Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Re G (Adoption: Parental Agreement)

Family Court Reports Cited authorities 6 Cited in Precedent Map Related
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date1990
Date1990
Year1990
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)

MUSTILL, LJ AND THORPE, J

Adoption – parental agreement – child removed from mother following non-accidental injury – mother indicating wish for child to be adopted – subsequently vacillating – child placed with prospective adopters – application for adoption dispensing with mother's agreement – Judge refusing to dispense with agreement – whether Judge had properly assessed and taken into account all relevant factors.

The child, a boy, was born in May 1986. On 1 April 1987 he had bruising to both cheeks. A consultant paediatrician stated that this was a non-accidental injury. The child was taken into care under a place of safety order. On 9 April 1987 the mother told the social workers that she wished the child to be adopted. On 15 May 1987 the child was placed with short-term foster parents. On 22 May 1987 the mother said she had changed her mind and would oppose adoption and eventually wish the child to be returned to her. On 2 June 1987 a care order was made. In July 1987 the mother indicated that she had changed her mind again and wished the child to be adopted. In August 1987 she requested a meeting and signed papers enabling the child to be placed for adoption. The last meeting between the mother and the child took place in Sepember 1987.

In November 1987 the mother gave birth to her second child, a daughter. In December 1987 the adoption panel recommended that the boy be placed for adoption, and the child was placed with the prospective adopters in June 1988. In October 1988 the mother wrote to the local authority stating that she had yet again changed her mind about adoption and expressing a firm resolve to assume care of the boy. On 6 December 1988 the local authority served a notice on the mother under s 12B of the Child Care Act 1980 formally terminating access. The mother did not apply to the juvenile court for an access order under s 12C of the 1980 Act.

The adoption application was heard in a county court in June 1989. The mother had not formally agreed to adoption so the applicants asked the Judge to dispense with her agreement on the ground that she was unreasonably withholding it. However, when seen by the guardian ad litem two weeks before the hearing the mother had indicated that she was reluctantly reconciled to adoption. This was stated in two paragraphs of the guardian ad litem's report, but these paragraphs (at least) of that report were not made known to counsel in the county court. As a result of the mother's stance, neither the guardian ad litem in her report nor the social worker who prepared the report prescribed by sch 2 to the Adoption Rules 1984 had considered in any detail the mother's current circumstances or her ability to care for the boy. The Judge was impressed by the mother's sincerity and her commitment to providing a home for the boy in the future. He therefore refused to dispense with the mother's agreement. In his

[1990] FCR 881 at 882

reasons he stated that in her evidence, the guardian ad litem had accepted that the living conditions of the mother and her daughter were satisfactory and that without the existence of the placement for adoption, the care order would be revoked. The Judge also found that although there was some risk of unsettling the boy by moving him, the present stability of the mother's life was likely to ensure that any such unsettling would be of short duration.

The prospective adopters appealed.

Held – allowing the appeal: The decision of the Judge was flawed in important respects. He had not properly assessed the reality of the mother's capacity to care for the boy in the future as that had not been presented to him at the hearing in its proper context. He had failed to give due weight to the length of time the child had been separated from the mother. He also failed to give due weight to the circumstances that had originally separated the mother from the child. He failed to give sufficient weight to the needs and interests of the prospective adopters who had undertaken the care of the child in the belief that they do so with the mother's support. He did not have drawn to his attention decisions in which considerable emphasis had been laid on the importance that should be attached to a positive expression of agreement at a vital stage in the development of the adoption proceedings subsequently withdrawn on a change of heart: Re H (Infants) (Adoption: Parental Consent) [1977] 1 WLR 471 and Re W (Adoption: Parental Agreement) (1982) 3 FLR 75. Nor did he have drawn to his attention Re H; Re W (Adoption: Parental Agreement) (1983) 4 FLR 614 where the emphasis on the difficulty confronting a parent who sought to change his or her mind was put in perspective. The order of the Judge could not stand and the case would be remitted for further consideration by a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT