Re C (A Minor) (Adoption: Parental Agreement)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1994 |
| Date | 1994 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Balcombe, Steyn and Hoffman, L JJ
Adoption – child in care due to inadequate parenting – local authority applying for order declaring child free for adoption – proper approach of court when dealing with freeing application.
The parents were in their 40s and lived together since 1987. They were not married. The child in question was born in May 1988. Previously, the mother had had a child by another man. That child had been effectively raised by the maternal grandmother. The grandmother died and the older child had gone to live with the mother and her cohabitee. The mother was of limited intelligence and there were concerns about her ability to cope with the task of bringing up a baby and a small child. From June 1988 (when the baby was one month old) the health visitor was concerned about the mother's ability to care for the baby and because of the violence in the relationship between the parents. In April 1989 the health visitor referred the baby's case to social services. The child was found to be emotionally and socially deprived. Arrangements were made for the child to attend a day nursery where she was found to be pale, dirty and generally listless. Nevertheless, in August 1989 social services decided that their further involvement with the child was unnecessary.
In January 1990 the child was taken into care when, following a hospital visit, a doctor reported his opinion that she had been sexually abused. (This evidence was subsequently rejected by the Judge who heard other medical evidence and made a firm finding that there had been no sexual abuse.) When taken into care the child was placed with foster-parents and this produced a dramatic and wholly beneficial change in the child. The parents had regular contact with the child. The local authority decided to seek a care order in respect of the child on the basis that she would, in due course, be rehabilitated with her parents. On that basis an unopposed care order was made in Sepember 1990. However, subsequent inquiries which the local authority were required to make as to the suitability of the person with whom it was proposed that the child should be placed showed that none of the professionals concerned supported rehabilitation because they took the view that the parents could not cope. As a result, the parents were told that the plans to rehabilitate the child with them were to be abandoned. This led the parents to apply to discharge the care order. After various adjournments the parents applied for a residence or a contact order; and the local authority applied for leave to refuse contact and for an order declaring the child free for adoption. The Judge dismissed the parents' application but granted the local authority's
applications. He held that the mother was unreasonably withholding her agreement to adoption. It was not necessary for him to make a similar finding in respect of the father as the parents were not married, the father had no parental responsibility for the child under the Children Act 1989, and consequently was not her parent for the purposes of the Adoption Act 1976.
The parents appealed.
Held – dismissing the appeal: The Judge had dealt with the applications in the appropriate sequence. He had first considered whether the child should be returned to the parents. The evidence was virtually all one way and was against rehabilitation. The parents did not pursue their appeal against the refusal to make a residence order. The Judge had next considered contact. As rehabilitation was not possible, contact would simply be to enable the child to retain contact with her natural parents. The evidence was that the child was likely to be moved to other foster-parents or prospective adopters and that continued contact could upset the stability of future arrangements. In these circumstances the Judge was entitled to conclude that the child's welfare required that parental contact be terminated. In approaching the question of freeing for adoption, the Judge had properly approached that question by considering first the need to promote the child's welfare and secondly whether the mother was unreasonably withholding her agreement. In the light of his earlier findings the Judge had little difficulty in finding that it would promote the child's welfare if she was freed for adoption. The mother did not seriously challenge this finding but submitted that the Judge was wrong to hold that she was unreasonably withholding her agreement. In this respect the Judge had adopted the correct approach and had asked himself whether a reasonable mother would have regarded the case for adoption as so overwhelming that she would have subordinated to the child's welfare her own hopes of regaining contact. The Judge had found that the advantages of adoption for the child's welfare were sufficiently strong to justify overriding the views and interests of the parent.
Statutory provisions referred to:Accommodation of Children (Charge and Control) Regulations 1988.
Adoption Act 1976, ss 6, 16 and 18.
Children Act 1989, s 34(1) and (4).
Cases referred to in judgment:C (Minors) (Adoption), Re [1991] FCR 1052.
D (An Infant) (Adoption: Parent's Consent), Re [1977] AC 602; [1977] 2 WLR 79; [1977] 1 All ER 145.
Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC [1956] AC 696; [1956] 3 WLR 37; [1956] 2 All ER 145.
E (Minors) (Adoption: Parental Agreement), Re [1990] FCR 921.
F (A Minor), Re [1982] 1 WLR 102; [1982] l All ER 614.
H; W (Adoption: Parental Agreement), Re (1983) 4 FLR 614.
W (An Infant), Re [1971] AC 682; [1971] 2 WLR 1011; [1971] 2 All ER 49. Appeal from His Honour Judge Charlesworth sitting at Leeds county court.
Benjamin Nolan, QC and Roger Bickerdike for the parents.
Angela Finerty for the local authority.
Paul Isaacs for the guardian ad litem.
