![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> T (A Child: Refusal of Adoption Order), Re [2020] EWCA Civ 797 (02 July 2020) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/797.html Cite as: [2020] EWCA Civ 797 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
THE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
FAMILY COURT AT BARNET
HHJ McKinnell
18/72
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
THE
RIGHT HONOURABLE LADY JUSTICE KING
THE
RIGHT HONOURABLE LADY JUSTICE ASPLIN
and
MR JUSTICE KEEHAN
____________________
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
____________________
the
Appellants
Ms S Morgan QC and Mr T
Wilson (instructed by Goodman Ray Solicitors) for
the
1st
Respondent
Ms C Irvine (instructed by
the
Local Authority) for
the
2nd
Respondent
Ms J Rayson (instructed by FMW Law) for
the
3rd
Respondent
Hearing date: 17th June 2020
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Keehan:
Introduction
The
Facts
"Within our family culture,titles
are assigned based on
relationships
and position and not solely on age, legal or biological
ties.
Hence, consistent family members and close family friends have
taken
ongoing roles as "grandparents", "uncles", "aunties" and "cousins". For example, [S} is our grandchild and [C]'s 22-year-old legal cousin however
takes
![]()
the
role and
title
of uncle; ………. and [
the
mother]'s legal step-father and has
taken
![]()
this
role for over 20 years, albeit he is only 3½ and 6 years
respectively
older. [
The
mother] does not
refute
our position in her statement, nor
that
![]()
this
is [C] and her own family's race, culture and identity. Our long established complex family configurations are explained
to
all openly and honestly without surprises.
They
are understood and easily explained by family members including
the
children.
They
![]()
reflect
southern African cultural norms and family constructs, significantly differing from
traditional
English family structures. Our family establishment has been highlighted by professionals as strongly supporting [C]'s ability
to
develop his own identity and belonging and critical
to
enabling his sense-making of his life story. As our
adopted
child [C] nor any other family member would
refer
![]()
to
[
the
mother or her sister]….. as his sibling, as he will not be, and
there
are neither circumstances where such legal definitions will be
required.
It is clear within our family
that
[C] does not as yet have any siblings, albeit we are considering
adopting
a younger child/baby from outside
the
family
to
be raised alongside him as a sibling. Following [C]'s
adoption
(if our application is successful), our family
relationships,
enacted roles and
titles
will
remain
as
they
have been assigned. As such
adoption
cannot skew
relationships
or family dynamics,
they
are different already, and are not wrong. [
The
mother] is [C]'s mother and is
referred
![]()
to
him in an age appropriate way, currently as his '
Tummy
Mummy". [C] will also know, as does
the
whole family,
that
[
the
mother] is [
the
grandmother]'s daughter and is his mother, although she does not parent him. [
The
mother] is and will always be part of our and [C]'s family and world, although he has only seen her at birth and may not be able
to
have any contact with her, as given
the
risks, are neither
the
other children in
the
family able
to.
We have always strongly encouraged
this
approach as being in [C]'s best interest, for example [
the
mother] saw [C]
twice
at
the
![]()
time
of birth, on our insistence as we were mindful of
the
![]()
relevance
of
this
![]()
to
his life story. Our approach
reflects
![]()
the
lengthy discussions and advice
received
from social services on
this
matter since [C]'s birth
to
date, so
that
he is safeguarded and understands his family story in an age appropriate way, whom we are
to
him and why he does not live with his biological mother and father. [C] does not have a legal father and all attempts
to
identify his biological father have proven unsuccessful. Only
adoption
will provide [C] with a legal father. If
adopted,
[C] will gain a legal father whom will be one of his primary carers and his main male, African/black (of a similar racial ethnicity as [C]) positive role model."
"Itold
[
the
mother]
that
she should not be calling me and as soon as I said
this,
[
the
mother]'s
tone
switched and she became very angry. All of a sudden she completely lost it and shouted a barrage of abuse, for example she called me a "fucking stinking bitch". She started screaming down
the
phone; I
recall
her saying "Where's my son?", "He's my son", "I am [C's]
real
mum", "I am his
real
Mum", "Where's [
the
grandparents]", "Where's Mum", "where is he, where is my son", "
They've
no right
to
him, I'm gonna get him back, he's mine", [
the
step-grandfather]'s a bastard" and "
They're
greedy,
they
just want
to
steal him away". I initially attempted
to
![]()
reason
with [my sister] and
try
and explain
to
her
that
![]()
this
behaviour was not fair on [C] and
that
it is extremely stressful for
the
whole family. She said
that
she didn'
t
care and
that
"He's my fucking son".
