Hello. Good morning and welcome everybody to today's course through data law. My name. So after Mahmoud, very pleased to welcome you. This study is session two on the two part session where I'm taking you through adoption and placement orders including revocation and defended applications. So as you know, this is a session where I'm going through somebody complex area surrounding adoption related matters. So last time I spent a fair bit of time going through with you the role of adoption agencies, I took you through the role of panel. I took you through the position with getting at the proceedings through to final hearing. In so far as adoption panel is the role of the GM then spend some time going through with you somebody developments who had in the case law. In light of the adoption in Children. At 2002 we looked at the act, we looked at some of the key changes that the act brought along with it and I spent some time going to leave to evoke placement holders when our Children placed for adoption. I took you through that and then we started looking at somebody key developments surrounding leave proposed making over the adoption orders. Re B B. B S for example, we are some of those leading authorities and then also in particular case VW of 2016 which led to the changes to the adoption of Children act particularly Insofar as section 1 4 F of the act is concerned. So we looked at some of those elements Today, what I'm going to be doing is going through some more of the developments surrounding particularly leave to oppose adoption orders. There's been a couple of very useful and recent judgments on that and in particular to be looking at the case of re wide leave to oppose the 2020 decision. And this area, as you know, is incredibly important for childcare practitioners working in his field, given the fast pace and the change at which we need to be familiar with matters. So, I'm looking at this as of October 2021 and as I always have put the copyright acknowledgment here for you. Right so on to then start with this case rewind. This was a 2020 decision handed down On the 7th of October 2020, leading judgment by Lord Justice baker and what is particular case then looks like is this, it really looks at the issues surrounding leave to oppose and what kind of circumstances will the court entertain such an application and allow leave to be granted and what happens thereafter. So, this was a case where the appeal was in fact by the local authority at this time and they had appealed against the order that was made concerning the two year old with an adoption proceedings. In that the first instance judge had in fact granted the child's parents were believed to oppose the making of the adoption order. And as you remember last time when I was with You, we looked at CBS I took you through the requirements in relation to leave to oppose application under section 40 seven. It's a two pronged test, as you know, one has to firstly show a change in circumstances of a degree which then requires the court to then go on and consider the second limb and exercise their discretion and it doesn't require a significant change but a change in circumstances and once that's done. And the second part of the limb which is the welfare test is split up into two prongs. One has to look at the prospects of success and then one needs to look at the impact upon the child of the leaf to oppose application being successful and the impact upon a child for example, in so far as moving from deep prospective adopters with whom they are currently plays and then potentially returning to family. So, as you know, that's very much to test in a summary and here the judge had given leave to oppose. Such as judge was satisfied that the delivery requirement was met and therefore they're after you then move on to the second part which is then you actually have the adoption hearing where that is then opposed. But the parents would have done the hard part, I would suggest they would have done that the difficult part certainly at this stage in terms of getting the leave to oppose. Now, indeed, proceedings findings have been made. So the court proceedings findings have been made, which depends accepted and that is that they had inflicted injuries upon the child. Parents had also found to have been deliberately have lied repeatedly throughout the proceedings as well, and also in relation to the care of the child. So the court had made care and placement orders and like I say it was a prospective adopters and who put the adoption application in parents as in northern are notified and they then on the facts or leave to oppose the making of the order. And this child had been living with the prospective adopters for some 18 months and it was the prospective adopters in fact who put the application for leave to for adoption and it was the parents who then sought leave to oppose. And so the application was large. The parents then lodged an application under section 40 75. And like I said, the court did grant the parents leave to oppose. Which then led to the appeal by the local authority. And what were the grounds of appeal by the local authority. Well, this is what they were arguing. They said that they were appeared to be, the judge appeared to say that there are three reasons why there was a sufficient change in circumstances. One depends relationship had become more stabilized. Father had taken steps to deal with his anger management and there were no further instance of domestic abuse, but the local authorities argument was that none of these either individually or together. None of these ah factors were sufficient really to show us the changing circumstances. For example, in relation to the parents relationship at the local authorities argue that doing the care proceedings, the parents had sort of deceived professionals about their relationship and there wasn't anything that had changed changed that, they said, and it was argued that the court could not properly be satisfied that the relationship had been stabilized because there was ongoing dishonesty which undermined the parents position. So the local authority took a very different view on this. And as for the