R (A Child: Leave to Oppose Adoption)

Hearing date: 21 May 2026

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 28 May 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Introduction

This is an application for permission to appeal from an order of HHJ Lopez, dated 13 January 2026, by which he refused an application for leave to oppose the making of an adoption order in respect of A, a little girl who will soon turn 3. The applicant is A's birth mother. Having refused the application, the judge went on to make an adoption order.

A has never lived with the applicant. When she was two days old she was placed with foster carers, and she has lived with them ever since. In October 2024, the same judge made a care order and a placement order. In March 2025, her foster carers were approved as adoptive parents and in July 2025 they applied for an adoption order. In September 2025, the applicant applied for leave to oppose the making of an adoption order.

The applicant contends that there were errors and irregularities in the treatment of her application at the final hearing in January 2026. She seeks permission to appeal and an order allowing the appeal. She then asks us to set aside the judge's order, to set aside the adoption order, and to remit her application for leave to oppose to the Family Court, or to decide it ourselves on the basis of the updating statements for which permission has been given.

At the end of the hearing, we announced that permission to appeal would be refused. The applicant is right to say that there were certain shortcomings in the judge's treatment of her application, but it is not in my view arguable with a real prospect of success that his decision was either wrong or unjust. The application was fairly considered on its merits and the outcome was inevitable. The irregularity in the making of the adoption order at that hearing has been addressed by the subsequent appeal process and there has been no substantive injustice.

Although this is a permission decision, we heard full argument. The application raised matters of practice and procedure that require guidance and we therefore give permission for our decision to be cited.

The events in this case underline that:

(1) When the court is considering applications for leave to apply to discharge a placement order or to oppose the making of an adoption order, it should articulate the legal tests correctly.

(2) Where the court refuses such an application at the first stage because it is not satisfied that there has been a change in circumstances since the making of the placement order, and where it has a clear view that the application would in any event have failed at the second stage for welfare reasons, it should state and briefly explain this as an alternative basis for its decision.

(3) An adoption order should never be made on the same occasion as an order refusing leave to oppose. Paragraphs 11–14 of the Practice Guidance (Adoption: Final Hearings) [2018] 1 WLR 2232 should be followed.

The background

There is a very significant history. The birth parents began their relationship in September 2021. At that time the applicant had three children who were living with her. The birth father also had three children who were living with their mothers. Proceedings began at the end of 2022 in respect of the applicant's three children and two of the birth father's children, and those five children were removed into local authority care. No proceedings were taken in respect of the sixth child, who lives with her mother.

A is therefore the fourth child of each of her birth parents, and their only joint child. Proceedings were issued in her case when she was born in June 2023 and she was placed in foster care.

The proceedings in relation to all six children came before the judge at two very substantial hearings. On 13 February 2024, he found the threshold to be proved after a fact-finding hearing and on 24 October 2024 he made final welfare orders. These hearings lasted for 19 days in total and the two judgments span 160 pages.

At the first hearing the court made serious findings, including neglect, sexual harm, physical and emotional harm, aggression and violence in the household, and failure by each adult to protect the children. Specifically:

(1) The birth father had repeatedly physically abused five children across three relationships, including one of the applicant's own children.

(2) The applicant had also repeatedly physically abused that child.

(3) The applicant had neglected the care of her three older children through poor home conditions (described by the judge as being nothing less than squalid on occasion), poor hygiene, dirty/dishevelled presentation, inconsistent bedtimes and routines and unmet health needs. The birth father failed to take any protective action.

(4) The applicant and the birth father caused sexual harm to the three older children, including by way of exposure to sexual activity between themselves and access to sexually explicit material resulting in at least two of the children developing inappropriate sexual knowledge and behaviours.

(5) As a result of the birth father's behaviour the three older children were frightened of him.

(6) The three older children were emotionally abused by the applicant, including by attempts to silence and/or persuade one of them to retract revelations about the home conditions.

(7) The applicant, being aware of the risk of physical harm the birth father posed to the three older children allowed him into their home, prioritised her relationship with him, and chose not to believe her own children.

In July 2024, the birth father suffered a stroke, from which he has recovered.

At the welfare hearing on 24 October 2024, the judge made care orders in respect of all of the children, and placement orders in respect of A and the birth father's two younger children. He noted that neither parent accepted the court's most serious findings of fact and he concluded that the same risks remained if the children were returned. There were no steps that could be taken to reduce or mitigate what the judge described as the significant and multifaceted risks.

In fact, the birth parents had not asked the court to place A in their care. Instead their case was that she should remain in foster care while they were given the opportunity to undertake work with a view to improving their understanding of the problems with their parenting. The judge found that this proposal had no sound evidential basis. He noted that the nature of such work remained unspecified, even at the conclusion of the case, and that the timescales were unknown. The professional witnesses all indicated that any work would require a much greater level of acceptance of the previous difficulties and that, given the birth parents' stance at the time, there was little prospect of any meaningful change, even if work was undertaken.

The judge reached the very clear conclusion that adoption was in A's best interests. He found that the risks posed by the birth parents were so serious as to justify it. He dispensed with their consent and made a placement order.

In March 2025, A was matched with her foster carers as prospective adopters and contact with the birth parents took place for the last time. On 25 July 2025, the adoption application was made.

By its orders, the court firmly approved a plan for A to be adopted. However, the birth parents have never accepted that. On 28 July 2025, days after the adoption application was filed, they applied to this court for an extension of time for appealing and for permission to appeal from the 2024 findings of fact and welfare decision. On 7 October 2025, I refused an extension of time for appealing from the 2024 decisions and, for completeness I refused permission to appeal. It appears that the birth parents then attempted to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court. When that did not avail them, they applied for my decision to be reopened; I refused that application on 17 November 2025.

Meanwhile, on 16 September 2025, the birth parents had applied for leave to oppose the making of an adoption order. Although they were entitled to legal aid for that application, they represented themselves.

The effect of these applications was that the adoption hearing, which had been listed for 4th November 2025, was adjourned until 13 January 2026.

The hearing before the judge

The local authority was represented by a solicitor, with the prospective adopters' social worker and the team manager of A's social worker being in attendance. The mother appeared in person, speaking for herself and the birth father, who was working abroad. The judge had the benefit of the Annex A report, dated July 2025, a statement from the applicant dated 29 December 2025, and a statement from A's social worker dated 6 January 2026. No statement was provided by the birth father.

The applicant's statement of nine pages confirmed that she and the birth father remained a couple. It included these passages:

“Since the placement order was made, my circumstances, insight, emotional stability, and...