Re G (Adoption: Contact)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE WARD,SIR MARTIN NOURSE,Lord Justice Ward |
| Judgment Date | 20 May 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWCA Civ 761 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 20 May 2002 |
[2002] EWCA Civ 761
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE B1/2002/0654
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE MIDDLESBROUGH COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Taylor)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Lord Justice Ward and
Sir Martin Nourse
Mr G Pinkney (instructed by Messrs Hudsons, Hart & Borrows, Richmond, North Yorkshire) appeared on behalf of the Applicant First Respondent Father.
Mr G Swiffen (instructed by North Yorkshire County Council) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Local Authority.
This is an application by a father for permission to appeal against what is, at the moment, only the judgment of His Honour Judge Taylor, sitting in the Middlesbrough County Court on 11th January 2002. The order affecting the father was not made until 1st March, on a subsequent hearing, when the learned judge ordered, without giving any further judgment, that permission be given to the local authority to terminate the contact the father was to have to two sets of twins. There is no point in being over-concerned about the technicalities. We therefore approach this matter on the basis that the order under appeal may technically be that made on 1st March, when no reasons were given for it, and the judgment giving those reasons is the judgment of 11th January.
The matter arises in difficult care proceedings brought by the local authority in respect of five children of this family. G is aged six. She is not the child of the first respondent, the applicant, Mr G. The applicant and his wife, Mrs G, then had two sets of twins: N and C are a little short of their third birthday; C and T are only 18 months old. The care proceedings were brought partly out of a concern that G may have been sexually abused, but the judge was abundantly satisfied that there was no sexual abuse proved in respect of that child and those matters disappear completely from the picture. But G and two of the twins suffered physical injuries, and serious ones at that. C had had a number of ribs broken and suffered bruising; T also had broken ribs; and G from time to time had bruising on her cheeks and a black eye. The finger of suspicion pointed inevitably to the father, but the mother was not able to exculpate herself either and, with both of them denying responsibility, an issue in the case for the judge was to make findings about those injuries. To summarise it, he found that he could not be sure which of the parents had caused which injury. He was satisfied that one or other or both had done so. Reading between the lines, it may be that he thought there was more suspicion attaching to the father's conduct than to the mother's, but there are no findings of fact which carry that further forward and the court has to proceed upon the basis that it is undetermined who caused what.
Those were anxious enough decisions to take in any event, but this case had an unusual twist to it which caused the judge the manifest concern which leaps from the pages of his long, careful and sympathetic judgment, to which I pay tribute. These twins had been placed with experienced foster parents. There was a question-mark over their ability to act as adoptive parents because Mrs I is 48 and Mr I is 51, and they are at the upper level of acceptability for adoptive parents, according to conventional local authority guidelines. But they were an admirable couple who had looked after these children for many, many months so well that for the younger pair of twins they had become the primary attachment; and the elder twins likewise were firmly attached to Mr and Mrs I. Entering the picture was the father's brother and his wife, a childless couple, who demonstrated to the judge's satisfaction the most admirable qualities possible. Their claim to have both sets of twins live with them was a very powerful one. The judge resisted what would have seemed, perhaps, to be the obvious arithmetical solution of placing one set of twins with one family and the other with the other family—rightly, in my judgment. His agonising choice was to determine, therefore, whether the twins lived with the foster parents or with uncle and aunt. G, the elder child, was fairly securely placed with the maternal grandmother.
That decision is what caused the judge the greatest acute anxiety. He concluded, after very careful consideration, that the right course for these children would be to remain with the foster parents. He subsequently, on 1st March, dismissed the local authority's application that the children be freed for adoption, on the basis that Mr and Mrs I would be making their own adoption application. On 1st March he gave directions accordingly, and the timetabling of the case is such that the parents are to file their statements setting out their views on the adoption by 29th May (that is to say, next week) and the matter is to be heard on Friday 7th June, with a time estimate of a day. The guardian ad litem will remain involved in the case.
Having spent the major part of an extempore judgment dealing with those issues, the judge turned to the question of contact at p.52 of his judgment. He pointed out that the proposals for contact between the siblings was, wisely, that G, living with her maternal grandmother, should keep in contact with her half-brothers and sisters. Moreover, despite some difficulties that were being experienced in that regard, mother would continue to have contact with G. The judge was satisfied that Mr and Mrs I:
"… because of their almost unique experience and expertise in caring for children, are people who are going to bend over backwards to ensure that the family link is not lost."
The judge went on to note that the preferred view of the local authority and of the guardian was that contact with both parents should be severed. But he concluded (and I cannot fault this finding):
"It is an artificial situation that would present itself because of the contact that mother and G have with one another.
Because of the contact G is going to have with her siblings, and as they grow up and discuss seeing their mum, N and C in particular are of an age to know their mum and there is a bond, in particular between C and her mum, which is close and meaningful.
I think, at this stage, it is impossible to say that contact is necessarily going to be a bad thing. I think that the Is were open enough to concede that it could be a good thing for some, albeit limited, contact between the mother and the twins because of the situation concerning her parents and G.
What I propose to say about mother's contact at this stage, and it is difficult to make a final ruling until I know precisely the form of final order that I will make—the timescale involved—but on the assumption that the children remain with the Is, there needs to be a period of calm and settling down, for some months.
I cannot envisage contact taking place much before the end of this year and thereafter contact that the mother may enjoy will be of an infrequent nature....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re P (Children) (Adoption: Parental Consent)
...EWCA Civ 264, [2008] 2 FCR 229. F (a child) (placement order), Re[2008] EWCA Civ 439, [2008] 2 FCR 93. G (children: contact), Re[2002] EWCA Civ 761, [2002] 3 FCR 377, [2003] 1 FLR 270. Hasse v Germany[2005] 3 FCR 666, ECt HR. J v C [1969] 1 All ER 788, [1970] AC 668, [1969] 2 WLR 540, HL. J......
-
Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent)
...of contact post adoption has been identified in a number of the cases, notably by Ward LJ in Re G (Adoption: Contact) [2002] EWCA 761, [2003] 1 FLR 270 and in the dissenting speech of Baroness Hale of Richmond in the Northern Ireland case of Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust v ......
-
Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust v H
...post adoption contact until the adoption application itself (the source of this appears to be some observations of Ward LJ in In re G [2002] EWCA Civ 761. But this was a case where freeing had been refused and the question was whether contact with the child should have been ended before th......
- Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust v H and R
-
Table of Cases
...Law 453 247 G (A Child), Re [2013] EWCA Civ 965, [2014] 1 FLR 670, [2013] 3 FCR 293, [2013] Fam Law 1246 75 G (Adoption: Contact), Re [2002] EWCA Civ 761, [2003] 1 FLR 270, [2002] 3 FCR 377, [2003] Fam Law 9 100 G (Adoption: Leave to Oppose), Re [2014] EWCA Civ 432, [2015] Fam 223, [2014] 3......
-
Autopoietic Law and the ‘Epistemic Trap’: A Case Study of Adoption and Contact
...under s. 8 of the Children Act 1989.87 Harris-Short, id., p. 417.88 As well as the cases quoted, see Re G (Adoption: Contact) [2002] EWCA Civ 761,33 Family Law 9. This case concerned a father's appeal against termination of hiscontact during care proceedings. His children's foster carers in......
-
Post-placement and Post-adoption Contact
...in the particular circumstances of the case, bearing in mind the paramountcy of the welfare of the child. In Re G (Adoption: Contact) [2002] EWCA Civ 761, when considering the issue of contact with family members Ward LJ stated (at [14]) that when one is looking at the benefits of contact: ......