other point is, the local authority took the view that in relation to domestic abuse, there was no evidence at all to support the assertion that no further instance had occurred. And given the doubts about the parents honesty. The court should not rely upon the parent's assertion in that regard. And also, so far as contacts concern that judge should have taken account of statements by the father that he would seek how the child, whoever the child was placed. Obviously, this was a case whereby there was that disruption potential for disruption in these circumstances. So this wasn't the case where the local weather parents were going to be respecting necessarily that decision for adoption, the parents have a took a different view of course, they said, look, things have changed quite significantly. They said we've moved to a better neighborhood, there were no reports of domestic abuse has said there had been engaging with mental health services and regime of education. And this is where on appeal. His lordship said that the first incident judge who heard this case was drawing on his long experience of this case. This judge had been involved in this case, famous from the outset and he was best placed to exercise his discretion on the facts to evaluate what the local authority was saying and what the parents were saying. And then to come to a view as to whether there was sufficient to change in apparent situation to then exercise that his discretion to give leave to oppose. And the fact there was no independent evidence to support the assertion that there had been no domestic abuse since the end of the Cape Cities. This didn't prevent a judge from accepting the assertion that there had been no further domestic abuse. In fact, his lordship said that the judge was best placed to therefore make this welfare decision. And the court did say that if there is therefore that change in the first part of the limb is met, then the judge then moves on to the second part, which is whether the welfare of a child requires it. And that, as we mentioned previously, the BBS requires a two stage approach which is one has to evaluate the prospect of the child being returned to the parents care. And also secondly, the impact on the child of leaping granted. So in evaluating that judge emphasized that he was evaluating not the prospect of child being returned to parents, okay. But rather the prospect of the parents successfully opposing making of the adoption order and that's what's important. You're looking at prospects of success, not are we going to have our child placed back in our care because you may be looking to oppose the making of an adoption order, not because you wish for the child to be returned into your care as a parent, But in that family. So that case www. Remembering 2016 doesn't mention in the last session, it was the paternal grandparents that sort for the child to be placed with them. So when in that case, the father applied for leave to oppose. He wasn't saying that he wished the child to be placed with him, but rather he was saying that the prospect of of successfully opposing the making of the adoption order on the basis of another alternative viable option was such, that the prospect was good. And therefore that's that's where you're looking at. So that's something that is emphasized and therefore needs to be born in mind. Of course, anyway, on the facts of this case, in the wider court did decide that not every judge would have given leaving these circumstances, but this church was a very experienced charge. The judge had knowledge and experience of the case, had really dealt with this case from very much the beginning and therefore was in a much better position than anybody else to carry out that welfare evaluation and therefore the local authority had not persuaded the court that the judge was wrong in granting the leaves. So therefore the court did in fact dismissed the application and the facts. Okay. But it didn't mean that the parents would of course they'll be successful and then going on unsuccessfully opposing the adoption. There were strong arguments in favor of adoption in the case in any event cases were reported to bear that in mind, right? That then brings me onto another recent decision. In the case of re Fs appeal against plans for adoption. This was a case had it had just recently On two August and the leading judgments handed down by Lord Justice Peter Jackson. Now this case then looks at mother who applied against the plans for adoption. So she appealed against the plan for adoption. This related to Her child approaching six years of age and a child had global development of delay. The outlook was uncertain and this child would require a high degree of consistent parenting and it was unclear as to whether this child will actually be able to live independently as a child as an adult. Now the trial judge had ordered that the child had made an order that a child be subject to a placement order with a view to open adoption by the foster carers so that the mother in these circumstances would be in a position to have ongoing direct contact with the child. The mother likes, I appealed against the plan for adoption and the first instance judge had in coming to a decision for adoption considered all the necessary and appropriate law, case law and good practice. So of course the judge emphasized that adoption was of a extreme single last resort placement orders of course, should only be made in exceptional circumstances motivated by the child's welfare when nothing else will do and northern course is possible in the circumstances. Of course, that's famous to high test. The strict test that needs to be established. Cbs of course, as you know, requires all realistic options than to be considered. And you're looking at arguments for and against. There needs to be that global holistic evaluation and in particular uh the first instance judge did say that Section 51 B provides that the consent of a parent capacity can be dispensed with only if the welfare of a child requires this. Okay, so very, very important. You can see that Charles welfare requires the consent of the parents to be dispensed, which you