Re R (A Minor) (Adoption) (No. 2)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 December 1986 |
| Court | Family Division |
HOLLINGS, J
Adoption – mother agreeing to adoption before birth of child – maintaining agreement after birth – child placed with proposed adopters immediately after birth – mother withdrawing her agreement – proposed adopters apply to dispense with mother's agreement – delay in case coming on for hearing – whether parent withholding agreement unreasonably – question to be judged at date of hearing – objective test of reasonable parent having regard to all the circumstances – damaging effect of removal of child from those he regarded as parents – factor a reasonable parent would take into account.
The mother became pregnant when she was very young. She was living at home with her parents who indicated that they would not have the child in the house. The mother contacted the local authority with a view to having the child adopted. She was fully advised about adoption and made it clear to an officer of the local authority that when it was born she wished the child to be placed directly with proposed adopters. The child was born on 13 December 1984 and placed with the applicants. In due course the mother signed a document agreeing to adoption and the applicants issued their originating application in a county court. The application was listed for an uncontested hearing on 6 June 1985. On 15 May 1985 the mother withdrew her agreement to adoption. As a result the proposed hearing did not go ahead and the case did not come before the court until July 1986. The Judge took the view that delay was a relevant factor in the determination of the mother to refuse her agreement, and that it should not be held against her when considering whether she was withholding her agreement unreasonably. He therefore refused to dispense with her agreement and dismissed the application for an adoption order. Allowing an appeal by the applicants the Court of Appeal held that the Judge had approached the matter in the wrong way by adopting a subjective approach and considering the delay only as it affected the mother. He had not adopted the objective approach required by the authorities. This required the court to consider also the effect of the delay on the applicants and the child which were factors which the hypothetical reasonable parent would take into account. It was ordered that the matter be transferred to the High Court for rehearing by a Judge of the Family Division: Re R (A Minor) (Adoption) [1987] FCR 104.
On the new trial:
[1987] FCR 113 at 114
Held – The mother had agreed to the proposed adoption from before the child's birth in December 1984 until May 1985. She had then withdrawn her agreement after the application for adoption had been set down for an unopposed hearing. The proceedings then had to proceed as a contested matter and, although the period before it was relisted was longer than might be usual, a delay was to be expected in view of the mother's change of mind. In deciding whether the mother was withholding her agreement unreasonably the court had to approach the matter by adopting the objective test laid down in Re W (An Infant) [1971] AC 682. The principle to be applied was whether at the date of hearing it was reasonable, taking into account the welfare of the child, for the parent to withhold agreement having regard to what a reasonable person would do in all the circumstances: see also Re W (Adoption: Parental Agreement) (1982) 3 FLR 75. Even where the original agreement to adoption was given by an immature mother, the test that must be applied if agreement was subsequently withdrawn was that of a reasonable mature mother: see per Sheldon, J in Re V (Adoption: Parental Agreement) [1985] FLR 45 at p 53G. In this case the child had been with the applicants for the whole two years of his life. During that period there had been no contact between the mother and the child. The mother relied upon the blood tie but it was doubtful whether she appreciated what the effect would be on the child of removing him from the applicants. The only advantage she could suggest was that he would be moved to his natural mother. That would plainly not be to the child's advantage as to take the child from the persons who were in his emotions his parents, however carefully the move was undertaken, would be most damaging to the child. Such a move might be made with less risk up to the age of six months, but a period of two years with the applicants was too long to consider a successful change. The mother's agreement to adoption would be dispensed with and an adoption order made.
Stephen Dodds for the local authority.
Donald Hart, QC and Paul Hague for the mother.
Eleanor Platt, QC and Jane Cross for the applicants.
MR JUSTICE HOLLINGS.These are consolidated wardship and adoption proceedings as a result of the order of the Court of Appeal on 6 October 1986, when the Court of Appeal upheld an appeal in the adoption proceedings against an order of His Honour Judge Sellers in Chorley county court on 24 July of the same year: Re R (A Minor) (Adoption) [1987] FCR 104.
The day after the decision of the county court Judge on 25 July, the originating summons in the wardship proceedings was issued by the Lancashire County Council and so it was that there were two sets of proceedings when the matter came before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal ordered that the adoption proceedings which had been, as I have said, in the Chorley county court, should be transferred to the High Court and be consolidated with the wardship proceedings; the wardship proceedings to be the leading action and the Court of Appeal, Purchas, and Kerr, L JJ, directed that the hearing of both should take place in Liverpool or Manchester, and the prospective adopters or applicants in the adoption proceedings – whose name is confidential and who have been described as Mr and Mrs A – should be made third defendants. So it is that the matter came before me yesterday.
The child concerned is the natural son of the mother. She herself was very young when the child was born. She was born on 3 November 1967, and the child was born on 13 December 1984, so the mother would then be just eighteen. The mother had
[1987] FCR 113 at 115
associated in the summer of 1983 with a man whom all concerned in this case have little good to report of, and it is plain that the parents of the mother, with whom the mother lived, and the brother, and I think a sister of hers took a strong objection to her association with this man. As a result the association did cease, but by then the mother was pregnant, and she was reluctant in those circumstances, and understandably reluctant I would add, to confess her pregnancy to her parents.
Her mother was suspicious and asked her several times whether she was not pregnant but received a denial until the pregnancy was about 20 weeks when she did tell her parents. The immediate reaction of the parents, and in particular of the father, was one of anger, both directed against the person who was thought to be the father and whom everybody in court believes to be the father, although he did not specifically admit it at any one stage, and also anger directed at their daughter, and the reaction in particular of the father was that...
To continue reading
Request your trial