There
was nothing I could say after
this
as [
the
mother] would not let me get a word in.
This
continued for some minutes; during
the
call I
received
a
text
from my parents saying
that
![]()
they
were outside.
They
did not ring
the
doorbell as I had asked
them
not
to
as
this
would make me panic, so when I
received
![]()
the
![]()
text
I went and opened
the
door for
them.
[
The
mother] would not have known
that
![]()
they
had
turned
up at
the
house during
the
call. [She] continued
to
shout
the
same abuse at me down
the
phone and also said "I am not your fucking sister". She also made several
threats
![]()
to
my life and said "Fucking
tell
me where
they
are,
tell
me where he is, he's mine, I'm gonna get him back, I'm gonna fucking kill you". [
The
mother] went on
to
say
that
[
the
grandparents] are breaking
the
law, and she continued
to
call [
the
step-grandfather] a "Fucking bastard". During
the
call, [
the
mother] was asking me where [
the
grandparents] are; I do not know whether she had attended [
their]
address
to
look for
them
first,
there
was just no way of me knowing.
The
call felt like it went on for much longer
than
it did but it would not have been more
than
3
to
4 minutes. She became uncontrollably angry and eventually, [
the
grandmother] suggested
that
I should end
the
call as it was very upsetting. I wasn'
t
able
to
deal with it any longer. After I ended
the
call, I was extremely shaken and worried about what [
the
mother] would do next. It was an incredibly
traumatic
day for me, but I
think
it was a lot worse for [
the
grandparents] as
they,
and [C], are always [her] main
target.
I also asked [
the
grandmother]
to
stay
the
night with me as I didn'
t
want
to
stay by myself."
The
Judgment
"Having consideredthis
case carefully, I do not consider
that
an
adoption
order is necessary or proportionate.
This
is not a "nothing else will do" situation.
The
special guardianship order has worked well.
The
applicants have been able
to
meet [C]'s needs under
the
special guardianship order. He is
thriving
in
their
care."
"36.There
is no
real
dispute about
the
applicable law.
37.Any order should bethe
least interventionist order
that
meets
the
child's welfare needs.
38.The
welfare checklist in s.1(3) of
the
Children Act 1989 and s.1(4) of
the
![]()
Adoption
and Children Act 2002 must be applied. In particular,
the
likely effect on a child
throughout
his life of being
adopted
has
to
be considered including his
relationship
with his birth mother. In
this
case, [C] will continue
to
live within, and be a member of, his birth family. Consideration has
to
be given
to
whether
the
![]()
relationships
within
the
family will be skewed by an
adoption
order.
39.The
child's welfare
throughout
his life is
the
court's paramount consideration.
40.In consideringthe
![]()
two
different options (
adoption
order or continuing special guardianship order),
the
court should not knock out one option but must consider
them
side-by-side.
The
court has
to
balance one against
the
other, considering
the
advantages and disadvantages in each option and decide which option is best for
the
child.
41.The
court has
to
be satisfied
that
nothing else will do before making an
adoption
order.
42,[C], his mother andthe
applicants have article 8 rights
to
a private and family life.
Those
rights can only be interfered with if it is necessary, proportionate and in
the
best interests of
the
child.
The
need
to
safeguard a child's welfare justifies interfering with
the
parties' article 8 rights."
"25.Dr McEvedy prepared a psychiatricreport
dated 29 November 2019 of
the
mother. He considers
that
![]()
there
is support for a diagnosis of
relapsing
psychosis (history of
relapsing
serious mental illness leading
to
![]()
repeated
detained admission
to
hospital, deterioration in prison when non-compliant with antipsychotic medication for a prolonged period and her own description of hearing hallucinatory voices as well as a paranoid element
to
her
thinking).