can see it's a very heavy test in that regard. And the judge carried out the appropriate balancing exercise by looking at the possibility of rehabilitation. Looked at the possibility of placement, family and friends and a judge quite rightly applied to welfare analysis in respect of the Children considered statutory welfare checklists and ruled that placement with maternal grandmother on the facts who had been put forward and the judge had identified that the only realistic option for the child. I was on the one hand, fostering with a view to special got him in the future and alternatively adoption. So the judge effectively did a balance sheet approach of advantages and disadvantages of each option in the judgment. So like say the mother did appeal against the current placement orders that were granted. And she's the mother argued that the placement order was wrong for three reasons. One, the mother argued that where the local authority only contemplates placement, current foster kids who are prepared to continue to care for the child without replacement order. It was unreasonable to conclude that replacement orders unnecessary and dispensing a parental consent. So the mother's argument was that the foster care is, there's too much discretion given here to the foster carers who were saying that will only look after his child on the basis that we do so on the base of adoption as opposed to foster care. And that in itself meant that you could not conclude that adoption was in the child's best interests and therefore it doesn't require parental consent to be dispensed with. And also the mother argued that the judge applied the wrong test. She argued that the judge said that the test is what would best meet the child's needs rather than no other course was possible. And uh therefore the reasons given were insufficient to justify a placement order in the circumstances. Well, one of the other arguments that was run by mother here is she said that the child's development or delay affecting later life was only speculative. She said that the extent to which the child's development of delay will affect. The child was highly speculative. It was relied upon very heavily in this case. She argued to justify planned for adoption, but there needs to be more expert evidence on the particular impact on this child's going forward. And also, the mother did argue that the judge did state that the greater stability offered by adoption was not relevant and the mother did not doubt that the foster care is commitment to a child was there. So the fact that the judge referred to adoption providing more stability was irrelevant and shouldn't have been relied upon. And it was right that adoption would mean that child would cease to be looked after a child. Mhm. But that in itself was not a justification for adoption either. So you can see mother was raising those arguments going forward. So what was the decision and by the, by the court on this? Well, first and foremost, the court did say that the judge in fact did apply the right test. What the judge did apply the correct test and they were, this wasn't a case where the judge made of law. And if the judge had compared the options, like for like then that would have been in their approach. So if the judge looked at a fast drink alongside adoption and saw like for like then that would have been an error because of course adoption has to be in the child's best interests when nothing else will do with all of us fail. So you've got section one subsection six for example of the adoption of Children where adoption has to be that in the child's best interest when nothing else will do so if there's another viable option which is equally as appropriate and that's where adoption cannot be made in those circumstances. But here the course satisfied that the judge did not approach fostering and adoption like for like the evidence here was that the judge was satisfied that nothing else will do. The judge specifically referred to in her judgment that she directed herself that plan for adoption could only be approved of necessary in those circumstances where nothing else to do. So in fact that judge did refer to the correct test and actually did applied and evaluated appropriately and the reasons given therefore we're the court appeal said appropriate and adequate in the circumstances. The judge meticulously looked at the pros and cons the advantage and disadvantages of competing options and identifying those and applying them to the facts of the case. So it wasn't that judge have not done that. What about the views of the carers has not been decided decisive As you know, this was one of the other features that the mother ran here. So she said that the foster carers with whom this child had been with her for some 18 months. They had said that they resort for the child to be placed with them through adoption and not through foster care. And the mother's argument was that the court should not give way to that. And instead the court should look to see whether or not the child's welfare does demand adoption, irrespective of the wish of the of the adopters. Sorry, foster carers. And in fact, his lordship took the view that the child's future care carers wanted to adopt him, that wasn't decided decisive. But it was relevant to the Charles welfare and the judge was entitled the first instance judge was entitled to consider it as a factor and give it some weight had the care is not want to adopt and that also would have been relevant had they only been prepared to care for him as a child, that would be relevant. So it is a factor. You can't ignore that. You can't take that away from the fact that that's a feature of really what was there. But the court's assessment cannot be dictated though or influence body attitudes of individuals. So for example, even though mother was saying that there was too much weight given to the views of their foster carers. His lordship said that wasn't the case, but you don't ignore what they say you take into account. And he weighed up amongst all the other factors in looking to see whether or not adoption is in the child's best interests in that regard. So it wasn't that the views