessments, we looked at the use of 38 6. We looked at other mechanisms such as uh section eight orders, for example, like I said the use of 38 6 supervision orders, we looked at the position we regulated and unregulated placements so that we had the amendment regulations in England in on the night of September 2021. And then also the supported accommodation regulations of 2023 in England. So I spent a fair bit of time looking at those aspects with you and we also looked at contact, obviously, duties insofar as contact is concerned. Section 34 1 schedule two paragraph, 1534 4, 34 6. So those key aspects in so far as that's concerned. So today, I'm going to be continuing with looking at these areas and we spent a bit of time last time looking at the position with family members that may be put forward at the later stage, that case of and others, the 2017 decision and really the key thing that that case is pointing towards today. Then I'm going to be developing that by looking more at the position surrounding a top adoption and we will be looking at particularly getting to understand more about the position with adoption in terms of the the role of the AD m the role of adoption panels. What happens when Children are relinquished for adoption and also in relation to adoption and contact as well. So post adoption, we'll have a look, post adoption contact. We'll also have a look at that also. So I'm looking at the law as of October 2024. So you remember that I mentioned last time, then that if the local authority then is pursuing it's planned for adoption for the child. And there's a need for this very detailed report to be put together by the local authority known as the permanent report. That's the child's permanence report, the CPR S it's referred to or sometimes referred to in Wales as the card. That's the child assessment report or the written report as it's referred to. And this report needs to be prepared, pursued to regulation 17 of the adoption agency regulations of 2005 in Wales and in England respectively. So it's a very detailed report needs to be started work on very early on in the proceedings, I would suggest by the social worker it will only be completed obviously once and if all the assessments have come in and once the social workers team are then pursuing a plan for adoption for the child and they are then receive taking the paperwork to the agency decision maker for the approval. So the report itself, it's very detailed. You can see it needs to provide information about the child and the family. It needs to contain a summary written by the agency's medical advisor to a child's health later, I'll take you through the decision in Somerset a few years ago which really raise issues about the the medical, the child's medical will. It also needs to include the wishes and feelings of the child, subject to age and understanding, of course, and also the wishing and feelings of the child's parents or legal guardian and any other person considered relevant as well as the views of the agency about the child's needs for contact uh in that situation. So you can see a number of key things that need to be pulled together in complying with this report. And it's very detailed. and like I say, I would suggest that the social worker needs to prepare this very early on. It also needs to incorporate the assessments. So therefore, an assessment of a child's emotional behavioral development, parenting capacity. Uh The social need is set out the chronology of the decision making by the local authority. What steps they've done, what actions they've taken and why they've come to decisions that they have and also effectively a balanced exercise in terms of the analysis of the future option, placement, placement, options for the child. So what are the options? So, for example, rehabilitation has that been considered? What are the pros and cons of that? What about placement, family, the pros and cons of that? What about adoption? What about fostering? And therefore really why the local authority have come to the view that they have in wishing to pursue adoption for that child? And if the child's case is gone to an adoption panel, then this adoption permanent report must be made available for the adoption panel and it also needs to be available to the AD MD agency decision maker. So this is where this report is, like I say, going to be made available to the adoption panel in appropriate cases. And certainly to the AD M the agency decision maker who's going to be a senior manager at the local authority in Wales. This report, as I mentioned is referred to as the written report also contained within regulation 17, sometimes referred to as the card as the child assessment report. So let's look at panels, let's try and get our heads around how adoption panels work. Now, this is where there were some changes to the role of adoption panels back in September 2012. Supply to that if you had a situation where you were saying care ceilings and the plan for the child was likely to become one of adoptions, so say you've assessed parents and they've been ruled out extended, family members have been assessed and being ruled out and the local authority are now pressing ahead with a plan for adoption for the child. Then in that plan two, now single trap plan for adoption for the child. There was a requirement up until the first of September 2012 to refer that child's case to an adoption panel, which would then mean that the child's case would go to a number of personnel sitting in this panel where they would then consider the child's case and look to see whether or not they could recommend whether or not adoption was suitable for that child. And then that recommendation pursue to uh regulation 18 of these regs would then be provided to the agency decision maker senior manager who then pursued to regulation 19 of these regulations would then take that recommendation into account in deciding whether or not he or she would approve for uh ratifying that recommendation and therefore for the local authority and to pursue adoption by way of lodging any placement application. So that's what we used to have before the first of September 2012. But then there were these changes that came in, these were the adoption agencies panel and consequential amendment ranks of 2012 that came in and the net effect of these both in England and Wales is that you wouldn't refer the child's case to adoption panel anymore. In most cases, if you were seeking approval to lodge any placement application and pursue adoption, so you wouldn't refer the child's case to adoption panel in most cases anymore. Instead you would be going directly to the ad m the agency decision maker having said that if the child was a child who was relinquished ie mother plus father, if he's got pr and he's also we had a child and if they both agreed to the child being placed for adoption often outside proceedings, uh they've had child and they really don't feel that they can bring that child up to themselves. So they are content for that child to be placed for adoption. And in that situation where they are relinquishing the child for adoption, there is still that requirement. Firstly, for that child's case, to firstly be referred to adoption panel to seek that recommendation. And only once they've given that recommendation, would that then go to the AD M to invite him or her to ratify that. So that requirement would still remain, but only for Children who were relinquished, not for those who were in proceedings and for whom the plan of adoption was, was being pursued. In that regard. In that case, in those children's cases, the matter would go straight to the AD M. What other role is there of panels as well as in those limited cases, looking to see whether or not they're going to be recommending as to whether a child is suitable for adoption ie cases where the um parent has relinquished a child. What other role is there of the panel? Well, like I say in that limited case, though, give a recommendation whether adoption is suitable, but also they would recommend whether a person is actually a suitable perspective adopter. So for example, if I wanted to adopt a child, I would then have to go through a very detailed adoption assessment process. It's an initial two month assessment and there's a more in depth uh plan part B assessment, which is another four months. So it's a good six months. This assessment, it's quite detailed. And once I've been assessed my case, then would go to an adoption panel, they would look to ask me questions, they would ask my social worker questions with a view to seeing whether they can approve me or recommend me as being an in principle adopter for Children. So they would, they would be looking to make a recommendation and once and if they do, then that recommendation would then go to the AD M to see whether or not I could then have that ratified. So that's the second role of panel. The third role of panel is what's known as a matching panel. So let's say we've got a case where a child has gone through the care proceedings. The child has now be made subject to a care order and say has been made subject to a placement order. So the child has now been made subject to a placement order and hence to enable the child to be placed for adoption. We as lawyers then will of course, at that stage complete our involvement with that case. But of course, the social worker team will continue and of course, you know, they will together with the assistance of the family finder, the home finder be looking to find the families for that child. So this is where there will be various methods through which they would embark upon to try and match that child with prospective adopters. And once they have found prospective adopters for that child, there is then what's called a Lincoln meeting, whereby that child's case is taken once again to adoption panel. And this time panel will sit as what's called a matching panel. So a panel will now set whereby there'll be members of the panel who will be looking to see if they can match that child with those prospective adopters. So the social worker for the child will be there. The social worker for the prospective adopters will be there with a view to see if they can recommend that match. And if they do, then that recommendation will then go to the AD M who will be asked then to ratify that match. Ok. And if that is the case thereafter, then there's a period of introductions with the prospective adopters will then meet with the child. There will be introductions which sometimes last a week, sometimes it could be a couple of weeks and once the introductions have been completed, the child is actually living with those prospective adopters. At that stage, they pick up parental responsibility for the child and thereafter, they would then be able to some weeks and possibly months or even years later, they may then apply to adopt that child thereafter. So you can see for panels, there's three fact, three key elements here. The latter two will be in every case ie to see whether or not they can recommend a suitable prospective doctor as being an unprincipled adopter and also to sit at the matching panel. But also in the limited cases where the child has been relinquished, they will see whether or not they can recommend that that child is suitable to be uh placed for adoption. Now, the panel itself will consist of a number of people sitting there. Uh There normally needs to be a minimum of five people sitting in panel. There's no maximum list anymore, but there's got to be at least one person who's independent of a local authority who will be sitting in that panel. There will