Adoption - Panels, Placement Orders and Procedure

Hello. Welcome, everybody. My name's after Mahmoud on. I'm very pleased to welcome you to today's session through data law. This is the one hour session where I'm going to be going through with you. Somebody issues surrounding adoption, particularly when we're looking at panels, adoption panels, placement orders, revocation off placement orders in particular. ANDI also leave to oppose as well as some of the procedure. So a number of issues trying to cover with you today in so far as this area off family and child care law. So we'll be looking at some of the regulations, the adoption agencies regulations in particular, on some of the changes that have recently come about. As a result, off the covered 19 pandemic, I'll be taking you through some of the key principles surrounding the adoption agencies. Regulations on also will be looking at some of the changes that came about as a result of the Adoption Children Act of 2000 and two some years ago. Also throughout the session, I aim to talk to you about leave to revoke placement orders on also the current theory, thinking and case law banning leave to oppose the making off adoption orders. And towards the end of today's session, I'll be taking you through somebody. Developments in so far as some of the case law developments on, and we'll also look at somebody guidance to practice guidance given by the president off the family division. My aim was also to also give you a nice idea and update insofar as where we are with adoption panels and how they saw fits in vain much would somebody current thinking. So there's a number of slides that are prepared. Obviously, I work through these over the course of the hour on these will then give you useful information going forward with trying to understand this area. Okay, so I put the copyright acknowledgment there crying copyright and also the D. F. As a corporate author. Right now, one of the first things we need to be asking ourselves is this. What do we actually mean by parallel planning? This is a term, of course, which is often used in many cases when you're dealing with Children matters on. It's a term that when you're dealing with this, you need to appreciate that when local authorities commence care proceedings on, sometimes when they don't even go down that we took care proceedings. It may be a freestanding application for a placement order, then whether they're in proceedings or not, whether they acting outside the proceedings, there is a duty upon them to adequately parallel plan or twin track planners. We call it on. This is the idea that even if say, the local authority are working very much towards s a rehabilitation of the child into care off, say the mother and father. They also need to leave open the option options and the possibility of looking at placement really outside that of the modern father. So maybe with extended family members. So this is where you're looking at the idea of kinship care in particular, kinship placements or connected persons assessment, as we often I refer to it. But also in addition to that, they would then need to go beyond that. And this is where one has to then look at beyond family and friends and look the possibility of maybe fostering outside of family and even, of course, adoption in appropriate cases on this is where this case of drink it's an old case now, but it's a very significant one emphasizes the need for twin track planning, so subject to limited exceptions, there is a requirement to certainly ensure that in appropriate cases the matter. The child's cases referred to the a. D m, the agency decision maker. Now what I mean by that is this. Let's say you're in a case where by you in a care case on the local thought you are progressing towards assessing parents. They're also going down the route of assessing family members. So you're looking at maybe a connected persons assessment offside a grandmother. Maybe she's being assessed. There's a foster care which has been assessed potentially as a special guardian. But if the situation arises, that adoption, maybe a possibility and a necessity for this child, then, since September 2012, when there was some changes that came in both England, the wells, subject to some limited exceptions to be up to pursue adoption for that child. It is necessary to refer that child's case to what's called the a D m, the agency decision maker, the ADM, so as to seek a decision from him or her as to whether or not to pursue a plan for adoption for that child on that would ordinarily be by way of applied for a placement order. Now the ADM is a senior associates, his manager. So he or she will be in a position to be able to make an informed decision based, of course, on the paperwork that has been presented to them by both the legal team and indeed also the social work team accordingly. So very, very important to bear in mind that process. So when the Adoption and Children Act came into play some years ago, things came in principally in December at 2000, on, um, five in particular December at the end of December 2005. So when this first came into play, then a number of issues that were brought into play in that regard. So first and foremost, for example, you can see the first point that I made here is the welfare off the child was now the courts paramount consideration. It was no longer the first consideration, and that's really interesting because up until now, having had practiced in adoption law prior to this act under the old adoption acts of 76 what you found was, in fact, that the welfare of the child was, of course, the court's first consideration, but not not Paramount that we got in that dead, of course, cause difficulties in some cases, you could imagine. So what's happened is this. Actors very much brought this 2002 worked very much in line with the Children Act off 18 9 in that regard. Okay, there's also the disappearing pretty much off what was known as freeing orders in those days. And remember when I first started in this area's back in the early nineties, we used to have freeing orders. The effect of that was it for adoption Agency applied to free a child for adoption, and the parents at that stage lost their parental responsibility for the child. But these have been replaced principally by the solar scheme now known as placement orders, Of course, which had been in place for some time on the effect of that is that parental responsibility of the parents is not extinguish at that stage. Instead, instead, the parents will continue to share parental responsibility with the adoption agency and also when the child is actually place with prospective adopters, also with the prospective adopters. Also, there was also going to be a change in the legal test in dispensing with consent, so many of you will be familiar with section 50 to 1 A and section 50 to 1. Be off the adoption Children acting. We tend to use section 52 1 B in many cases where by the local authority would seek to dispense with parental consent on the basis that the welfare of the child requires it. This act also brought in the concept off what's known as advanced consent decided. For example, the birth mother sought to give her baby up for adoption. Then she could do so by consenting under Section 19 of the act to her child being placed for adoption. But in addition to that, she could also given advance consent under Section 20 off the Adoption Children Act of 2000, to where she's also saying that I'm consenting to my child actually being placed for adoption on indeed also being adopted thereafter. So in fact, that's where the advanced element comes in. This act also brought in the concept of special guards. Support is that some of you will be familiar with on also it opened up the categories of persons who could apply to become adoptive parents, including particular unmarried couples and also same sex couples. So you can see this act made quite significant inroads and so far is the position with adoption is concerned. So let's just spend a little bit more time looking at somebody's principles than maybe in a bit more detail. So, firstly, the welfare principle now this is where, as I just mentioned earlier, the welfare of a child under this act became the paramount consideration. So you can see there's a lot of overlap between what's here insofar as the position with the Children Act of 89 on the adoption of Children Act of 2000 to sort of welfare. And Charlie is, of course, paramount consideration. Okay, and that's both for a court to certainly way up when deciding on the child's future on also, indeed, the adoption agency. Then you got the no delay principal Section 13 where you can see here. That delay, of course, can be prejudicial to the child's welfare and two D decisions made, and hence, with that in mind, it's very important to bear in mind that delays kept him any moment, even though we don't have 26 weeks. Technically, that applies to placement applications because often a placement application would be large to be heard alongside care proceedings. You've then got, of course, Section 32 of the Children Act, which comes into play in terms of ensuring that delays kept her minimum. And in any event, we should be looking to complete the proceedings within 26 weeks so you can see somebody elements there would come into play in that regard linked with that. Then you've also got the, uh, the other elements off the welfare principle. So in particular, Section 14 on this is not the same as but similar to the position with the welfare principle under the Children Act off 89. So you can see it does have, ah, fair number of similarities in many respects. Okay, so, for example, you can see this provision here. So Section one subsection four off the welfare check list. There's a number of factors here, such as, for example, you've got the situation whereby one has to look at the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child again considered in light off their age on their understanding. But the key one here, which ties in with the position with, in particular the need for parlor planning, is under Section 14 f, for example. G. It requires adoption agency to have regard to a number of key issues not only the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child, as we mentioned. Consider the light of the agent understanding and not just looking at the child's particular needs, but more so when you look at some of the latest sub paragraphs in Section one for such a sub paragraph C, which is a likely effect on the child off throughout his or her life off season two maybe a member off the original family. And that's where the concept of Palo planning very much comes into play again. You can see Andi this idea that if therefore there is going to be a plan off, potentially placing a child for adoption than has the local authority in its capacity as an adoption is he has the court considered the feasibility of this child remaining a member off the original family and tied him with that. You can see somebody other parameters there, such as a child's age, sex and background. On also sub paragraph f. Like mentioned, the relationship with the child has with relatives on with any other person in whom the agency considers relevant. It's a very, very important to take down to account. So you, for example, you've got a grandmother they, an uncle and aunt, has the local authority look to assess in them. And if not, why not? Because, of course, if the plan does become a one of adoption, then what has the authority down in terms of looking at the feasibility off the chart, remaining a member off the original family on that very much ties in, then with some of the other factors here, as I mentioned. So you can see, for example, have mentioned a sub paragraph, Uh, certainly G, for example, which is the ability and willingness of any other relatives or any other person for that regard. I'll specifically mentioned that term shortly when we look at what we mean by any other person to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop, and also the wishes and feelings of the child's relatives or any other person and again any other person has been changed recently, which I'll come onto in in on that one. Okay, on what happened is we look at a case called re W a bit later 2016 case by the Court of Appeal. But as a result of that case, there was pressure put on the government to bring about some change to the, uh, the Adoption Children Act on welfare. Checklist on that came about as a result of the Children's Social Work Act of 2017. Now, this got royal Assent on the 27th of April 2017. On amongst the various changes, sort of changes that this act brought in was this when it came to plans for adoption that the adoption of Children Act was amended so that as from the 31st of October 2017, when both accord and indeed the adoption agency is coming to a decision relating to the adoption of a child, they need to consider the child's relationship with prospective adopters if the child has been placed with them. So that was going to be an amendment which was going to be brought in to the Axon Now, since they first of October 2017. This provision has in fact, been amended so that now Section 14 reads as follows in terms of matters to which the court is to have regarding coming to a decision. Sub paragraph F has been suffix specifically amended now to provide for this provision here, where, after the word relatives you remember said earlier that it previously said in so far as relatives is concerned and any other person now in so far as any other person that's been replaced with the words with any person who is a prospective adopter with whom the child is placed So you can see it's brought in this particular provision here. Now what does that actually mean in practice? Well, essentially, what it will mean is this. If you've got a situation where say, I was acting for the local authority and we had a case where about a child, let's let's call in Jim. Let's say Jim was placed for adoption, Let's say, and the plan is one of adoption for him, so he has been placed with prospective adopters. He's been with them for, say, 24 months now, and they have now largely application to adopt this child. Then, when it comes to deciding whether not to make the adoption order because the judge is obliged to consider welfare check list your judge has to look at, amongst other factors, uh, the relationship that the child has or likely to have, the feasibility of that child remained a member of not just original family, but also the relationship the child has with any other person who is a perspective dr with whom the child is placed. So essentially you have to put the prospective adopters who he or she has built up a relationship with on a par with the other family members to make sure that it's equally evenly balanced. Therefore, insofar is looking at what impact there will be on a child if, for example, he is adopted and therefore his loss of relationship with his birth family extended family on. If he's rehabilitated