of the carers was being considered to be determinative that clearly wasn't the case at all. What about the fact that mother raised the argument that Charles development or delay was only speculative and therefore it wasn't something that should have been taken in account or if there was a need for expert evidence. Well, his lordship did say that your child's developmental delay was a factor. The judge was entitled to consider this. This child had already had a difficult start in life. It was essential that that the child received a very possible but the best very possible parenting to be able to meet those particular needs. So it is a factor just like in any other case, as many of you will know who advised local authorities. That's the whole purpose of getting the adoption medical done. So that not to see whether the child adopted or not. It's got nothing to do with that is to see what is the child's medical position, both physically medically psychologically. So that then we know what the child's particularly needs us or that we ensure that when they are placed if they are placed for adoption, that adopters are aware of those needs and of course they are able to then provide that s a level of care and to receive an s A level of care for that child. Whether it's treatment, whether it's counseling or otherwise. And that's exactly a factor that was a feature here. So he had to be taken in account. And also his lordship said that the mother was misguided into believing the adoption did not provide greater stability. She was misguided of that disease of crucial importance. And as you know in many of the judgments have had. That is one of the strong arguments that is often advanced when when one is comparing adoption to other orders. So that if for example, there is a need for stability and the facts of that particular case for that particular child, given what is known about the family, given that child's background, given the need for security, stability. And of course adoption as an order can provide that because it's an order for the rest of that child's life, not just not just until adulthood button into adult, not just into childhood into adulthood. And therefore it can provide more security of and above any of the other orders. It's obviously if it's a it's an order for the rest of their life in that regard. And therefore it is a factor which must be taken into account alongside other factors. And when one looks at some of the other orders. So for example, special guardianship, his lordship to say that that order is irreversible. And that's a factor. Sorry. Special gunship uh is an order which requires a high degree of commitment. But it is not irreversible. Of course, a special gunship order. It requires fresh litigation. Yes, adoption is also uh an order which is reversible as well exceptionally can get adoption orders reversible. But here on the facts, the court is satisfied that it's likely that the mother would make application the future for the child to be returned to her care. That was a factor which need to be taken to account. She didn't seek for the child to be returned. So therefore the seeds of disruptive future challenges as the judge described it were already there. And that's why with a special guard ship Yes. Mother could apply for if the child was made subject to an SD order. The mother could apply for leave to discharge the SD order because SD orders are reversible of course. But with adoption, yes, exceptionally, they can be revoked. But it's much, much more exceptional in those circumstances and therefore it will in that we can't provide a childhood more security, particularly here where mother had already indicated that she may wish to challenge and in fact her seat to a set aside the order in the future. And also the significance of open adoption was in fact irrelevant on the fact that couldn't be ignored. It was a factor that an open adoption was hoped for. The child's relationship with the mother and siblings was of importance and it was an opportunity for that to be preserved. And whether or not there would be a contact order or not, was a matter for the court at the adoption hearing? Much would really depend on mother's attitude at that stage as to whether she was likely to for example, respect the adoptive placement to otherwise that was a feature and therefore that could be also taken into account in that regard. And the judge had also explained correctly why lesser order was inappropriate in the circumstances. So that had been done. And the judge had explained why lesser order was not good enough for the child and therefore the judge was fully entitled to make the placement order and the order that the court dismissed the appeal. So you can see it's very useful case this one because it does go through a lot of the arguments that many of us often have in these cases as to why one should be looking at adoption versus maybe less of orders such as fostering through a care order or an SD order or child arrangements otherwise. Now this is the other recent case re s a child is 2021 decision. And what this really emphasizes is the, is the need to be clear about the annex a report and the position with having a right to a fair trial essentially. And this is the case where by uh the annex A. Just so everybody knows of course when when you're dealing with these cases is whereby the annex B many of human noise. The CpR document that I referred to earlier in the first session which Pursuant to Regulation 17 of the adoption ate his rigs. Uh The CpR is done on a written report that's pulled together that's then provided to the ADM and all the adoption panel. And when and if the local authority lodged a replacement application Rule 14 six of the FPR requires the annex B reportedly found which sets out the background of the child, the position with the parents, extended family, the assessments and why the local authorities have come to a decision that they have to seek adoption for the child. So that's the annex B. But the annex A. Is the report on the prospective adopters And it's filed at the point at which one then lodges any adoption applications. So it's the report about the prospective doctors. The court then knows about them about their position with a button and deciding whether or not to make the adoption order or not. And what this case was about was one whereby the mother appeals against the application for leave to oppose the making of the adoption ordered her child was five years of age, she was a litigant in person. So she appeals against the refusal for leave to oppose that she sought. And the issue was more about due process this case as opposed to the marriage. So application under facts. She wasn't going to be getting to leave to oppose because she was unable to satisfy The Test on the Section 47 of the. So it wasn't so much about the merits, it was more about the new process, the process through which the believed to oppose application was heard. And it was that process which the court felt was inappropriate on the facts and it failed to comply with the procedural fairness. And that's where the court is allowed to appeal for the mother and gave directions for mother's application for lead to oppose to be we heard. So let's have a look at why do you process was not dealt with appropriately? What mother's case was this? She said that first and foremost, she said they've been changing her circumstances which the local authority uh I said was insufficient to then require the court to them be giving mother leaves her polls. And mother's argument was that these changes in circumstances were changes since the placement order was made in that regard. And her argument was this mother claimed that the judge who heard the leaves her polls said that they had considered all the papers, including the background papers. And it was in any event the local authority. The mother said we're arguing that the burden fell on a mother to provide the court with such information as a quite supportive place including the transcript of the placement proceedings. And the local authorities said that in relation to the annex a reporter section a report of the prospective adopters. This was a confidential report Pursuant to Rule 14.11 of the FPR. Because of course it sets out a lot of information about the suitability of the potential adopters and therefore the local authorities said it was simply not relevant. Two mothers application for leave to a pulse and making the adoption order. It simply wasn't relevant. And in any event it's a confidential document which he would not have access to. And the local authorities said that the next report were disclosed to the mother. It would not be redacted to such. It would need to be redacted and it would make it unreadable anyway and of no value. So even though it's confidential, although it is possible for mother to seek leave to have sight of it once they redacted most of the confidential information really it's just got an old value anyway. So that was their argument. But in fact the court took took a view that there was a procedural failure and that is here on the facts. In considering the leave application. The judge in fact had not seen the transcript of replacement proceedings to judge had not seen the transcript replacement percentage to then see if they had been requisite changes circumstances, the placement orders made and as you can imagine is crucial, isn't it. So if there were placement proceedings which obviously they were here and the judges then having to apply their mind to think right, has there been a change in circumstances since the placement order was made? We'll need to know what deep basis upon which replacement orders made for the Me Too. Then as a judge evaluate to see whether there is a change in circumstances but there was the absence of the transcript of the tragedies judgment needed to make and replacement order in the church's bundle and therefore it meant that the judge could not know what the baseline was against which to assess the change of circumstances. Obviously that was a procedure of failure and therefore that in itself meant that the judgment could not stand. The local authority had been directed to larger bundle for the appeal but had failed to provide police to bundle the only documents where later documents despite the judge saying otherwise. So not all the papers had been found and her ladyship did say that the problem was compounded by the judges heavy reliance upon the annex A which the judge even acknowledged that mother had not seen. So because the judge was relying heavily on the annex. Say that then brought into play. So although the judge referenced a positive nature report to reassure the mother, the judge nonetheless, to refer to a lot of this and this is just my view, I suspect that because a judge did not have the benefit of the transcript of replacement proceedings. The judge, I suppose it may be the case was relying more so upon the and excited and perhaps they would have done otherwise. Certainly from my experience, I find that in these cases leave to oppose the annex a document may not certainly be one that's relied upon and leave to oppose application in any event. Because in fact, what you'll find is that the beauty the position of the prospective adopters. Yeah. In terms of their particular circumstances, won't normally be a significant to feature in the circumstances as what the other elements are. Hasn't been a change of circumstances. And then you're looking at the Issue on the 2nd language of the prospect of successfully opposing catching a leave. In. So far as being able to show that the prospects of showing that adoption by the prospective adopters is not in his child's best interests. So with that in mind, the court did say that reports are confidential, but of course, the court can direct disclosure of these. They can do the local authority didn't refer to the FPR Rule 14.13 in this regard, which does enable a court to direct that the report be disclosed to a party in the proceedings. And really, this was a problem because the judge relied heavily on the annex a the mother had not had the opportunity to challenge the information that was contained within it about her circumstances or any other relevant information. And that's really the novel of this because there was a reference to that the mother