![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales Family Court Decisions (High Court Judges) |
||||||||||
|
THE FUTURE OF BAILII DEPENDS ON USERS LIKE YOU
If you want to be able to use BAILII in the future, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law.
Your donation, no matter the size, will help BAILII maintain the legal databases that you and many other users rely on. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
| ||||||||||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (High Court Judges) >> N, Re (Adoption - Surrogacy) [2024] EWFC 41 (29 February 2024) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2024/41.html Cite as: [2024] EWFC 41 |
||||||||||
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Context
]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
representatives
of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court. Neutral Citation Number: [ 2024] EWFC 41 | ||
No: ZC157/23 |
Sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
2024 |
B e f o r e :
____________________
| Mr and Mrs J |
Applicants |
|
| - and - |
||
| Mr and Mrs P |
1st and 2nd Respondent | |
| - and - |
||
N |
3rd Respondent |
|
| - and - |
||
| Local Authority |
4th Respondent |
____________________
Ms Dorothea Gartland K.C (instructed by Dawson Cornwell) for the 1st
Respondent
The 2nd
Respondent
did
not
attend the hearing
Ms Deirdre Fottrell K.C (instructed by Goodman Ray) for the 3rd
Respondent
Ms Laura Williams (instructed by the Local Authority) for the 4th
Respondent
Hearing date: 27 February
2024
Judgment: 29 February
2024
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
remotely
at 12.00
Noon
on 29th February
2024
by circulation to the parties or their
representatives
by e-mail and by
release
to the
National
Archives.Mrs Justice Theis DBE :
Introduction
adoption
made by Mr and Mrs J in
respect
of
N,
now
age 18 years.
N
was born as a
result
of a
surrogacy
arrangement in 2005 between Mr and Mrs J and Mr and Mrs P. Mr J is
N's
genetic father. Mrs P is
N's
genetic mother, she and her husband, Mr P, are
N's
legal parents for all purposes as a consequence of ss 33(1), 35(1), 48(1) and (2) Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008).
adoption
application and supports it, as does the local authority who undertook the Annex A assessment. Mr and Mrs P oppose the
adoption
application and do
not
provide their consent. The central question for the court is whether
N's
welfare
requires
Mr and Mrs P's consent to be dispensed with under s52(1)(b)
Adoption
and Children Act 2002 ('ACA 2002').
N,
Ms Gartland K.C. on behalf of Mr P and Ms Williams on behalf of the local authority. As Ms Gartland set out, Mrs P did
not
feel able to participate in the hearing, due to her distress as a
result
of this application. Mr P has taken the lead for them, he confirms in his statement it is filed on behalf of them both.
N.
Relevant
background
N
and A, who were born following separate
surrogacy
arrangements with different surrogates. A is just over a year younger than
N.
Mr and Mrs J secured a parental order in
relation
to A, with the full co-operation and consent of A's surrogate. As a
result,
Mr and Mrs J are A's legal parents.
not
the case in
relation
to
N.
There was extensive litigation following
N's
birth in 2005 as a
result
of what the court subsequently found was deliberate, prolonged and premeditated deceit by Mr and Mrs P in entering into the
surrogacy
arrangement in 2005 when they
never
intended to hand over the child to Mr and Mrs Js care.
Re
P (
Surrogacy:
residence)
[2008] 1 FLR 177, following a five day contested hearing. In his judgment he described the extent of the deception by Mr and Mrs P surrounding the
surrogacy
arrangement as 'wicked', 'cruel' and 'inhuman' and the court made detailed findings about Mr and Mrs P's behaviour (see [192]-[212]). Coleridge J determined on 10 July 2007 that
N
should move to live with Mr and Mrs J, arrangements were set out for contact as
recommended
by Dr Asen, the jointly instructed expert.
reported
as
Re
N
[2007] EWCA Civ 1053.
N
moved to Mr and Mrs J's care on 25 July 2007 and has
remained
there since.
nearly
four years after the proceedings were commenced. That order included provision for indirect contact between
N
and Mr and Mrs P six times a year via Skype, with presents at Christmas, Easter and
N's
birthday. In accordance with the order, Mr and Mrs J sent updates to Mr and Mrs P about
N
just prior to each period of indirect contact. According to Mr and Mrs J, as
N
got older it became increasingly difficult to get him to engage with the indirect contact, although there is
no
dispute he was always available for that contact. Mr P suggests in his statement that if there were any difficulties it was because Mr J was present during such contact.
N.