back to birth family, then what's the impact going to be on his relationship with prospective adopters, for whom is built up a relationship with So you can see it's a question of balancing that, therefore why the Adoption and Children Act was amended to make provision for just that let's now spend some time looking at some of the processes for adoption. As I mentioned earlier, I wanted to spend some time looking at the position with the adoption agencies regulations. Now we've got the regs both in England. We've got the adoption agencies regulations of 2005 in England, the Welsh equivalent, the corresponding brush equivalent on the adoption agencies, Wales amendment regs, a Saudi adoption agencies, whales rigs of 2005. And and those were subsequently amended back in 2012. Also. Okay, Andi, both off the English and Welsh Briggs came into effect initially back in December 2005, and and there were subsequent amendments brought in and have continued to be brought in since then. Okay, so if we just look at maybe English regs that although the equivalent Welsh regulations will say the same thing in many respects, the English legs then provided for the fact that Regulation Three requires adoption agencies to establish what's known as an adoption panel. This is where sometimes lawyers do perhaps not quite understand what their role under functions off panels are. Okay, this is how it works. If you think of it like this, up until September 2012. Panels used to fulfill three requirements. Now, firstly, who is a panel? What is a panel or panel? Consists of a number of people who will sit in this room in this meeting, essentially, in this meeting, known as a panel. Often it will consist off a senior soldiers. His manager, the uh local authorities medical adviser, Permanency adviser advises about what panel can and cannot do on. You must have at least one independent member who is not involved or based with the local authorities. It's often it will be a volunteer who will then be non local authority base. So there'll be often, um, anyone. People of five Andi people who will set in panel. Uh, there is a central list of people who will be taken from in terms off making up the panel. There is no maximum but identify. Sometimes around 10 people, sometimes more, sometimes less will set in panel. But there needs to be minimum off. Five to make it court. Andi. The purpose of panel is this. There's three functions up until September 2012 panels used to fulfill the first is this. If we took that child I mentioned the hypothetical case off Jim, for example, let's say he's involved in care. Proceedings on his case is going through, so he's subject to an interim care order on adoption becomes a possibility. Then up until September 2012, his case would have to be referred to adoption panel. So those five or so people like to say he would look at his case. They will then have certain paperwork given to them with a view to them, inviting them under Regulation 18 of the adoption agencies Regs of 2005 to come to a view as to whether they would recommend that Jim is somebody who is suitable to be placed for adoption so they would consider the paperwork that would be given to them by the social worker, teens and illegal teams with a view to making a recommendation. That recommendation, and under Gregg, 19, would then go to what's called the agency Decision Maker, who has a mentioned earlier is a senior sources services manager. He or she would then also look at the recommendation would also look at the paperwork, and they will then decide based on that, based on further information that they may require as to whether to recommend on gun, in fact, to decide on whether that child is suitable to be placed for adoption. If they said yes that the local thought would there be looking to place to charge for adoption okay, by way of making the application. So there was stuff to apply for authority to be sanctioned by the court to enable to try to be placed for adoption. So that was one of the functions of panels up until September 2012, now just pausing there for a minute. For May, one of the documents that panel adoption panel would be provided in coming to that recommendation under vague 18 would be. This document, known as the Permanence Report on this is covered in English legs under Regulation 17. This is known as the Permanence Report in Wales. The equivalent document is known as a child's written report. Okay, so it's all the child's assessment reports. All the term does vary, but essentially de format of it is the same. So whether it's a CPR in England or whether it's the car in Wales, the child assessment report of the child's bonus report it still has to contain certain factors, and this is essentially what it's got to consist off. So there's a number of requirements. It's a detailed report, and first and foremost is going to provide details about the child and their families or background about the child health. Their education, uh, where they are in terms of the process on also about the family, particularly the mother father background, education, experience of off caring for the child and any concerns about any convictions, cautions Home environment, background. Survey much a full account off their personal circumstances that it needs to be a summer it and by the agency's medical advisers to Charles Health. So you don't need a four medical reports such, but you need medical advisor who's given a view under Charles General Health Andi, for example, if the child does have any disabilities, any general health issues and of course, those need to them behind that so that Andi perspective doctors are aware of what that child's particularly needs, maybe so that they couldn't address them. And then you got wishing feelings of the child again considered in light off their age on their understanding. You also then looking at the wishing feelings of the child's parents of guardian. When I say guardian here, I'm talking about not the Children's guardian, of course. Who's the voice of a child in these proceedings? I'm talking about the legal guardian who may be appointed under, for example, Section five of the Children active 89 on also any other person who is considered relevant on fire. The views off the agency about the child's need for contact with the parent of guarding our relatives. That it's a very detailed report that's put together okay in addition to that. And this is the other crux of the form he needs to contain assessment of a child's emotional behavior development on assessment of the parenting capacity. So that's where to complete the CPR, the child's permanent report. The needs to have been done. The parenting capacity assessments are very, very important to get those donors swiftly as possible to minimize the potential delay to the child and also the technology off the decisions that were taken and the actions by the local authority. So what has the local authority done? What steps are taken? What assessments have been done not just of the parents but indeed, off extended family members. How have the commenter decision? They have a chronological account off That, and also sub paragraph nine, is very, very important. Analysis off the options for future Care of the child, which has been considered why placement for adoption is considered. This is basically, well, look at this later. This is where the re BS analysis comes in. The arguments for and against what? The arguments for saying rehabilitation. What the drawbacks of that. What's the arguments for