dinner have the opportunity to be able to challenge that. Now the FPR doesn't specify the need to inform the party at the X has even been filed, but her ladyship did say that there is no provision that a person needs to be notified that the annex A. Has been found. But panic practitioners are to be aware of her ladyship, said of the necessity imposed upon the local authority or agency to do so and will not to contact the court to make an appropriate request for inspection by a litigant in person will not Appreciate that one must be filed, not information they hold and it's unlikely therefore that this mother would do so. So that's the issue. So if you're acting for mother for example, you may know, you may know that it is possible for you to contact the court to seek inspection of a redacted. And I say if you felt it necessary, but like I say in many cases, the judge will be relying more so upon the transcript of the replacement order and to see what changing circumstances they have been. And then looking at the second element which is ready to see whether the parents particular circumstances, there is a change and secondly the impact upon a child of giving leave to oppose. But if there is reliance upon the an excited extent to which it was. But a judge here and of course it was necessary for inspection of that in that regard. And one of the things therefore that relationship did say that or is that all legal representatives and our duty to assist the court and delivery of justice and the local authorities interest on the part of child and showing that any decision regarding their future care was made timelessly and with due process. So the court allowed the appeal and a court explained to mother that that of course by being successful in the appeal, it didn't mean that she would be getting lied to oppose. It was still very high threshold that she had to overcome. But the outcome of the rehearing may be the same, but at least it would be a fair hearing. And that was what was important to making sure that all the documents which were previously directed to be found where fact place before the courts that our mother would have been a right to a fair trial. So that's the thinking behind that judgment. Right. What I want to now discuss with you is this other case of will the court allow a period of therapy for example, rather than endorse a plan for adoption and also what kind of factors will the court take into account in really look into uh feature chart for adoption. So this was a case of re k earlier this year judgment and then by the President of Family division. So Andrew McFarlane and this particular case had been before Mr Justice Kagan previously involving three Children where his lordship had made care and placement orders. And there had been an appeal insofar as those are concerned. And the Court of Bill had in fact granted permission to appeal against Mr Justice kins welfare determination on the basis that judge did not properly identify the risk of future harm to Children when they had taken the welfare analysis. So, this was the appeal in relation to that and therefore getting the appeal underway. One of the issues that the court looked at here is this when you've got cases where local authorities are looking to feature Children for adoption in various publications uh over and above, what they would routinely be looking to do and what kind of factors would lead the court then decide whether or not that was going to be permitted. So, what kind of factors would lead to local authorities getting that permission? And when I've made such applications for leave to featuring various publications, it's not an easy application to make. And one naturally requires a lot of crucial and necessary evidence. Well, on the facts here, his lordship did say That first and foremost, the plan was to place all three Children together and therefore placing three Children together, as I'm sure you appreciate isn't necessarily going to be easy, so to place together. So that in itself is a feature they will be looking for adopters who were going to be a suitable match for a sibling group of three, the audience of whom was one was, it was a four years of age and the youngest was one years of age. And there was already early signs that one of the Children may have a degree of learning disability. So that was another feature which went towards looking to see whether these Children should be featured for adoption. Also, the specialist family finding social workers said that the court nationally, it was a case that nationally the number of food adopters had declined was the number of looked after Children was increasing. So there were less approved adopters, more Children who were looked after. So of course that meant that these Children would be therefore more difficult to place because of simple those statistics and also the the local authority informed a quarter that at this stage perspective doctors preferred Children under the age of three. So again, that was going to be a future here, given the older child was four years of age and also a successful placements of this nature had taken place provided the local authority was given permission to publicize that jones circumstances too carefully chosen adoption publication network. So yes, it was possible to place Children of in this situation who were youngest was one. The artist was for whether you place them together where there were early signs of learning disability. For one of the Children given the Children's religious cultural heritage it was possible. But the local authority was saying that they had in the past uh sought permission to do so which then led to successful adoption so that these are some of the reasons therefore which were being raised as to why the Children should be are placed featured and also local authority except that the Children's circumstances particular. 