He
referred
![]()
to
![]()
the
mother's history of substance misuse including long-
term
use of cannabis, crack cocaine in
recent
years and spice during her most
recent
period of imprisonment. He
referred
![]()
to
![]()
the
mother's extensive history of convictions as well as her lack of
remorse
(including at his interview with her) for previous aggressive behaviour including
towards
her own mother (one of
the
applicants). Dr McEvedy considers
that
![]()
there
also appears
to
be an antisocial personality element [E75]. He states
that
![]()
the
prognosis for
the
mother is uncertain given her history of
repeated
hospitalisations [E76]. He
reports
![]()
that
![]()
there
are various features (including disturbed mental state and behaviour in
recent
years, imprisonment and hospitalisation)
to
indicate
that
![]()
the
mother's problems of extreme emotional variability, impulsivity and poor control of frustration, as well as potential for aggression
to
others,
remain
[E76]. Dr McEvedy's opinion is
that
![]()
the
mother has demonstrated by her conduct
towards
her own mother (including
threats),
as well as
repeated
breaches of
the
![]()
restraining
order and criminal damage
to
![]()
the
applicant's property (
the
mother admitted during his interview with her
that
she had
thrown
a brick
through
![]()
the
applicants' window in 2017), as well as her ill feeling
towards
her step grandfather (one of
the
applicants),
that
![]()
there
is some enduring risk
to
![]()
them.
Whilst Dr McEvedy accepts
the
mother's account
that
she would never intentionally harm a child, his view is
that
her degree of behavioural disturbance, including aggression, at
times
must be seen as posing a risk
to
a child, particularly when her
thoughts
and feelings around him and his care and her lack of contact with him are so highly emotionally charged [E76]."
"51. Ms Speke is a fair, compassionate and child focussed professional. I have no doubtthat
she will
treat
![]()
the
mother fairly. I do not, however, agree with her conclusion
that
an
adoption
order is necessary or proportionate in
this
case. It may bring some benefits but it will not
reduce
![]()
the
risks, it will not stop
the
mother making applications if
that
is what she decides
to
do and it will not improve
the
love, support and care
that
[C] is already enjoying. It will
remove
![]()
the
only
remaining
![]()
relationship
between [C] and his birth mother.
Relationships
will be skewed, generations unnecessarily
recast
and [C] will be left wondering why his grandparents had
to
legally
replace
his mother."
"60.I disagree withthe
Guardian's
recommendation
because, whilst I
recognise
many advantages in an
adoption
order, I do not consider
that
an
adoption
order in
this
case is either necessary or proportionate, particularly when
the
mother has not made any of
the
feared applications and, save for
the
October 2018 phone call
referred
![]()
to
in paragraph 66 below, has not done anything
to
undermine
the
placement/breach
the
![]()
restraining
orders in
the
last
two
years.
The
Applicants sought a special guardianship order knowing
that
![]()
the
mother posed a risk and
that
she may make applications in
the
future. She has made no applications and she has not done anything in
the
last
two
years
to
undermine
the
placement even when she has been unwell.
The
Applicants' commitment
to
[C] is clear. Whilst an
adoption
order may provide additional
reassurance
for
the
Applicants and [C], and provide [C] with a legal father,
they
have
the
![]()
reassurance
![]()
that
any application
to
discharge
the
Special Guardianship Order would be carefully considered and analysed by
the
Courts and any appointed Guardian. Whilst
there
are benefits in
the
making of an
adoption
order,
those
benefits do not make an
adoption
order necessary or proportionate. [C]'s welfare
throughout
his life does not
require
![]()
the
making of an
adoption
order at
this
![]()
time."
This
is
the
only part of
the
judgment where
the
judge
referred
to
the
fact
that
one consequence of making an
adoption
order was
that
C would have a legal father,
the
step-grandfather.
This
issue does not feature in
the
welfare analysis which
the
judge undertook later in her judgment.
"65.[C] is benefitting from consistent, safe, secure andreliable
care.
The
applicants have a high level of insight and are ensuring
that
he grows up knowing who
the
people in his family are.
They
are being honest with him about who his "
tummy
mummy" is. He is being brought up within his birth family and his cultural needs are being met. If he is
adopted,
his only
relationship
(legal) with his mother will be cut. He has not seen his mother since he was born. His mother's mental health difficulties, substance misuse and criminal behaviour may mean
that
he is unable
to
spend
time
with his mother unless she is able
to
make
the
changes
that
she wants and needs
to
make. As [C] grows up, his sense of identity will become more and more important. He will want
to
know who his mother is and if he is
adopted
he will want
to
know why his birth mother had
to
be
removed
as his legal mother. If he is
adopted,
he will grow up as
the
legal son of his grandparents when he was in fact born into a different generation. An
adoption
order in
this
case will add confusion in
terms
of identity and
the
necessity for an
adoption
order cannot be justified. It may add
to
[C]'s sense of loss which he is likely
to
feel (if not already felt) by not being brought up by, or seeing, his birth mother. He may feel further
rejected
by her, although it is clear
to
me
that
she loves him very much. She is very unwell and vulnerable. She has been unable
to
safely care for herself for some
time,
let alone [C].