be managers in this panel, there will be the social worker attending. There will be a medical advisor also also com advising on the position of the medical of the child and also of the perspective doctors as well in appropriate cases. So very very important to make sure that this process is followed through appropriately. Now, as you can imagine adoption is of course an order whereby it is the most recording order that can be made uh because it takes away parental responsibility from everybody, including of course the birth parents. And therefore I mentioned the welfare checklist in the last session. Section 14 where both the adoption agency and the court need to take on board. Section 14 requires one to look at the feasibility of the child remaining a member of the original family. Their willingness uh their wishes and feelings in relation to that. So when it does come to plans for adoption, as this very significant case of, we b illustrates this Supreme Court decision in June 2013 when it does come to plans for adoption, the test for um severing the relationship between a parent and child is a very strict one and only in exceptional circumstances where nothing else will do and many of you will be aware of, of course, that very strong point made in this case, it doesn't mean that adoption shouldn't be made. Of course, of course, in many cases, adoption is very much in the child's welfare best interests and it obviously will serve the child's best interests, not just in their childhood, but indeed in the adulthood, adoption has to be the right order for them for the rest of their life. And therefore, in many cases, adoption is going to be serving as meeting that child's best interests, but we have to make sure that nothing else will do. That's the important thing with this and this is where let's assume there is a placement order made. And as we, as I mentioned, then the local authority will now be carrying out that process of family finding through the assistance of the family finding or home finding worker. This is where sadly, sometimes families may not be or the right family may not be identified for the child or whilst the local authority are identifying a possible family for the child. Say there is a change in circumstances and so far as say the parents are concerned and this is where the parents may be instructing their lawyers to apply for permission to uh revoke the placement order. So this is an application that may well be sought via section 24 of the Adoption of Children Act 2002. Now, what's important is that parents can apply for leave to revolt a placement order and therefore for the care order to be effectively uh the the the the lead order in that circumstance. But they must check first to see whether the child has already been placed by the local authority. And this is where this case of C city council and others is important. And what this case emphasizes is that a child is going to be placed for adoption where if for example, they've had introductions undertaken. So and they've been to adoption panel who've recommended a match, then the AD M has ratified that match. Then there's that period of introductions that are mentioned, the introductions will last maybe a week or so once the introductions have been completed and the child is living with the prospective doctors at that stage. Once the introductions are completed, the child has been formally placed with the prospective adopters and therefore it's no longer permissible for but a parent at that stage than to apply for leave to evoke the placement order because a child has that been placed. If the child is say with foster carers who are say fostering to adopt that child or they are in the child is what's called an early permanent placement, whereby the child is with foster carers who are approved as adopters, then the child won't necessarily be moving to another place because the aim may well be to approve those carers and therefore, the child is placed at the point at which they are now matched with that child. And, and therefore the AD M ratifies uh that um that decision. So the court here said that the child wasn't placed for adoption until they began to live with the prospective doctors, either like the introductions ended or if they were already living with them as capacity in their capacity as foster carers. When the adoption, it formally allowed them to continue in their fresh capacity as prospective adopters. Ie once the AD M had essentially ratified the uh the match in that regard. So until then they haven't been placed in which case, the door is left open to apply for leave to revoke uh in those circumstances. But if not, then 1 may will have to then wait for a any adoption application to be lodged to then seek leave to oppose the making of that adoption order. And if somebody was to apply for leave, revol a placement order, this case or Warwick, this case in 2009 emphasizes how it's not an easy uh test to obviously be able to satisfy the court on. So this was a case whereby the mother applied for leave to revolt, the placement order, she said that her circumstances had changed. She said that the violent partner uh had passed away, she said that she began to address properly. Now, her substance misuse and the court said that there is a two pronged test here. Firstly, we have to look at whether or not there has been a change in circumstances and although the child's welfare is not paramount, it's a relevant consideration. And then secondly, we have to look to see whether or not the welfare of a child requires leave to be granted and there has to be a real prospect of success. We have to be satisfied that they're likely to be successful there. And here are the facts, even though the mother began to show change, it wasn't at the degree that was sufficient and appropriate. This other case of V BS is very important. It's 2013 decision which emphasizes amongst other things, how important it is to make sure that one does balance support a realistic option. So whilst the assessments being got taken and carried out of family members, we also have to be looking at alternative options also. But this case of EBS is also very important in emphasizing that if say the child has now been placed with prospective doctors and they have now lodged a an adoption application. Then of course, that leaves the possible door open for a parent, for example, to apply for li po the making of the adoption order. And here this is what the mother did. She applied for. Li Polls, the making of the adoption order under section 47 5 of the act. Mother said that she had changed her situation. She was in a stronger position to what she had been beforehand. And even though the court was satisfied that she satisfies, satisfied the first part of the test and showing a change of circumstances, the court was not satisfied on the facts that the children's welfare required leave to be granted. So her application was refused. Now, like I say, it's very important when we are looking at parallel planning to ensure that all realistic options are explored. But that doesn't mean that one has to assess every family member that has come forward. And as I mentioned earlier, if there are family members that are being put forward later on in the proceedings, it doesn't mean that all stones need to be unturned in that regard. In this case, we are very much emphasizes this point. This is the decision which was handed down by the court of appeal in 2014. The leading judgment by the president of the family division at the time, Sir James Mumby. And this is where his lordship said that the case of we B a year before had to change the law. So where adoption is in the child's welfare, best interests. Local authorities should not shy away from seeking such orders and courts should not be shying away from making such orders. If adoption is in that child's welfare, best interests, then that's what should be done. And it doesn't mean that if somebody puts forward a family member very late in the proceedings that there is a need to assess because one has to weigh up. Well, why did they put that person forward? What was the reasons why they didn't come forward earlier? And what connection if any do they have with that child in those circumstances? So that also ties in with this other case about assessing family and friends. This is the case of vh this 2019 decision by Mr Justice Cobb. This case raises the issues as to whether a local authority is required, but whether by statute or otherwise to notify why the family members of the existence of the subject child ought to assess them where they are not proposed by parents or potential alternative carers and where the parents do not wish for the wider family to be involved. So what should the local authority be doing here? And essentially this is one where the local authority had commenced care proceedings. The assessments of the parents were not looking positive and the social worker team had referred the child's case to the ad M with a view to seeking approval to lodge an application for placement order. But the ad M the agency decision maker wanted more information on the family side. And as for the maternal side, uh the uh maternal side of the family had not wanted to be assessed as for the paternal side, the father did not wish to put his family forward. Uh He felt embarrassed, he didn't feel that they would be able to meet the child's needs in any event. So he didn't want them to be put forward. He didn't want to put them forward and he certainly didn't want the soldier could a guardian to go and speak to them. So this is where the local authority lodged an application under part 19 for permission from the court and and in the form of guidance as to whether or not to notify the paternal family, they had the details of the family. But like I said on the facts, the father here was stipulating that he did not wish the son guardian to speak to them. So really the local authority was looking for some guidance here as to what they should be doing here as to whether they should actually be speaking to the wider family uh in these uh circumstances. And this is where his lordship very much looked at what the duty was in relation to the position with assessing wider families. So what was the position here? And what should the local authority be doing. And his lordship very much went through consideration of the various pieces of statutory provision here. So there was not just the Children Activation line but also the provisions within the PLO practice direction to a also looking at the statutory guidance in relation to assessments. Uh And uh his lordship said that there was nothing within the primary legislation or the guidance or the case law otherwise, which placed an absolute duty upon local authorities to assess instead what the legislation was providing for. Ie we've got, for example, the Adoption Children Act 2002 section 14, where as I mentioned earlier, the duty is to look at the feasibility of the child remaining a member of the original family, their willingness and ability to look after the child to wish them feelings of the child considered in light of their age and understanding that is not the same as saying that there is an absolute duty to assess and therefore we must assess at all costs. So in that situation, what is to be done? And a paragraph 44 his lordship said that in light of the review of the statute of guidance, the decision was that on the facts, the local authorities should be allowed to speak to father's wider family. And the father was basically going to be given an opportunity to inform his parents himself. So the way the judge dealt with this is the judge said to the father, I am satisfied that there is no good reason why your parents should not be told about the child and therefore why they should not be asked as to whether they want to put themselves forward. So, what I'm going to do is I'm going to give you a little bit of time, a few weeks to speak to your family to see if um, you're content with them, becoming aware of this child. And therefore for them to potentially be given the option of being assessed if they want to. And if you refuse to inform them uh about the child, and I will be sending out the social work and the guardian for them to speak to the family themselves. So that's the way the judge dealt with it. But in coming to that decision, like I say on the facts here, the judge was satisfied that there was no good reason why the family should not be notified. But of course, there will be situations sometimes where the family should not be notified. And his lordship gave some examples there such as where there would be cases if for example, there's a history of domestic uh or family abuse where it would be unsafe for the child or the parent for a wider family to be involved in the life of a child or even to be made aware. So if for example, say the mother has had a child out of wedlock for example, she's kept the pregnancy a big secret. She hadn't told anybody she's had the baby without family finding out. And now she's worried about her safety that the child, if family found out there could be cultural religious considerations, which may impact on the issue of disclosure. For example, there may be concerns over the mental health of that person or their well being if disclosure was ordered, for example, so you can see those kind of situations. The court may well take the view, it would be disproportionate to notify the family. The other kind of situation we need to think about is if say the local authority already had information on a wider family and they were of the view that it's unlikely that that family would be suitable carers for the child. So again, that could be another reason you can think of where it may not be appropriate to notify the family. But here on the facts, none of those reasons were there or they appear to be. And therefore the court decided that uh on the facts, given the circumstances, the family would be notified. So staying with the positions surrounding the application of eb when nothing else will do. This is where again, in terms of duties of local authorities and parallel planning, we need to be clear about how far the duty goes if persons are being put forward. And what if there is effectively a conflict between the family coming forward and wanting to be assessed, particularly at a point at which the child has already been placed with prospective adopters. So therefore, what rights if any do the prospective adopters have in this regard? And this is what a case of VW is very important. This was a court appeal decision in 2016, leading judge Mohamed D by Lord Justice Macfarlane as he was then. And this was a case whereby his lordship then said, what is the approach then in deciding a child's long term future welfare? Once they've become settled in their perspective, adoptive placement and then later day, late in the day, there's a viable family placement as identified. What should happen? Bearing in mind section 22 A 32 F bearing in mind the welfare checklist section 14 of the AC A should discharge be taken from the perspective of doctors uh and a place with family. So really what, what should be happening and how does this time would really be the Supreme Court decision when nothing else will do when no one else fail? So if there is an alternative option, does that mean that adoption cannot be progressed in that regard? And how does this tie them with the adoption Children Act in that does the duty under section 14 F limit itself ie the feasibility of the child remaining with the original family in that regard. Is it limited to any blood relations or does it also include the relationship with prospector adopters. And how does this tie them with article eight of the European convention? Well, the case itself involved a child who was two years of age, local authority had ruled out the parents as potential carers and a local authority had lodged a care and placement proceedings and these were granted both orders. There had been attempts made in relation to his child to identify family. But due to the non cooper operation of the appearance of the maternal family, the local authority didn't have any knowledge at all of the paternal family and therefore were unable to trace them. So like I say, this child had been made subject to care and placement orders, child was subsequently placed with prospector adopters at um uh at the age of seven months, the child remained there and subsequently, they applied to adopt this child. So by the time this appeal was heard, the child had actually been now living with these prospective adopters for a period of some 17 months. And obviously, therefore, they had formed that bond that secure bond with this child. And therefore, that was really one of the key issues in this case in so far as well. Actually, how far does that relationship then that they have developed and formed with this child? Um materialize in that regard, what rights then have they acquired in so far as this is concerned? Well, the birth parents are doing this time whilst this was happening. The birth parents went on and had a second child. The local authority this time made inquiries with the parents. This time they had identified family and the grandparents, the paternal grandparents were identified, they became aware they were assessed and they had this other child play with them and they also became aware of this first child. So they sought for the first child. Are you the one who had been placed for adoption to actually be placed now uh with them, um there had been assessments done of them and they sought uh for that first child ID or the child to be placed with them was the local authority were pursuing a plan for adoption uh for that child. And uh this is where the guardian and the independent social workers supported a special guardianship with the paternal grandparents. And a law court made a special gunship order uh to the paternal grandparents which led to the appeal. And really the issue the court raised was this has said in U BS, of course, the president of Family Division had made it very clear that even if the child has been placed with prospector adopters, then that's not determinative. So even if the child has been living with prospective doctors in WE BS, the child had been living with a prospective doctors for a period of about a year. This that didn't make it determinative that uh the parent would not have the child potentially returning to their care. But of course, the longer the child has been with prospective doctors, then it's clearly going to have a greater adverse effect of disturbing the arrangements there. So clearly that has to be weighed up. And what the court here was also concerned about was the fact that the child. Therefore, here had been living with the prospector adopters. Now for about 17 months had obviously built up that relationship even though they were not birth family. This is where the adoption Children Act needs to really perhaps be relooked at again in terms of section 14 f in terms of the relationship which the child has or may have not just with birth family, but also with the perspective of doctors with whom they have been placed and the existence of a vi home with the child's biological grandparents shouldn't make them an option as a runner should make them a runner so to speak, but not an automatic winner. And one of the criticisms that was uh lodged against the independent social work and the guardian here was the fact that it was assumed that there was almost this presumption or this right for a child to be brought up by the natural family. And in fact, uh Lord Justice Macfarlane said that there is no such right in the Children Act, there is no provision which states that there is a presumption that a child should be brought up by natural family or birth family. In fact, the right is that that child has a right to be brought up in that place which best meets their best interests and that doesn't necessarily be with birth family. So in fact, here, the judge did take into account that the fact had formed a significant attachment and secure attachment with the perspective of doctors. That was a very strong feature, the disruption to the child given uh the the the stability and the secure attachment, there was going to be significant and bearing in mind that delay was prejudicial to the child. Uh the court on balance felt that uh the leave would not be granted to the grandparents in those circumstances. So this case of redouble is obviously very, very important by really bringing back into play. The fact that one does have to also look at the relationship which the child may have formed with the prospective adopters. And it's this case of red w which subsequent then led to the changes to the Adoption Children Act section one f uh 14, some paragraph f in particular about the relationship that the child has with any prospective doctors with whom they have been placed. So that also has to be seen and looked at in the balance in deciding whether or not to give leave. So on the facts here, the child was allowed to be adopted. Now, as I mentioned earlier, sometimes you'll have situations where parents may be willing to uh consent to their child actually being uh place for adoption. And this is where say you've got the mother and father to have had a child born to them outside proceedings. Let's say, uh they do not feel that they're in a position to be able to bring up that child themselves and they are wanting to put that child forward for adoption. And this is where they can then inform the local authority. And this is where schedule two of the adoption agency regulations, 2005 come into play particularly reg 20 this provides that uh what should be happening in this situation is the local authorities should be making a referral to Cafcass or CF CS coming in Wales and uh in circumstances where the parent is looking to relinquish the child and really consent for the child being placed for adoption and possibly adopted. And the local authority should be providing to cafcass various information including a certified copy of a child's birth certificate, the name and address of the parents and legal guardians who are willing to consent and also chronology of actions and decisions that the local authority have already taken. Uh They should also confirm that the adoption agency has counseled and explain to the parent the legal implications of consenting to placement and they should have provided the parent with information on that and such other information as may be appropriate, as I mentioned earlier because in this situation, we're looking at a situation where the child is being relinquished for adoption, as you remember mentioned earlier, this is where there is still that requirement. Therefore, to also refer the child's case to the adoption panel. So therefore there would be a consideration by the members in that panel as to whether or not to recommend that that child is suitable to be placed for adoption. And then subsequently any recommendation would then go to the AD M to invite him or her to look to see whether they, whether they will indeed ratify that recommendation. The current of these regulations in Wales are sh two of the adoption agencies, Wales regulations of 2005. Now let's assume then that uh we've got a situation whereby the child has now been placed with prospective adopters. We looked at that case of VW where the child had been living with the prospective adopters for some 17 months and the application was made by the parents, by the grandfather, by the father in particular on behalf of the grandparents. So let's say the child has now been living with prospective adopters and they put the application in, the parents are going to be notified and they may then instruct you to apply for leave to oppose the making of the adoption order. So they'll be applying under section 47 of the Adoption Children Act 2002. Now, some of you will be aware that as from the first of May 2023 funding for parents and persons with parent responsibility through the legal aid. Uh the um amendments to Las B, that's a legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders act amendment regulations of 2023 has become available. So that's now become non means. So basically, if there is a freestanding placement application or say there is a need to oppose adoption or say there is a freestanding uh special grant application saying private law that in those circumstances for the parent and people with pr the funding has become non means you still want to satisfy the merits but not the means. So let's say you've got a case where say you're instructed by the mother and she wishes to apply for leave to oppose the making of the adoption order. This most recent case of R and William illustrates the fact that the test under section 47 is intertwined into two elements. Firstly, you got to look to see whether or not there is a change in circumstances since the uh placement order was granted and what that change is. And secondly, one has to then look at whether the child's welfare requires leave to be granted. And that's where the child's welfare is paramount. And um the court therefore, like I say, has to look at what change of funding that's been in the circumstances since the placement order was made. And taking that into account should the court be revisiting the plan for adoption? And this is where the parent doesn't have to show a complete change in circumstance, the court will take into account the situation over all and really to see whether or not it's of a sufficient degree in those circumstances. And to enable the judge at the leave to a poll stage to make an informed decision as to whether or not there is that change. It's important. Therefore, this case says that when it comes to transcripts, uh when a judge is giving their reasons for making a replacement order, the court should be ordering the local authority to obtain a transcript of his judgment unless it's handed down a written version or made arrangements for their typical agreed and approved note. And uh the same applies would apply to as a final care order made. Although this case wasn't really looking at that in that regard. Now, as I mentioned earlier, when the social worker teams are putting together the child's permanence report, the CPR the card child assessment report that I mentioned that one of the key provisions within there is for them to ensure that there is provision made for a summary written by the agency's medical advisors to a child's health. Uh And also there needs to be a medical report provided of the child also. And this was something that was emphasized in this case of Somerset Council and NHS Commissioning Group and another. And um what the way in this case would also be of relevance in other local authority areas also. So this is whereby the local authority had applied for declaratory relief. On the part 18 of the family procedure rules into the lawfulness of placement orders that had been made over a period of four years in respect of a group of 10 Children. So placement orders had been made and in some cases, the Children had now been placed with prospective doctors. And in fact, adoption orders had been made. But the issue that arose here was that there was a question mark as to the lawfulness of those placement orders, given that it was found that a local authority in its capacity as an adoption agency had failed to comply with certain parts of the adoption agency's regulations. And that was in relation to the medical situation of these Children. And that is there was a breach firstly, of article 15 of these regulations uh in that the local authority had failed to make arrangements for the child to be examined by a doctor for the purpose of the adoption medical. And secondly, they had failed to obtain from that doctor, a written health report or to obtain advice from them that this was not necessary. So that was the first part and the second was a breach of art uh of article 17 of these regs where the written report IE dot CPR that I mentioned needs to contain a summary written by the medical advisor uh setting out uh the child's health history and uh any need for healthcare which may arise in the future. And um that hadn't been provided in the, the, the CPR, but it did appear that a fully updated child's Bonner's report for the child may have been prepared, but only at the point at which the placement proceedings were lodged. So not at the point at which the paperwork was being handed to the AD M and therefore the AD M wouldn't have had that information at the point at which they were making the decision. So again, you can see that uh there was concern being raised there and therefore her leadership did say that there need should therefore be consideration as to whether or not these orders, these placement orders that were made were therefore lawful and valid. Well, the matter was then referred to the president. So in April 2022 the president then handed down his judgment whereby the president did say that the applications for declaratory relief would be dismissed. There was no need for granting those orders. And that's because the president did say that uh in so far as the court was concerned, the decisions that the court makes as to whether to make a placement order and then subsequently to make an adoption order are not dependent upon whether or not the adoption agency regulations. 2005 are met. They have to effectively be following other criteria ie the criteria for making a placement or an adoption order or are not, whether or not there was a breach of the adoption as regulations in terms of uh the medical position. But instead the criteria for ie whether or not the child was subject to care or draw a threshold or met or if the child did not have a parent or guardian. And also whether there was a consent provided by the parent or whether the consent should be dispensed with, on a basis, the child doesn't have a parent or guardian or the parent is on the table of giving consent or whether the child's welfare required A IE under section 52 1 B. So that's the criteria for deciding when to make the placement order, not whether or not the um medical requirements uh were, were met or not. And uh his lordship did say that uh effectively in these circumstances, leave therefore, will only be granted to leave uh for leave to evoke a placement order is if there is a change of circumstances, the Warwickshire case dimension, they looked at that. We got to look to see what change of circumstances there is and whether the welfare of the child required it. And this was done later prod in subsequent decisions such as in the case of we see revocation of placement orders in 2020 and the chance therefore of of existing placement and adoption order has been set aside. His lordship said on the basis that that uh of matters related to child health uh were uh very unlikely in the circumstances. And it would only be very exceptional that that would be done in the circumstances. But nonetheless, there was still widespread ignorance in relation to non-compliance with these regulations. And therefore it was important for local authorities to review their procedures insofar as this was concerned now, in relation to post adoption contact, this is where you got this case of the bar post adoption contact. This 2019 decision. This was by the court of appeal. Again, the leading judge ma done by Sir Andrew mcfarlane and this is a case which looked at the issue of post adoption contact. So this was the parents who were saying that they wanted to have the possibility of at least twice a year face to face contact with their child. They said that they had been assessed and unfortunately due to their own uh learning difficulties and disabilities, they were unable to meet their child's needs. They were not going to be disrupting a placement in any way, but they wanted to maintain that link with their child. And um his lordship did say that the application was opposed by the prospective doctors. Uh There was the potential for having an important influence upon development of any long term contact arrangements and the law as it stood, even though the New Act came into effect. And section 51 A orders came into effect, the law remained. His lordship said that there may be justification in considering some form of direct contact in limited cases. But the ultimate decision as to what was to take place was for the doctors. And it would be an unusual, extremely unusual practice for the court to impose a contrary arrangement against wishes of adopters. And they say for extremely unusual circumstances, no order would be made to compel doctors to accept contact, which they did not agree with. This is something that the president has recently opened up as a possible debate. And this is where there was a speech by the president of the family division earlier this year and last year earlier, this year was a part two of this speech. It was on the 17th of May this year and the president has said that it now seems that letterbox contact can no longer be seen as the necessary appropriate regime for many cases. And it has been a norm for a long time, but should it, and, and really any contact should be, be justified if it's for the benefit of a child. And with that in mind, the prisoner has now very much opened up the debate so that the question of contact should never be seen as an add on issue either at the placement or the stage or at the final adoption stage. And it should be seen as an integral part of a child support package. And therefore really we need really further consideration as to whether in these cases that we're dealing with, there should be a move towards permitting in appropriate cases, more face to face and therefore direct contact, post adoption. So you can see this is something which will obviously continue to be debated and therefore considered potentially and if there is a need for change, then of course, it's going to be parliament who need to be looking at potentially being invited to amend the primary legislation on this. Ok. So there we are. So that brings me to the end of this session. So you can see we've covered a fair bit of information today looking at uh in both sessions, the various duties that local authorities are in relation to assessments. We looked at the care planning regulations, we looked at the duties in relation to contact. We've looked at the position with fostering. We've looked at the position with uh the position with the uh adoption planning as well in that regard. And I hope therefore this has been useful to give you a very useful uptake as to how these duties all fit together. And I thank you very much indeed for listening. I hope that's been useful and I'll speak to you next time. Thanks very much. Bye for now.
Recorded Webinar - Part 1
Release Date: Tuesday 1st October 2024
3089 Users
170 Courses
156 Reviews