2nd may delay the process of identifying adopters. And the local authority had said that they focused the search for adopters for a Period of 12 months. If they were to find possible adopters for these Children during that time, then they would do so if not they would be looking to review the plan thereafter to one of the most likely foster care otherwise. So that was one of the things that this case we looked at in terms of what other kinds of factors that the court will then consider in looking to allow these Children to be featured for adoption. Now because this was an appeal and because it was based on an appeal in that the court had not applied sufficiently evaluated the welfare Evaluation in terms of changing circumstances. The Appeal Court did allow parents to have the benefit of apart 25 application with a view to instructing a consultant charge of clinical psychologist to then conduct an assessment of the parents of that permission was granted in the circumstances and the court did say, I have given the parents uh on cooperation in the previous setup ceilings. If the psychologists found that they were not attending sessions and they were not showing the level of commitment that was needed in that assessment could then be ended previously prematurely if needs be. So. The court did say that for the assessment to be had and to assist the court, uh there would need to be this understanding of the psychological processes for each other parents to see why and how they behave the way they do so the psychologists and carry out to carry out the assessment and what the psychologist in summary found that insofar as father is concerned, there was a deficit in his ability to integrate emotional and cognitive information to provide a sound conclusion. There was a high degree of denial and lack of insight which was a huge barrier to the machine. We get to progress in that regard. So far as mother is concerned, adult attachment style was mortified by fear of authorities. There were various strategies of withdrawal and escape in that regard. And the experts saw evidence on both mother and father's part of false beliefs and anger towards professionals and therefore with that in mind, the expert talk to for you also that the judgment by Mr. Justice kin where the parents were saying that his lordship got it wrong was something that still remained in the in the eyes of the parents and the parents were very clear that the judge got it wrong and the court process was flawed and both parents struggle to agree anything in that judgment. So therefore they were not really able to move on insofar as that's concerned. Having said that the expert did say despite those concerns. Nonetheless, the expert did say that there would be benefit of therapy for these Children. So in fact, the experts did recommend the family therapy for the mother and the father. So despite this appraisal uh concludes that depends would benefit from couples therapy approach which would then need to take place with two family therapists who could then work with the parents to help them to achieve uh really alteration in their behaviors. But as you know, when it comes to therapy, it's not going to be a quick fix. Of course it takes many many sessions. And in fact, the expert here was saying that a minimum of 20 sessions would be needed and this would be and the expert did say could be within the Children's times go in these opinions. So that was interesting because I know sometimes as you know, a psychologist may say that there was a recommendation for say, CBT for example, of many sessions, but it may not necessarily be within the Charles timescale. But here the expert was saying that it would be within the Children's timescale. So therefore we had you had certainly of a ah the tribal argument here which the parents wait to raise as to whether or not to enable us there would be to go ahead. So of course the parents then we're arguing that there should be an adjournment. So their argument was that there should be an adjournment to the loudest therapy to take place. They both said that they were more than willing to engage in this couple's therapy. As advised by the expert. The expert had already identified a particular therapist in mind so therefore there wasn't gonna be any delay in identifying. And the parents therefore saw for the proceedings to be adjourned for a period of some four months to allow this therapy to run its course because the performance is what the expert had identified as an appropriate period of time to enable us to be done. And it was the parents case. Therefore they have to therapy was successful and of course these Children could then and should then be rehabilitated back into their care. But the local authority on the other hand was seeking adoption. The local authorities position was that yes, they noted that parents cooperation and the conclusions body expert but they said that the prospect of of the therapy being successful and potential outcome was doubtful. And the local authority was saying that the court should go ahead and dismissed the appeal and allow the full care orders and placement orders to remain. So this is where his lordship then looked specifically at the prospect of the therapy uh Bing Bing had and therefore, was that sufficient to justify journey? This is where there was reference to E. B. Of course interference with family life has to be at a degree ways exceptional when nothing else will do so, of course is one has to ask whether or not this was a realistic option in the circumstances and with the court therefore, allow the therapy in the circumstances. What the question was. Had there been sufficient change by opening up the prospect of therapy for the parents to justify Putting adoption on hold for a period of four months. Had there been sufficient change in the parents circumstances to demonstrate that within this Time scale of four months that they will follow through the therapy with a view to altering their behaviors. Whether you're looking at potentially discharge being rehabilitated into their care. And the judge had to wait it up against the other factors which is of course bearing in mind The particular attributes of these Children, there was no guarantee that place before 43 Children were found. The local authorities are already seeking permission to be able to feature the Children in specific publications. So they were already going to be difficult to place together anyway. And in any