placement with kinship care is what's the drawbacks? What's the arguments for fostering two drawbacks? What's the arguments for adoption? So it's effectively balancing or the realistic options on why the or adoption agency have come to the decision that they have off seeking to pursue a plan for adoption. For this child. Notice, uh, perfect report must be sent to the adoption panel. Type very, very important that it sent there so they can obviously read that. Which means if I then go back again to before September 2012. As I mentioned, if Jim an example, I used earlier fees. If the plan for him was to become one of potentially adoption, then the adoption panel, as I mentioned would have had, amongst other papers, the CPR, the Charles Permanence report provided time. They also need to have sight of the experts reports. They also need to have been provided with legal advice. They need to have been provided with three outcome off the what's called a looked after reviews, whereby the change would have the planet would have been changed from one of Paulo, or twin trap planning, to one of single trap plan for adoption. So you can see there's a lot of information that panel would then need. And in turn, the ADM would need to then come to a view as to whether this child is suitable to be placed for adoption Now. That was a very important role of panel panels still fulfill that role, but since September 2012, they are now limited to only fulfilling that role, principally in relation to what's called relinquished Children. Are you those Children who? The mother and father, if he's got parental responsibility, have given up for adoption under regulations 19 and 20 or certainly either or both off the Adoption and Children Act of 2002, Now you don't get many of those cases understandably. But if a parent does wish to relinquish the child, then that's where that Charles case still needs to be referred to. Adoption panel for them to make the recommendation on an intern for that recommendation in court. The ADM But for all other cases. So in the case I mentioned with Jim will say he's in care proceedings, and the plan does become one of potential adoption. Then, since September 2012, you wouldn't refer his case to adoption panel anymore. You would go straight to the agency decision maker. So therefore, what other functions are they of? Panels? Well, the other functions are these, say, I wanted to be an adopter. I would then have to go through adoption process on the process of effectively what's known as a stage one on stage to process. Once that's happened on have been assessed, then my case would have to go to adoption panel on they would consider my case. They would ask lots of questions. My social work would be there on day. There would be a lot of questions put to me to then enable panel to give a recommendation as to whether to enable me to be approved, recommended, Rather was a potential adopter. But that recommendation and goes to the ADM Okay, So even though panel make the recommendation, uh, it ultimately goes to the ADM to then decide The third purpose of panel is to sit us what's called a matching panel. So some of you may have heard that concept matching panel where or a linking panel. And that's where if we take the case with Jim again, an example that have been using, let's say he's may subject replacement order. Let's say we do find prospective adopters for him. So we find Jack and Jill, for example, for him. He has potential adopters okay, on Jack and Jews have Bean approved as potential adopters and their profile meets that off. Jim. So this is where the child and the jack and jewels, you know, the adopters, uh, social workers will meet, profiles will be exchanged, and the aim is to then go to adoption panel to seek to match that child with those prospective adopters. So that's very much the aim of this. To try and match the two of them unless we're panel sit is what's called matching panels or linking meetings. They make the recommendation and in turn, that would then go toothy 80 Agency decision making again so you can see panels will fulfill certainly to in many in some cases, three functions. Three very, very important functions. Okay, that's where we have seen some change, in fact. So there's been some recent changes, but only in England. In so far as the position with panels are concerned, and also with the regulations. This has been a za result of the covered 19 pandemic. So what we've now got is we've got these regs that came into effect not to longer God. He's came in on the 24th of April. They are only in place until the 25th of September, subject to review on the only apply in England. Okay, they have made some changes not just in relation to adoption, but also in relation to care, planning, care, planning, regulations and also in relation to private fostering or so in relation to adoption. Briefly, the changes are these because off course, off covered 19 and the situation of the virus and obviously the rink risk of infection. Because of that, uh, There has been a remover now off the duty upon a date adoption agencies to refer cases to adoption panel So if that's so inappropriate in the circumstances, they can go straight to the agency decision maker rather than going to an agency doing adoption panel, a Constitution adoption panel. Having said that, my experience has been and has shown, having had spoken to a number of authorities more, more local authorities actually using remote panels. Because, of course, just like we are with remote hearings, just like we are with a lot more remote training. For example, um, you'll find the same principle when it comes to panels. So there are remote panels and therefore, of course, those were being constituted in that regard. There's also been amendments to the adoption approval process, so there's a stage one on the stage to that I mentioned to. Stage One is normally two months. Then he got the Stage two, which is another four months. Certain information needs to obtain normally at Stage one, such as the enhance DBS checks on the medical information before you move on to stage two, but now it's possible to move on to stage two even without that information, as long as it's obtained by the end of the stage to so again, The aim of these regs is famous to enable adoption agencies to continue doing what they need to do. But bearing in mind the limitations because of the situation with the virus. So you can see the thinking behind that right? What I'm now going to be looking at them is the position at surrounding what happens when somebody wants to apply for revocation off a placement order. So let's assume taken example off Jim that I mentioned earlier. Okay, let's say we've got the situation and where Jim has now, Bean, uh, subject to a placement order, is subject to a Cayman placement order. Let's say sort of kept ceilings on the place from seniors are now concluded. Okay. The adoption agency have now been family finding, and they have found potential doctors for him say they have found Jack and do an example that I mentioned earlier. So they are then looking to place the child would adopt with those perspective doctors. And as we said, unlike freeing orders that we used to have previously when at the point I wish the charters may subject to freeing order. The parents would lose their parental responsibility with a placement order on the Section 21 of the Adoption Children Act of 2000 to a placement order does not revolt the parental responsibility of the parents they retain it on. In fact, even when the child is placed with prospective adopters, they still maintain their parental responsibility. So, in fact, it shared between the adoption agency it shared between the parents would appear on it shared between the prospective adopters. So Aled, three of them have parental responsibility in that regard. And then it's up to the adoption agency, of course, to decide the extent to which the pair in Sunday perspective adopt his exercise that PR. But the question we need to ask ourselves is this. If I was for the parent and mother or father instructed me and said Looks after I wish to apply for revocation of the placement order under Section 24 I have changed my life of now a lot more secure, a lot more stable in my environment. I really wanna push to see if I can have my child returned back into my care, then the first thing I need to be doing is checking with the local authority in its capacity as adoption agency to see whether or not they have placed a chart for adoption. So that's the first thing I should be doing on. To do that. I need to check with them. Has a child being placed now? What this case of C City Council, another's tells you, is a child of place for adoption at the point at which the introductions have Bean finished? What I mean by that is this. If let's say we have the adoption panel, sitting today is a matching linking meeting, so that happens today under they recommend. Then that recommendation, as I said earlier, goes to the agency decision maker who would be there invited to approve. So let's say they ratify that recommendation. Then there's a process of introductions where that child will now meet the perspective doctors for the very first time so far, there's been profiles, exchange. There's been information exchange, but the child is actually living with them yet and hasn't madam yet, so to speak. So that's where that introduction process takes place, which may be say, week, sometimes longer on the child will be seeing Mawr Mortars Perspective doctors as that week progresses and even longer when that introductory period has finished and the child is now living with those prospective adopters, so has moved in his with them overnight. Once that process of introductions has been completed, the child has been placed, and that's what we mean by a child being placed on. If that's the case than those of it for parents, you won't be able to go for revocation of the placement order at that stage. But the child has already been placed. Okay, of course, the court can still revoked the placement order, but you will have local standard to be able to bring that application. So that's why you need to check with the authority. Where are they with that process? Have they placed a child or not? Okay, so here the court said that child was not placed for adoption until they began to live with the perspective doctors, or if they're already living with a prospective doctors but say in the capacity has maybe foster care is it's when they've changed. Their status from one of foster care is to one off prospective adopters. So that's where you go. Look at that right now. Let's look at the application for revocation of placement. Told us so. Let's have a child has now been placed. Eso He hasn't been placed for adoption yet, so the local authorities are still looking for potential carers so they haven't placed on before. I contact a local authority on, um, for mother or father, and we wish to apply for revocation. What? This case of what it should cancel and others tells us this was a 2008 case is that the welfare of a child is, of course, a relevant consideration to an application under section 24 for leave to revoke the placement order. Okay, But you know, it's a relevant consideration is not the paramount consideration. You can be relevant. The key consideration is the prospects off success. So you gotta be able to satisfy the court that this proposed application has a real prospect of success. So the court would need to look to see Firstly is they're changing circumstances, and if so, what are those on the welfare of a child is such that that's considered but is there really prospect of success on here on the fax, Even though Mother had demonstrated some change, for example, she did now begin to address her drug addiction, a drug habit on. Also, as for the violent partner he had, he had been had diseased in itself. The court felt that even though Mother was on the road to making change, it wasn't regarded as being at a level where it was sufficiently advanced enough. And if on that basis, the court didn't feel that they could give mother leave to revoke at that stage. Okay, now, this is where a few years ago we had this very important case of re be It's a very, very significant case, and this is a court of appeal case back on the 12th of decided and handed down on the 12th of June 2013. So it's been around that for some seven years. Interestingly, even though the dissented judgment was by Baroness Hale. Ah, lot of the comments in this case by Her Ladyship are once that often many, many lawyers will often we've be referred to as, well, the court. So when it comes to plans for adoption, there were several references in history court judgment to the effect that when it comes to the test for several relationship between a child and a parent, then it's such that it's very strict on Onley, in exceptional circumstances where nothing else will do. And as many of you will know, this is the key terminology that we use in this field. Nothing else will do. It doesn't mean that adoption is almost something that shouldn't be achieved or attained or a spy towards. Quite the contrary, If adoption is in that child's best interests, it should be pursued without fail. But when it comes to plans for adoption, serving the parental link should only be done where it is exceptional when nothing else will do. This brings us back to what I said earlier about the adoption on Children at Welfare Check list under Section one for you. Remember said earlier that the judge has to look at under section one subsection four subsection F, for example, the feasibility of a child remaining a member of the original family so you can see it comes back to that again on, therefore, when local authorities are pursuing a plan for adoption, this is why it's imperative upon them to be able to show. Look, these all the efforts were made to look at the possibility of the child remaining with the original family. We've looked at parents. It's not a realistic option for these reasons. We've looked at extended family. It's not feasible. This child, given her age, the level of maturity there needs the need for stability security not just for now, not just until they're 18 put for the rest of their life. We would say that their best interests will be served by way of adoption. Anything less won't give them the security, uh, that they need and the and the permanency that they're required to meet their specific identified needs. That's where this case of re becomes in a very, very important decision on the other leading authority many of you will know about it's the case of Re Bs. OK, this was another case handed down in the same year 17th of September. This was handed down Sophie years after a few months rather after re be, uh, the leading judgments handed down by the then president of the family division, Sir James Mumby. Now the facts of this case, we're about a leaf. Proposed the making of an adoption order. But actually, this case has even more universal application toe all areas off. Not just Children law, but family law. Indeed, other areas of law. Because this is the case which talks very much about the need to consider all realistic options. This is a case which emphasizes how important it is to look at the need to look at arguments for and against order varied, realistic options. So the idea is that you don't just say right, mother and Father, you're not feasible. Therefore, we're looking at adoption. What about alternatives? What about alternative ways of having the child place with mother and father about having other safeguards in place? What about them moving in with somebody? What about that person moving in with them, for example? So you go look at those options. There's also the possibility of maybe, of course, friends and family connected persons fostering within the family. So re bs talks about realistic options and therefore looking at the arguments for and against. But in terms of adoption, how did this supply? Well, this was a case where the mother thought leave to oppose the making of the adoption orders. So what happened is her two Children who were my subject to who had been made subject? Thio Kevin. Placement orders had been placed with prospective adopters. Aunt had been with them for some time. If I remember, there were aged five and 70 five member and mother had been able to change a lot off the difficulties in her own life. So she sought for permission to revoke the Adopt, the to oppose the making of the adoption order, and she applied in the Section 47 subsection five of the act on. There's a two pronged test there that she's got to satisfy the court on first on four more. She's gonna be a show that there has been a change in circumstances. Now that bit she was, she was able to demonstrate that she was a lot more stable in her life. She was a lot more secure. She was able to streamline Andi, really address those things which were important in her life. So that bitch she'd done. But it's the second bit of the test was the welfare of the child. Such that leave should be granted on. That's the second bit even though she satisfied the first element is the second element where the wealth of a child was such that the court felt that leave can and should not be granted in the circumstances. Ondas. Where she appealed the matter went to the court of appeal. But in fact the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court decision. Now what re best and highlights is this first of foremost? What is the test? What is the test for getting leave to oppose the making off? An adoption order on this is where 1 may applying to section 47 7 or 45 7 47 5 Sorry on that is the court cannot give leave unless they are satisfied that firstly, there has been a change in circumstances since the the child was subject to the order. So consent of a parent was given all the placement order was made So your shoulder has been a change in circumstances first and foremost on secondly, the world feel the child is such that one has to show that leave should be granted. Okay, so two stage approach firstly, as you can see, has there been a change in circumstances. Secondly, should leave be given in relation to this second question? There are two aspects there. E Should we give leave based on welfare? Firstly, what's the ultimate prospects of success if he's given leave? So you concede similar, akin to what we said earlier about lead to revolt placement order applications. So what's the ultimate prospects of success who were given leave on? Secondly, the court needs to ask themselves, What's the impact on the child of two? Parent is always not given leave to oppose. That's what welfare comes in. So on the facts here, his lordship felt that if we do give you leave, the impact on the Children is going to is effectively going to be. They potentially will remember the home situation they were in. The dysfunctional situation that we're in will bring back those memories that I have such a negative impact on the Children that we simply couldn't allow them to go through that. And that's where even though Mother did very well on His Lordship, which to commend her for that and which to recommend that she does better herself, I don't want to put their parents off in the future of imply for leave on the facts of this case, his lordship felt that the welfare of a child was such that leave could not be granted and therefore wouldn't be in the circumstances. So concedes quite a harsh and difficult test to be of dissatisfied a court on when it comes to this. Okay, now there's been other cases since, of course, which has looked at this. So firstly, there's a case of re are, for example, a 2014 decision. This was called to appeal on again. This was the then president of the family division, Sir James Mumby, because around this time there was a lot off debate, judicial debate, academic debate on debate amongst professionals and lawyers as to whether re Bs has changed the goalpost. In that Was it almost saying that adoption is almost seen as a last resort, whereby it z something that shouldn't be pursued unless it's absolutely exceptional? But in fact, his lordship said no, he said, re Bs hasn't changed the law in any way. If adoption is in the child's best interest, local authorities should not shy away from pursuing it on. Judges shouldn't shy away from making the order if it's felt necessary in the circumstances. Okay, on this idea of carrying a holistic evaluation has been something that has been followed through since three Bs and in fact, has been followed through so many cases. Even now, as of 2020 this this approach continues to be followed through going forward. So the idea off Karen got a holistic evaluation. When you're looking at the pros and cons off, each realistic option is something that has had to be pursued going forward. So, for example, in the case of Ri P of 2016, this was one of many cases which was emphasized the need for that. So here the court also picked up on the fact that you wouldn't necessarily us require an experienced judge toe have to perform the welfare review in both your Children. I can do option Children act in a way where they are setting it out laboriously by rehearsing each item on what what really corporal was saying here is a judge doesn't have to spell it out in the judgment by saying right, I'm now considering this element. This element is relevant for this reason, and this element is they don't have to spell it out as obvious as long as, of course, they have referred to it. That made reference to it. And the judgment is sufficiently sound to satisfy those who may challenge it that this is something that's not been overlooked. But certainly many judges from my experience will go to the welfare check lists of both the Children Act on the adoption Children acting quite some detail in their judgments. Andi Also in terms of the lack of analysis, this is where, uh, there was a requirement as we BSS to compare realistic option sort of judge needed to provide a comparison of each option pros and cons that hadn't been done on the facts on, therefore, why there was that level off criticism leveled against the judge there. Now, last year there was this case of re W, which was another useful interesting case on revocation off placement orders. This was a quarter pure decision leaving judgment handed down by Lady Justice King on. This is a case where child had been made subject to care. Emplacement told us only to find that on appeal. They were set aside and thus on the basis that they hadn't