66.In practicalterms,
little will change by
the
making of an
adoption
order. [C] will continue
to
be cared for by
the
applicants.
They
will continue
to
have
the
benefit of a life-long
restraining
order.
The
risks will not be
reduced.
![]()
The
mother has done nothing
to
disrupt [C]'s placement since December 2017. She made some phone calls
to
![]()
the
applicants in October 2018 and left a message saying: "I hope you die. You should not be looking after my child." [H198]. However,
the
![]()
reality
is
that
she agreed, and continues
to
agree,
to
![]()
the
applicants looking after [C]. In her statement and letters she makes it clear
that
![]()
that
is where [C] should live.
The
mother has not applied for a contact order
to
date and
recognises
![]()
that
she needs
to
make changes before she can see [C]."
"Realistic
Options
67.There
are
two
![]()
realistic
options. I have already set out some of
the
advantages and disadvantages in either option and
this
judgment must be
read
as a whole."
The
judge
then
set out
the
advantages and disadvantages of a special guardianship order. She considered
that
the
main advantages were
that
the
mother would
remain
as C's mother and
that
C would continue
to
thrive
in
the
care of his grandparents.
The
principal disadvantage of a special guardianship order was it had 'less stability and permanence
than
an
adoption
order'.
The
judge
then
turned
to
consider
the
advantages and disadvantages of an
adoption
order in
the
following
terms:
"Adoption
Order
70.The
advantages of an
adoption
order are
that
[C] would legally be
the
applicants' child. He would benefit from inheritance rights and all
the
other benefits
that
come with being
their
legal child. His place in
the
applicants' family will be more secure and more permanent and
they
will be his parents
throughout
his life, not just until he is 18 years old.
The
applicants look after him as his parents and he sees
them
as his parents. An
adoption
order would
reflect
his experience of being parented by
the
applicants. [C]'s allocated social worker and guardian both support
the
making of an
adoption
order.
The
local authority, Guardian and applicants all support
the
making of an
adoption
order. An
adoption
order will
reduce
![]()
the
applicants' anxiety and may send a clear message
to
![]()
the
mother/set clear boundaries for her.
71.The
disadvantages are
that
his only existing
relationship
with his birth mother would be severed. In legal
terms,
she would not be his mother.
That
is likely
to
be a profound loss for [C] during his lifetime. He may feel a greater sense of
rejection.
He may wonder why it was necessary for all of his
ties
![]()
to
his birth mother
to
be cut. He has no
relationship
with his mother other
than
his legal
relationship
and
that
would be severed by an
adoption
order. His place in
the
family and his family
relationships
will be skewed. Whilst he may not sit down with a family
tree
and
try
and piece it all
together,
he is bound
to
wonder why others decided
that
it was necessary for his grandparents
to
legally
replace
his mother. An
adoption
order will not
really
change anything. It will not
reduce
![]()
the
risks. It will not change his lived experience.
The
support, contact arrangements, need for
therapeutic
support and so on will not change under an
adoption
order. It will not simplify [C]'s life story. It will add an additional complexity because his legal
relationship
with his grandparents and his mother will change. Legally, he will be moved into a different generation within his birth family. Legally, his mother will be his sister. Legally, his birth family
relationships
will be skewed.
The
mother may feel a greater sense of injustice by being cut off as his mother and having her parental
responsibility
(and rights)
removed.
She may not understand
the
boundaries set by an
adoption
order. It may make
the
situation between
the
applicants caring for [C] and
the
mother worse. It is an unnecessary and disproportionate
response
![]()
to
![]()
the
risks and concerns, particularly when
the
mother has not made any application
to
court in
the
last 3 ½ years, not disrupted
the
placement and has not breached
the
![]()
restraining
order for some
time
now.
The
last incident was in October 2018, now 16 months ago. It is not necessary on
the
facts of
this
case.
The
mother opposes
the
making of an
adoption
order.
Conclusion
72.Forthe
![]()
reasons
I have set out in
this
judgment, I
refuse
![]()
the
application for an
adoption
order. I disagree with
the
professionals' analysis of
the
necessity for an
adoption
order on
the
facts of
this
case. I also disagree with
their
assessment
that
an
adoption
order is proportionate in
the
light of
the
risks.
This
is not a case where "nothing else will do."
This
has been a finely balanced decision. In my judgment,
the
balance falls in favour of continuing
the
special guardianship order. An
adoption
order is neither necessary nor proportionate in
the
short, medium or long
term."
Grounds of Appeal
i) the
judge erred in concluding
the
adoption
order was unnecessary and in particular:
a) she gave insufficient weightto
![]()
the
overarching legal and psychological security offered by
adoption;
b) gave insufficient weightto
![]()
the
enduring impact on
the
child and
the
appellants of
the
mother's actions;
c) had insufficientregard
![]()
to
![]()
the
necessity for future court proceedings
to
manage
the
mother's parental
responsibility
and
the
disruption
that
will be caused
to
C by
those
proceedings; and
d) gave undue weightto
![]()
the
availability of a s.91(14) order
to
mitigate
the
difficulties
that
would be experienced by
the
appellants; and
ii) gave excessive weight to
the
distortion of legal
relationships
if an
adoption
order was made.
Submissions
i.the
judge failed
to
give sufficient consideration
to
![]()
the
legal and psychological security offered by
adoption;
ii. she failedto
![]()
take
account of
the
serious adverse impact of
the
mother's conduct on
the
grandparents,
their
family and C – in
the
past and in
the
future;
iii. she failedto
consider
the
potential for, risks of and consequences of future aggressive,
threatening
and under-mining conduct by
the
mother;
iv. she failedto
consider
the
benefits for C of having a legal father if an
adoption
order was made;
v. she placed excessive weight onthe
skewing of family
relationships
if an
adoption
order was made; and
vi. she failedto
have
regard
![]()
to
![]()
the
cultural approach of
the
maternal family
to
family
titles,
roles and
relationships
which were more fluid, flexible and, in
terms,
practical
than
![]()
that
![]()
traditionally
practised in
this
jurisdiction.
"Werespectfully
disagree with Miss Henke
that
special guardianship orders have effectively
replaced
![]()
adoption
orders in cases where children are
to
be placed permanently within
their
wider families. No doubt
there
are many such cases in which a special guardianship order will be
the
appropriate order, but as
this
court points out in para [61] and elsewhere in its judgment in
Re
S(
Adoption
Order or Special Guardianship Order), each case will fall
to
be decided on what is in
the
best interests of
the
particular child on
the
particular facts of
the
case. Moreover, each such decision will involve
the
careful exercise of a judicial discretion applied
to
![]()
the
facts as found.[45]In
the
instant case,
the
judge's findings of fact and his assessments of
the
parties are, in our judgment, not only of critical importance, but determinative of outcome. AJ had been with his paternal aunt and uncle since
the
age of 6 months. He and his carers both plainly need
the
assurance
that
![]()
the
security of
that
placement could not be disturbed.
That
assurance could not be provided by a special guardianship order: it could only be provided by
adoption.[46]The
judge was, in our judgment, plainly entitled
to
find as a fact
that
![]()
the
mother in particular had never given up on
regaining
AJ's care. His
two
findings
that
![]()
there
was a
real
possibility of future applications
to
![]()
the
court, and
that
![]()
those
applications would be disruptive of
the
placement were manifestly open
to
him on
the
evidence. All
the
expert evidence in
the
case, including, of course,
that
of Dr Banks, was
to
like effect.
These
factors are all clear pointers
towards
![]()
adoption.[47]In
our judgment, it is no answer
to
assert
that
any application
to
![]()
revoke
a special guardianship order and/or
to
seek a
residence
order
requires
![]()
the
court's permission, or
that
any application for permission
to
apply for contact and other s 8 orders can be
regulated
so as not
to
disturb
the
child or his carers by filtering
them
![]()
through
s 91(14) of
the
1989 Act. In situations where
the
parties are not in contact – where, for example, parties do not know where
their
former partners and
their
children are living – it may well be possible
to
direct
that
any application under s 91(14) shall not, in
the
first instance, be served on
the
![]()
resident
parent, and
that
![]()
the
application can
thus
be
resolved
by
the
court without
the
![]()
resident
parent and
the
children concerned even being aware
that
it has been made. Such considerations do not, however, in our judgment, apply in cases such as
the
present where
the
parents of
the
child are having
regular
contact. In such cases it is unreal
to
suppose
that
Mr and Mrs
Twill
be unaware
that
AJ's parents had made an application
to
![]()
the
court. Even if
that
application stood no prospect of success and was, in
the
event, dismissed,
the
![]()
threat
of disruption and disturbance would
remain."