event, the local authority was saying that after 12 months, if they do not find an adoptive placement four or three, they were going to be looking at reviewing their plans. So one had to balance the delay in finalizing proceedings for the child insofar as allowing the therapy and the uncertainty of where that would bring versus not allowing allowing the Cayman placement orders to resume and any uncertainty as to whether these Children were going to be adopted any event. So that was a difficulty. And the difficulty in finding a placement for these three Children together was enhanced because you're impulsive matching the placement with their racial and cultural characteristics. And also, there was concern about the church, the older child's age and also concerned about the intellectual development of one of the Children. To all those factors we're obviously going to be features in that regard. So this is where the court and had to look at re b had to look at re Bs had to look at whether or not the benefits of adoption was such that that would serve the Children's best interests. And this is where quite rightly the court looked at balancing the option of placement. Parents following any successful therapy versus adoption. So of course the benefits are placing their parents was there would be no issue of achieving racial and cultural much parents for four parents of all three Children. And therefore that connection was obviously a degree of attachment already been established and maintained by your parents through contact. So that was already there and therefore that would be a strong benefit in obviously placement with parents. So what did the, the court decide? Well balanced the courts at this? They said the experience of being brought up in the case of the parents would be unpredictable, unstable, even volatile. And it would be an experience with the Children being immersed in a way of living, realize and deception, sadly, was the norm because that was the historical concerns here. Had there been sufficient change? The court on balance said that they had not been. Was there sufficient change of the potential for change to therapy to justify Postponing for a period of four months? And the court said No. The court was of the view that there was not that sufficient level of confidence, that the placement of parents either. Now, after therapy would meet the Children's best interests. And the number of the argument you can see was this, there was only minimal change in the parents acceptance of their past, harmful behavior and the ability to develop new lives of court didn't provide a basis to really work on. Neither parent was accepting the psychology assessment of their own individual problems. Mother simply didn't see herself in the same way that the expert did. And his lordship said this, and really summed it up. So that way, when the parents were saying that they're willing to undergo therapy and would do whatever was necessary to establish that they could care for the child, they were simply saying that day, perceived as necessary and said what they thought was necessary. And really, his lordship said that there were, there are no more than actually paying lip service towards accepting that there was a need for therapy. There was enough insufficient commitment demonstrated on a pure heart too for the parents to demonstrate that they felt that there was a need for therapy and that they would follow it through and they were committed enough to do that. And his lordship went further and said, even if there was a positive um report in terms of therapy to work, even if it was positive after four months, then the degree of change that was needed to establish a painting went beyond that. As many of you will appreciate having the therapies at the end is that you have to go beyond that. You still have to look at them potentially having a child place. How are they going to be able to deal with the child going forward there after? So, this was not in itself going to be the end in that regard. And to take four months even to reach that stage, indicated his lordship said how much work was needed to be done in these circumstances. And then it could stretch way beyond that. Which could then mean that you are waiting for some time for permanent placement yet further. And there was obviously no guarantee of any of these stages even being successful in any event. Therefore, was adoption in the Children's best interests. His lordship took the view that he was. There was no guarantee of course that the adoption plan was going to succeed. It was not without its difficulties. The president recognized that. But here, given the to the only two competing options, adoption was in fact in these Children's welfare best interests. So in fact, the court did go ahead and and allow the orders to remain and a court horse or granted the locals all td permission that they sought to be able to publish the Children's availability for adoption through the relevant adoption networks on a basis as set out in the local authority evidence. So you can see it's a very difficult case, this one and one that really sums up then the difficulty that the courts will have in weighing up the various options in that regard. Okay, so that then brings this session to an end. So, this was a second session. I want to spend with you going through some of the issues surrounding adoption. Leave to leave to revoke placement orders. Leave to oppose the making of the adoption orders. And you can see that this year in particular, there has been some very useful helpful judgments which have looked at the ongoing interpretation of the legislation, particularly of our sexual 47 of the act is concerned in terms of leave to oppose to make an adoption orders and also the position with the procedure insofar as that's concerned, I hope this has been a useful session for you. Can I thank you very much indeed for listening and obviously go through these notes again and remind yourself of the various principles. And I'll speak to you again next time. So thank you very much indeed. And I'll speak to you next time. Thank you. Bye for now.
Webinar
Slides
3062 Users
171 Courses
157 Reviews