JUDGMENTLord Justice Balcombe. On 20 and 21 October 1992 we heard an appeal by the parent of a 4-year-old girl, K, from an order of His Honour Judge Charlesworth made in the Leeds county court, whereby he dismissed the parents' application for a residence order in respect of K (who was then in the care of the local authority), but instead granted the local authority's application for permission to refuse contact between K and her parents and for an order freeing her for adoption. In order to make the order freeing K for adoption the Judge held that the mother was unreasonably withholding her agreement; it was not necessary for him to make a similar finding in respect of the father, since the parents have never married and the father has no parental responsibility for K under the Children Act 1989 and so is not her parent for the purposes of the Adoption Act 1976. At the end of the hearing we dismissed the appeal saying that we would give our reasons later. This we now do.
The father is 49 years old and the mother 48. They have lived together since 1987. The Judge's assessment of the parents is contained in the following passage from his judgment:
"[The father] is or certainly has been a very hardworking man and has inevitably in that direction worked long hours, he tells me, and is clear from all the evidence in the case, during the time that K was at home during her first year, 2 years, or 20 months as it turns out, that she was at home. He was by and large, I find, from all the evidence given to me – and I need not, I think relate it; I don't think it is in dispute – to all intents and purposes not about during the day up to seven days a week on occasions – not always but sometimes. He is not to be necessarily criticized for that. He will not be the only father, I have no doubt, who has never changed a nappy or even bathed a child, as I am sure there are many fathers who choose not to participate in that activity and leave it all, as in this case I find it was all left, to [the mother] to care for K.
There were, however, immediate concerns about the ability of [the mother] to cope adequately with the task of bringing up a baby and small child in an appropriate way. The almost unanimous evidence of all the witnesses who have had contact with her, experts and non-experts and myself, have assessed [the mother] as of limited intellectual ability and she does have considerable, in my judgment, learning problems."
There was ample evidence before the Judge that fully justified these findings and they were not challenged before us.
The mother has another daughter, S, by a man who died young. The mother and S then went to live with the mother's mother (S's maternal grandmother), and S was effectively raised by her grandmother who considered that the mother was not equal to the task. When the mother went to live with the father S remained
with her grandmother, but the grandmother has recently died and S now lives with the parents and regards their home as her home. The significance of S's upbringing is that before the birth of K the mother had had no practical experience of looking after a young child.
K was born on 12 May 1988. Her early care was in the hands of the mother, since the father was at work much of the time. In June 1988 the health visitor became involved with the family and from the outset was concerned about K. Her concerns were about the mother's ability to care for K because of her mother's limited intelligence. She was also concerned about violence in the relationship between the father and the mother of which the mother complained to her and of which the health visitor on at least two occasions saw physical evidence by way of bruising on the mother. These concerns came to a head in April 1989 when the health visitor referred K's case to the social services department of the local authority. The health visitor described K at this time as a frightened little girl who cried at almost everything and who was not developing normally emotionally and socially and only with difficulty physically. The social services became involved and arrangements were made for K to attend a daynursery, whose staff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St George's Healthcare NHS Trust v S; R v Collins and Others, ex parte S
...[1995] Fam 133). The possible drawbacks of declaratory relief were again considered by the House of Lords in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland[1994] 2 FCR 485, [1993] AC 789, the case of the Hillsborough victim in a persistent vegetative state. In that case the emphasis was on the efficacy of a de......
-
Re P (Children) (Adoption: Parental Consent)
...[1988] FCR 484, [1988] 1 All ER 705, [1989] AC 1, [1988] 2 WLR 474, [1988] 2 FLR 159, HL. C (a minor) (adoption: parental agreement), Re[1994] 2 FCR 485, [1993] 2 FLR 260, CA. C and B (children) (care order: future harm), Re[2000] 2 FCR 614, [2001] 1 FLR 611, CA. D (adoption: parent’s conse......
-
Re M (Adoption or Residence Order)
...C (minor: abduction: rights of custody abroad) [1989] 2 All ER 465, [1989] 1 WLR 654, CA. C (a minor) (adoption: parental agreement), Re[1994] 2 FCR 485, D (adoption: parent’s consent), Re [1977] AC 602, [1977] 1 All ER 145, [1977] 2 WLR 79, HL. E (a minor) (adoption), Re [1989] FCR 118, CA......
-
Re A (A Child) (Fact-Finding: Speculation)
...Re [2000] 1 FLR 334, CA. Biogen Inc v Medeva plc [1997] RPC 1, 38 BMLR 149, HL. C (A Minor) (Adoption: Parental Agreement), Re[1994] 2 FCR 485, [1993] 2 FLR 260. D (an infant) (parent’s consent), Re [1977] 1 All ER 145, [1977] AC 602, [1977] 2 WLR 79. Floyd v John Fairhurst & Co[2004] EWCA ......