"It is importantto
note also
that
![]()
the
statutory provisions draw strong and clear distinctions between
the
status of children who are
adopted,
and
those
who are subject
to
lesser orders, including special guardianship. As we have already pointed out,
the
considerations in
relation
![]()
to
![]()
adoption
in
the
expanded checklist contained ins1ofthe2002 Act
require
![]()
the
court
to
address
the
question of
the
child's welfare
throughout
his life. We do not
think
![]()
this
point needs any further explanation or emphasis. Its consequences are, however, significant.[45]
Thus,
although s 14C(1) of
the
1989 Act gives special guardians exclusive parental authority,
this
entitlement is subject
to
a number of limitations. Attached
to
![]()
the
skeleton argument prepared in
the
case of
Re
AJ(
Adoption
Order or Special Guardianship Order)[2007] EWCA Civ 55,[2007] 1 FLR 507 by Miss Lorna Meyer QC, Mr David Crowley, (
the
solicitor advocate for
the
child) and Mr Graham Jones (
the
solicitor advocate for
the
prospective
adopters)
was a helpful document entitled Schedule of Main Differences between Special Guardianship Orders and
Adoption
which set out
those
differences in
tabular
form."
"We alsorespectfully
agree with
the
judge
that
an
adoption
order in
the
instant case does not unduly distort
the
family dynamics. For
the
![]()
reasons
which
this
court gives in paras [51] and [52] of its judgment inRe S (
Adoption
Order or Special Guardianship Order),
the
question of
the
likely distortion of family
relationships
by an
adoption
order is very fact specific, and should not be overplayed. In
the
instant case, AJ knows precisely who he is. He knows
that
his birth parents are Mr and Mrs J and
that
![]()
they
are unable
to
look after him. He knows he is living with his aunt and uncle. He is not confused, nor is he likely
to
be in
the
future. What matters for him is
that
he should be fully accepted and cared for by his aunt and uncle as a member of
their
household, and as a brother
to
W.
The
difference between brother and cousin on
the
facts of
this
case is
readily
understandable: what matters is
the
![]()
relationship
between
the
![]()
two
children. In our view it is not a major or negative distortion of family
relationships
in
this
case for cousins
to
grow up
together
as brothers."
i.The
judge was engaged in a welfare analysis which involved
the
exercise of a judicial discretion and
this
court should be slow
to
interfere;
ii. onthe
evidence she was entitled
to
![]()
reach
her conclusions and her decision
to
![]()
refuse
![]()
to
make an
adoption
order;
iii.this
was a very finely balanced case and
the
judge's approach
to
![]()
the
exercise of her discretion could not be faulted;
iv.the
special guardianship order was more
than
sufficient
to
enable
the
grandparents
to
meet C's welfare needs now and in
the
future; and
v. anadoption
order is a Draconian order which would sever all legal
ties
between
this
mother and
this
child.
Discussion
i.reflect
![]()
the
![]()
reality
of C's life with his grandparents now and
throughout
![]()
the
whole of his life;
ii. it would provide C andthe
grandparents with
the
security and
reassurance
![]()
that
C's future life was securely and permanently with
them
in fact and in law;
iii. it would severthe
mother's legal
relationship
with C which is a Draconian step for any court
to
![]()
take,
but it would
remove
![]()
the
mother's ability
to
interfere in his life whether by making applications
to
![]()
the
court and/or
requiring
and demanding information about C's life;
iv. it wouldremove
![]()
the
obligation on
the
grandparents
to
seek
the
mother's consent for certain steps
to
be
taken
in C's life (eg
remove
him from
the
jurisdiction for a period in excess of
three
months);
v. it would enablethe
step-grandfather
to
be C's legal father as well as his emotional, social and psychological father in circumstances where
the
identity of C's biological father is unknown; and
vi. it would sendthe
clear message
to
![]()
the
wider world
that
C was lawfully
the
grandparent's child.
Conclusion
Lady Justice Asplin:
Lady Justice King: