Re P-B (A Child) (Placement Order)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 2007 |
| Year | 2007 |
| Date | 2007 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Adoption – Order – Application for placement order – Procedural unfairness – Local authority applying for care order – Local authority applying for placement order – Whether judge in error in consolidating hearings of both application – Children Act 1989, Pts III, IV – Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 22.
In 2002, the child was born. His unmarried parents had co-habited in the course of their relationship, but now lived separately. His mother suffered from Asperger’s syndrome or an Asperger’s-type presentation, which had impeded her capacity to provide for the child the standards of care immediately after his birth. Her problems were compounded by post-natal depression after the child’s birth. In April 2004 it was discovered that the child was suffering from an acute form of leukaemia. The local authority continued to try and support the mother, but in July 2004 they decided that a continuation of the process would put the child at unacceptable risk. Care proceedings were commenced. Seven care plans had been submitted, all of which provided for ultimate rehabilitation. However, on 1 February 2006, the local authority filed an eighth care plan in which it abandoned the goal of rehabilitation and substituted the route to adoption. The case was timetabled for a final hearing to commence on 6 March. At a pre-trial review the authority indicated to the other parties that, pursuant to their eighth care plan, they were placing the child’s case before the adoption panel, which was due to meet on 6 March. It was plainly indicated that if the panel favoured the adoption proposal, the authority would immediately issue an application for a placement order under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005, SI 2005/389. The trial commenced on 6 March and on the same day the panel approved the adoption proposal. The application for a placement order was issued on 8 March and the following day the authority sought a direction that it be immediately listed to be disposed of as part and parcel of the continuing trial of the care application, and that all the evidence in the care proceedings should stand as evidence in the adoption proceedings. The judge granted the authority’s applications for the care order and the placement order. The parents appealed. The mother contended, inter alia, that there had been procedural unfairness, in that she had been forced to respond to and adjust to the application for a placement order at the very latest stage in the trial, with no opportunity for reflection and no opportunity to advance a carefully considered case in relation to the placement order application, or in relation to consequential issues of contact. It was argued that the authority, as a statutory authority in pursuit of a care order, and in pursuit of a care plan that provided for adoption, had to have been satisfied that the child ought to be placed for adoption from the date of the submission of the eighth care plan, and accordingly could and should have issued the application for a placement order on that date; and that, had that been done, all the resultant unfairness would have been avoided. An issue arose as to the meaning of the requirement in s 22 of the 2002 Act that a local authority was to apply for a placement order if they were satisfied that the child ought to be placed for adoption, namely whether the local authority was acting under the provisions of Pt III and Pt IV of the Children Act 1989, or as an adoption agency under the terms of the 2002 Act.
Held – In the instant case, it was in its role as an adoption agency that the authority had to be satisfied that the child ought to be placed for adoption, and that process could not be achieved until there had been complete compliance with the requirements of the 2005 regulations, namely that the appointed officer of the authority had taken the positive decision to endorse the recommendation of the adoption panel. The authority might, in pursuance of its responsibilities and duties under the 1989 Act, reach a decision that adoption was the right future for the child and so declare in the care plan. The case then had to be presented to the panel, which had to reach its recommendation under the terms of the regulations. If the decision of the panel supported the provisional decision of the authority acting under Pt IV of the 1989 Act, then the decision of the panel had to be considered independently by the authority as an adoption agency under the provisions of the regulations. Once that was done, the way was clear for the issue of an application for a placement order. Prior thereto, an application would be premature. Accordingly, on the facts of the instant case, it had not been open to the authority to issue the placement order application any earlier than it had. The question for the judge then was whether to permit the consolidation and contemporaneous conclusion of the two applications, and he had not erred in the exercise of his discretion in doing so. Accordingly, the appeal would be dismissed.
AppealThe parents appealed against the decision of the judge whereby he granted the local authority’s applications for a care order and a placement order. The facts are set out in the judgment of Thorpe LJ.
Michael Keehan QC and Ronan O’Donovan for the mother.
Nicholas O’Brien for the local authority.
The father appeared in person.
THORPE LJ.[1] The parties to these proceedings are the local authority, the mother and father of the child, and the child R via his guardian. R is nearly four years of age. His parents are not married. They commenced a relationship in 2001 and in addition to R, who was born on 29 July 2002, they also have E, who was born on 9 August 2003. During the course of their relationship they have cohabited, but now live separately.
[2] Very sadly the mother of the appellant in this court suffers from something that is either Asperger’s Syndrome or an Asperger’s-type presentation. That has undoubtedly impeded her capacity to provide for R the standards of care immediately after his birth which would have been sufficient to relieve professionals involved with the family of anxiety. Her problems were compounded by post-natal depression, suffered after R’s birth.
[3] This potentially serious situation was dramatically compounded by the discovery in April 2004 that R was suffering from an acute form of leukaemia. Inevitably as a result of that, he has required very high standards of care and high standards of ongoing medical treatment. The local authority endeavoured to support the mother through the resulting stresses and strains, but very sadly in July 2004 they considered that a continuation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re P (Children) (Adoption: Parental Consent)
...17, [1996] 2 FLR 755. P, C and S v UK[2002] 3 FCR 1, [2002] 2 FLR 631, ECt HR. P-B (a child) (placement order), Re[2006] EWCA Civ 1016, [2007] 3 FCR 308, [2007] 1 FLR 1106. R (a child) (adoption: contact), Re[2005] EWCA Civ 1128, [2007] 1 FCR 149, [2006] 1 FLR 373. S (a child) (adoption ord......
-
B (Children)
...(adoption: parental consent), Re[2008] EWCA Civ 535, [2008] 2 FCR 185. P-B (a child) (placement order), Re[2006] EWCA Civ 1016, [2007] 3 FCR 308, [2007] 1 FLR R (adoption: disclosure), Re[1999] 3 FCR 334, [1999] 2 FLR 1123. S and W (children) (care proceedings: care plan), Re[2007] EWCA Civ......
-
T – S (Children)
...[1993] 1 FLR 290. C-H (a minor) (care or interim order), Re[1998] 2 FCR 347, [1998] 1 FLR 402, CA. P-B (a child),Re[2006] EWCA Civ 1016, [2007] 3 FCR 308, [2007] 1 FLR 1106. S and D (children: powers of court),Re[1995] 1 FCR 626, [1995] 2 FLR 456. S and W (care proceedings),Re[2007] EWCA Ci......
-
Table of Cases
...2 FLR 168, [2016] Fam Law 1098 6 P-B (A Child) (Adoption: Application for Placement Order), Re [2006] EWCA Civ 1016, [2007] 1 FLR 1106, [2007] 3 FCR 308, [2006] All ER (D) 64 187 PK v Mr and Mrs K [2015] EWHC 2316 (Fam), [2016] 2 FLR 576, [2015] Fam Law 1317, 165 NLJ 7666 116 Pla and Puncer......