been a thorough enough analysis through the welfare check list off the feasibility of the child remaining a member of the original family. This was a case where, by a particular family member who had been approved and recommended as a potential long term care was later not approved because they had failed to disclose the fact that their own child, when they were younger, had been sexually abused. But what wasn't investigated on looked at was, why did they refused to disclose that information? It's not necessarily that they were trying to hide that from the authorities because that they thought that if I disclose this information, it may suggest that I'm not suitable to care. There may have hidden that information because, well, frankly, they found it very difficult to talk about Their own child had been sexually abused, and therefore it's not something that people convey openly and honestly talk about as easily. So therefore, there wasn't done enough here in terms of the analysis to see whether it was feasible for the child to be made for the child to remain with the original birth family as opposed to being made subject to Karin placement orders and therefore this is a recent example of one were care on placement orders were in fact set aside. Now one of the other things we do need to ask ourselves when we're dealing with these types of cases. How far the local authorities have to go when they are looking at assessing wider family sword is an excellent case on this. Last year, this was a case of re Hey, H thesis was a case handed down by Mr Justice Cobb sitting in the family court on, As you can see here is off emphasized what this case raises. That is the issue as to whether a local authority is required either by statute or otherwise, to notify why the family members of the existence of the child here or to assess him when they are not being proposed by the parents as potential alternative care is, and also where parents either both from specifically, do not wish the wider family to be involved. Okay, so this could be a situation where, say, the mother in this case it was the father of the child who basically was stipulated. Her local authorities say look, I am consenting. Too much are being placed for adoption. The mother is supporting that. I do not want you to approach my family because when he was saying he was embarrassed that they would become aware of the fact that he wasn't able to look after his child, he then said that he didn't feel that they would be able to meet the child's needs. So he gave his reasons. But ultimately he was saying that he did not wish his wider family to be told on. That's where a local authority thought will have far do our duties go? Do you simply go on the say so of the parent, or is there wider duty upon us to make those enquiries? And even though the assessments of the parents were not looking positive, so rehabilitation on the fax was not a feasible looking, feasible family members. The parents on the side of the family members on the mother's side had to come forward but did not wish to subsequently, then take any assessments further like to say the father didn't wish to put his family members forward on. That's where the local authority needed guidance from the court. What do we do? Do we simply going to say, sort of, Father, do we go further? And that's where if you do have these types of situations, I would suggest that you think about using what's called a part 19 procedure. So this is part 19 of the fpr the family procedures of 2010, where bites a preemptive application you can sometimes make if you're not in proceedings or if you're in proceedings, you can make this on. It's where you invited a judge to give you an opinion of you as to whether you should or should not be informing. In many cases. The father, for example, in this case extended family members as to but the existence off their grandchild. In this case, for example, on what the court did say is there isn't a specific duty within the adoption Children after the Children, after the guidance sort of case law or the practice. Not so otherwise, there isn't a duty to go on assess. But what there is is a duty to look at the feasibility of the child remaining a member of the original family, and, as you remember, it comes back to the welfare, the Adoption Children Act checklist, again sort of feasibility of the child remained a member of the original family. Therefore, even though there isn't a duty, there is a requirement to consider others. So the provisions do not create an absolute duty to assess, so to speak in that regard. And that's where if you look at paragraph 44 of the judgment, for example, His Lordship did say that in light of review of the statue in the case law, the decision was that the application of local authority should be allowed. This is one way they did seek the courts gardens as to whether or not to notify the father's family, so to tell them about the existence of a child to see if they then subsequently wish to put themselves forward as a potential character. So should that application be exceeded otherwise, on on the facts, the judge felt that their fathers reasons in themselves were not sufficiently robust and clear enough to suggest that the family should not be told it wasn't a case where there was a significant risk of harm to the father or the mother or the child. It wasn't a case where they were cultural or religious objections to not notify the family on day for no on the fax, it was felt that the feasibility of placement with family should be considered on there for the family should be told. So the father was given the opportunity to inform his parents on if he failed to do so. Then that's where the judge did authorize the Social and the Guardian to speak to his family on Dio. Ascertain whether or not they wish Thio, in fact, be assessed or not. So it's a very useful case which pulls together some some necessary guidance on this issue now. I mentioned earlier that there was this case in 2016 Nona's redouble, which then later led to the changes to the adoption Children at. So this really brings into play some of the thinking behind when nothing else will do when all else fails. So it really brings into play some of those aspects on this was a case where by there were a number of Children. One of the Children had bean made subject to Karin placement order and in fact, had been placed with prospective adopters on what his Lordship, Lord Justice McFarlane, as it was then raised at this stage, was this. What's the approach that the court should take when you've got cases such as this when you're deciding on a charge? Long term welfare, Once the child has become fully settled in a perspective adoptive home on in the later of viability placement, viable placement, placement comes forward. Family placement. What should happen? Putting it another way if the child has been placed with prospective adopters and had formed a relationship with them, which is exactly what the child had done here. The child had been with the prospective adopters for some 17 months on informed obviously association attachment to him. But then, if you've got a viable family placement that's identified, what do you do on That's where it's a that he needed to balance the Charles feasibility of child pertaining to the birth family. First, is the child remaining with their birth families? The question of balancing that one doesn't have priority over the other on bond. In this context, how does the Supreme Court Judgment Henry B. Apply in that regard? And also the other question that was asked is this whether the people whose relationship with a child forced to be considered on the section one for if he is limited to only blood relatives or whether it should also include perspective doctrine. As you know, this case decided, which then led to the changes to the act off the fact it does also now extend to prospective adopters also so it does extend there as well on finally, whether a court needs to be expressively undertaken evaluation in the context of the Human Rights Act of 1998 in such circumstances, and, if so, which rights to engaged again. This case highlights that day articulate right to engage not just off the charts but also of the birth family. Parents extended family members on. Indeed, off the prospective adopters. It's a very, very important case in the case itself. Involved a two year old. Pence had been ruled out as potential carers on the local authority did seek care on placement orders thes were granted on. The child was subsequently placed for adoption. Now, in terms of the attempts that were made then to identify family, the local authority had attempted to identify relevant family members. But due to non cooperation on the part of the parents of the maternal family. The local authority didn't have any knowledge sadly off the paternal family and therefore were unable to trace them. So that's part of reason why they placed elsewhere. So the child was placed with prospective adopters at the age of seven months and remained there and had actually been with them for some 17 months. As I mentioned earlier, so obviously had formed a firm on sound bombed with the child. And that's where what happened then is the birth parents and had a second child. Local authority made enquiries again, and this time the paternal grand parents, who previously had not been identified, were identified. Onda at this child was second Child was placed with them on. They became aware of the first child, and they sought for that child to be placed in their care. So there was assessments done of him. Those were positive, and that's where now you've got a viable family placement. But like I say by then, the child has already performed an attachment on the relationship with prospective adopters. So what do you do? And that's really two dilemma that the court had. And this is where his lordship did say that if you look at the Adoption Children Act, section 14 then we have to look at the feasibility of the child remaining a member of the original family. But also any other person on this is where if you look at paragraphs 37 through 40 of the judgment, His Lordship did say that one needs to consider the relationship with the child has with relatives and with another person, which they consider relevant, and the likelihood of that relationship continuing the ability and willingness, sort of chance relatives or any other person to provide a child with a home on all sort of wishing feelings of the relatives regarding that. But as well as looking at the relatives, his Lordship said that the act is not limited to relationships with relatives, but with any other person. On in particular, His lordship was saying that that any other person should include with any other with any prospective adopters with whom the child has been placed on. That's exactly what was being suggested here. So his Lordship said, that CBS was referred to on in particular yes, the fact that child has been placed with prospective adopters is not determinative. So if that's happened, it doesn't mean that parents shouldn't be given the opportunity to have the child returning to their K. But the longer the child has been placed with the prospective adopters on the older child, then there's the greater the adverse impacts of disperse. Disturbing those arrangements. So therefore, there was no presumption for the child to be brought up by the natural family. It's a question of balancing, uh, the advantages and disadvantages of returning with both to both family verses, the advances and disadvantages of the child being brought up by the prospective adopters. On under fax here. The court did not grant leave to oppose, and therefore the child did subsequently become adopted by the prospective adopters. So you can see there's been a lot of change over the years when we've looked at the position with adoption. On also linked with that there's been other cases, for example, in terms of demonstrating changing circumstances for the purposes of successfully getting leave proposed making of the adoption order. There was this case of Re Al, for example, 2017 now here, mother was recommended in the kept ceilings to have 18 months worth 22 years off CBT cognitive behavior therapy. Onda Court felt that that was just too longer period of time to enable Children to wait for mother to show that she had exhausted that had completed it before. One then went on, uh, Thio to deal with making a caring placement, told us sort of caring placement orders were made on the Children were placed for adoption. Okay, the mother lodged her application for leave to oppose the making of the adoption order. But a child Children had now been place for some two years. Even though Mother was to be commended for the progress she made, she still hadn't completed the work. She still hadn't done enough to satisfy the court that there had been that change of circumstances and therefore, on the facts of this case, the court did not feel that mother had satisfied the test under Section 47 5 to show the change in circumstances. So you can see it's not an easy test to establish at all, just for the latter part of today that I just wanted to also bring to your attention this other guidance, which is really useful. This was the president's guidance about listing final hearings in adoption cases. This was as of 11th of April 2018. You got a link there, so you will see that as you go forward on. I haven't put it out in four. But some of the things I would suggest to you is this. If let's say, the mother in the example have been using was unsuccessful in her application for leave to oppose the making of the adoption order, then what? This guy? What this guidance says is the court should never list the application for leave to oppose on the final hearing on the same day. So if Mother is unsuccessful in her leave proposal, if the dad is than the subsequent adoption hearing, to decide whether to make the order or not is such that there should be a gap off at least 21 days between the refuse of the leave and his listing in the hearing of the final hearing. It's not possible it's not appropriate to appreciate that time period. So again you can see the importance off that and why that is necessary. So very, very important to toe. Obviously bear that in mind, going forward with some of these cases. Okay? So just to pull together what we've discussed that you can see a number of issues of looked at in terms of adoption. We spent some time looking at the position, particularly with panels, adoption panels, and had the work on all sort of position with the adoption Children acting changes that came about there. And then later I looked at the position with revocation of placement orders. Leave proposing leave proposed the making of adoption orders on also brought you up to speed with some of the developing on a more recent case law. Can I thank you very much for listening. I hope it has been a useful session for you on. I'll speak to you next time. Thank you very much indeed. Bye for now.