Mr and Mrs P last saw
N
for direct contact when he was four years old.
requisite
notice
to the local authority that they were going to make an application for
adoption
on 21 April 2023. They issued their application on 8
November
2023. The court made directions on the papers on the same day and then further directions on 23
November
2023. That later order set out directions for service on Mr and Mrs P and listed the matter for this hearing.
no
need
for the appointment of a Guardian in this case.
remote
hearing was convened on short
notice
on 16 February
2024,
to consider the issues raised in the Annex A
report
about Mr and Mrs P engaging in the proceedings and being unable to attend the hearing in person, due to Mr P's health and their caring commitments. Mr P attended that hearing
remotely
and was able to fully engage with the proceedings. Arrangements had been put in place for legal
representation,
if Mr and Mrs P wanted it. The court is very grateful to Ms Gartland and her solicitor, Ms Shah, in being able to take this case on. Mrs P informed Ms Gartland's solicitor that she did
not
wish to participate in the proceedings.
remotely,
as he had done when he was unrepresented at the earlier directions hearing.
adoption
application, being made where there was a background of a disputed
surrogacy
arrangement. I
refused
that application. The statutory framework that governs
adoption
applications is clearly set out.
No
party was suggesting that the court could
not,
in principle, make an
adoption
order. The issues centred, as they so often do, on the particular facts of the case and whether the child's lifelong welfare
needs
(s 1 ACA 2002) are met by an
adoption
order being made. As this court has made clear in previous cases (such as B v C [2015]
EWFC
17; J v K [2021]
EWFC
115; E v R [2023]
EWFC
214 and
Re
Z (
Surrogacy:
Step-parent
adoption)
[
2024]
EWFC
20) the court must assess each case on its own facts.
Evidence
recognised
that despite their own feelings about Mr and Mrs P's behaviour that
N
needed
a
relationship
and contact with them as it was important for him to be able to maintain
relations
and a sense of identity and belonging. They describe their
relief
when the proceedings finally concluded in May 2010.
reports
to Mr and Mrs P,
recognising
that they wanted Mr and Mrs P to be kept updated on
N's
welfare and development and 'have a sense of the child he was turning out to be'. The last update was sent in December 2021, just before
N's
16th birthday. Over time they describe the skype calls as sometimes being problematic due to
N's
age stating that Mr and Mrs P 'always acted appropriately but at time they struggled to fully engage and converse with
N
during the calls'. As
N
got older there was more of a dialogue around his school life and other activities.
N's
understanding of his situation evolved over time, which accorded with the advice they had
received
from Dr Asen. The letters and cards sent by Mr and Mrs P were always signed off as from 'Mum and Dad' which confused
N,
this
resulted
in Mr and Mrs J explaining to him his parentage from an early age.
N
wished to have with Mr and Mrs P and will be guided by his wishes and feelings.
N
had been in contact with one of Mr and Mrs P's children and through that route Mr and Mrs P have
N's
phone
number.
N
has informed them he has
received
Christmas and Birthday greetings from Mr and Mrs P but does
not
take direct calls from them. Mr and Mrs J state the last time they had contact with them was in September 2023 when Mr P called Mr J about whether
N
was in a car being driven
recklessly,
which Mr J sought to
reassure
him was
not
the case. When Mr J sought to end the call Mr P 'continued that he was his
real
father and that if
N
had
remained
with them this sort of thing would
never
happen'.
N
flourished in their care and how 'exceptionally proud' they are of the young man he has become.
not
have legal parenthood for
N
and that parental
responsibility
has its limitations, for example in
relation
to inheritance. As they
note
'There is a disparity between our lived experiences as a family and the legal
recognition
of our roles'. The
residence
order expired in December 2021 and they currently have
no
legal
relationship
with
N,
yet he has a legal
relationship
with Mr and Mrs P who have
not
seen
N
for fourteen years and have
not
been involved in his day to day care for over sixteen years.
N.
This is compounded by the fact that with their younger child, A, who was also born following a
surrogacy
arrangement, they have a secure legal parental
relationship
with as a parental order was made in their favour in
relation
to him. They want
N
to go into his adulthood with a permanent and lifelong link to them, which can only be provided by an
adoption
order.
reasons
for making the
adoption
application, of the importance for their family to secure the legal
relationship
with
N
as he becomes an adult and, in particular, his legal
relationship
with A, so they both have an equal legal
relationship
within their family. Whilst Mr J displayed empathy and understanding for Mr and Mrs P's position it did
not
detract from the
need
for an
adoption
order to secure
N's
lifelong welfare
needs.
adoption
order as they 'simply cannot agree to sever all legal ties' between
N
and them. He details their family background and their updated position where they are currently caring for one of their grandchildren under a special guardianship order following a positive assessment of them to be able to care for him. Sadly, Mr P does
not
enjoy good health. He was diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis and is currently under medical support for that.
N
in accordance with the 2010 order which stopped in 2021. He said he would still message on snapchat up until October 2023, which he said coincided with
N's
18th birthday and the
adoption
application. Mr P states he raises this as he is 'worried about what will happen
next
in terms of the change in behaviour towards [them] if we are denounced as
N's
legal parents'.
reasons
for contesting the
adoption
application as it would cut their legal connection with
N,
including with their large wider family. They both want to maintain their legal
relationship
with
N,
they don't wish for that to be 'taken away from them'. Mr P states he
recognises
what
N's
wishes are and he
respects
that and whatever order is made they seek as much contact with
N
as possible.
no
hesitation or lack of ability to express his views. He explained that Mrs P had gone out and confirmed she did
not
wish to take part in the proceedings. He maintained his position in opposing the
adoption
order. When asked if he had anything more to say he expressed what he considered was the injustice in
N
being
removed
from his and his wife's care in 2007. When asked whether he could see the position from
N's
viewpoint, Mr P said he felt if they had more time with
N
it would have been different.
N's
statement he describes why he supports the
adoption
order being made, the strength of his
relationship
with Mr and Mrs J, the support he has
received
from them and his close
relationship
with A. He describes his
relationship
with Mr and Mrs P as being '
not
easy',
referring
to the fact that despite the court having made the decision for him to be brought up by Mr and Mrs J, Mr and Mrs P still
refer
to themselves as his parents.
recent
example from Mr P in early September 2023 which
reads
as follows 'Hi
N
your mum had a word with [the social worker] and she is
not
going to agree with the
adoption
process has the high courts said
no
and she
never
wanted them to have you in the first place'.
N
confirmed he currently has
no
contact with Mr and Mrs P's children, but if he wanted to he would know how to initiate that.
relationship
with Mr and Mrs J legally
recognised.
He describes in powerful terms the implications for him of having to explain the situation each time he uses his birth certificate and why Mr and Mrs J are
not
named
on there as his parents. As he sets out 'This has to be explained and everything takes longer than it
needs
to take and is more complicated for me'.
reasons
why he wants and supports an
adoption
order being made. He described it as being a big part of his life and his identity saying 'Things don't add up for me at the minute. I have always considered myself a J and everything says P'. He described how close he is to his brother, A, but said 'I am
not
legally his brother,
not
feel right to me…I want to be able to legally say I am his brother for the
rest
of my life'. When asked about how he felt that A has a legal
relationship
with Mr and Mrs J, he said they always treated them equally but part of him did
not
feel completely part of the family. He was very clear his views were his own stating 'I would like this to happen'. He said he hoped Mr and Mrs P would have been supportive of the application once they knew his views.
report.
It is a comprehensive
report
compiled in accordance with the
requirements
of Part 14 and PD14C FPR 2010. Mr Egan
records
the contact and discussions he had with Mr and Mrs J and
N.
In his discussions with
N
he was able to articulate who Mr and Mrs P are to him stating that Mrs P 'is his birth mother, but
not
his mum. He said he does
not
have anything against them but also does
not
feel he has any strong connection to them'. He said he 'understood why they would
not
want the
adoption
to go ahead but from his perspective they have
not
raised him, they do
not
know him, and they are
not
now
taking into account his wishes. He said he knows they are aware that he wants this
adoption
to happen, and they are
not
listening to him'.
N
explained how he had considered the issue of
adoption
and
researched
it himself.
adopt
N.
He describes Mr and Mrs P making it clear in that early discussion that they would
not
support Mr and Mrs Js
adoption
application and would 'fight it all the way'. That is supported by the message sent to
N's
phone by Mr P soon after their discussions with Mr Egan, confirming their opposition to
adoption
by Mr and Mrs J. Mr Egan then sets out in his
report
the various attempts to make contact with Mr and Mrs P, sending emails to the two email addresses Mr P uses in early January and a hand delivered letter which
resulted
in a phone call from Mr P on 21 January
2024.
Mr P stated they had
not
felt emotionally strong enough to
respond
and Mr Egan's
request
to speak directly to Mrs P was
refused,
she was
reported
as saying that she did
not
want to be involved in discussions. Mr Egan
reports
he could hear her in the background.
reported
that Mr P considered
N
had been brainwashed by Mr and Mrs J into his view in supporting the
adoption,
that
N
had strong family ties to him and his wife and they would want
regular
contact to continue and to have him as part of their family.
report
with his welfare assessment and
recommendation
in support of an
adoption
order being made. He considers 'The order will give
N
the sense of belonging and equality within his family he seeks; it will create a lifelong legal connection to the people who have acted as his parents throughout the majority of his life; it is also considered it will provide a sense of closure and finality, as he enters adulthood…'.
Legal framework
needs
to satisfy itself that the criteria within the ACA 2002 are met.
namely:
(i) it is a
non-agency
adoption
by a couple (s 49(1)(a) ACA 2002); (ii) both applicants are over the age of 21 years (s50(1) ACA 2008); (iii) both applicants are domiciled in this jurisdiction (s49(1)(2) ACA 2008); (iv) both applicants have been habitually
residence
here for a period of
not
less that one year ending with the date of the application (s49(3) ACA 2002); (v)
N
was a child at the date of the application (s49(4) ACA 2002), and (vi)
N
has had his home with Mr and Mrs J for
no
less than three years during the five years preceding the application (s42(7) and 44(5) ACA 2002).
adoption
order may
not
be made unless the court is satisfied that the parent consents to the making of any
adoption
order, or that the parent's consent should be dispensed with (s47(1) and (2) ACA 2002). The court cannot dispense with the consent of any parent unless it is satisfied that the parent cannot be found or lacks capacity (s52(1)(a) ACA 2002), or the welfare of the child
requires
the consent to be dispensed with (s52(1)(b) ACA 2002).
requires'
in s52(1)(b) ACA 2002 should be given its ordinary meaning in the context of any Article 8 rights which are engaged. As stated in
Re
P (Placement orders: Parental Consent) [2008] 2 FLR 625 it conveys the 'essence of the Strasbourg jurisprudence. And viewed from that perspective '
requires'
does indeed have the connotation of the imperative, what is demanded rather than what is merely options or
reasonable
or desirable'.
result
of ss 33(1), 35(1) and 48(1) and (2) HFEA 2008 Mr and Mrs P are
N's
legal parents, as Mrs P is
N's
birth mother and she and Mr P were married at the
relevant
time.
regard
to the matters set out in s 1(4) ACA 2002,
namely
(a) the child's ascertainable wishes and feelingsregarding
the decision (considered in the light of the child's age and understanding),
(b)the child's particularneeds,
(c)the likely effect on the child (throughout his life) of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become anadopted
person,
(d)the child's age, sex, background and any of the child's characteristics which the court or agency considersrelevant,
(e)any harm (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989 (c.41))
which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering,
(f)therelationship
which the child has with
relatives,
and with any other person in
relation
to whom the court or agency considers the
relationship
to be
relevant,
including—
(i)the likelihood of any suchrelationship
continuing and the value to the child of its doing so,
(ii)the ability and willingness of any of the child'srelatives,
or of any such person, to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop, and otherwise to meet the child's
needs,
(iii)the wishes and feelings of any of the child'srelatives,
or of any such person,
regarding
the child.
Adoption)
[2015] 1 FLR 1327 sets out that although the ACA 2002 makes
no
distinction between the circumstances in which an
adoption
order is sought, there is a difference in the approach of the court depending on the context of the application, in particular the impact of the
adoption
on the Article 8 rights of the child and their parents.
respect
for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. There shall be
no
interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is
necessary
in a democratic society in the interests of
national
security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others'.
nature
of an
adoption
order. Mrs and Mrs J rights are established due to
N's
home having been with them since 2007, pursuant to the child arrangements order. The same position applies to
N
who has lived with Mr and Mrs J since 2007, they have exercised parental
responsibility
in
relation
to him pursuant to the 2007 order and he identifies himself as their child. Mr and Mrs P have
retained
their legal
relationship
with
N,
have
not
seen him in person since 2009 although have continued indirect video contact until 2021.
relationships
are protected and
recognised
by law and for such protection to be
real
and effective and
not
theoretical and illusory (see Marckx v Belgium 2 EHRR 330 [31]).
necessary
to consider the context. For example, in a situation that involves a choice as to whether a child is
adopted
by strangers the interference with the Article 8 rights are likely to be more significant than in a situation such as this, where all parties are known to each other and the order sought simply
reflects
in legal terms the
reality
in which the child's family life and
relationships
have been conducted for some significant time.
Submissions
not
supported by the evidence. As she set out, Mr and Mrs P have known about this application since early September 2023, when they were spoken to by Mr Egan. They followed that up with a direct message to
N
about the
adoption.
The order dated 23
November
2023 was personally served on them on 5 December 2023. As a
result,
the suggestion in Mr P's statement that
receipt
of the email from Mr and Mrs Js solicitor on 22 January
2024
was the first they knew of the application is simply wrong.
surrogacy
arrangement is a factor, there is
nothing
in the ACA 2002 which prevents the court from making an
adoption
order in circumstances where the route of legal parentage through an application for a parental order is
not
open to them. In this case because Mr and Mrs P would
not
consent to such an order.
recognises
that s 67(1) ACA 2002 provides that 'An
adopted
person is to be treated in law as if born as a child of the
adopters
or
adopter'
does
not
reflect
the circumstances of
N's
birth in the way a parental order would, as it does
not
recognise
Mr J genetic connection to
N.
However, an
adoption
order is an order by which the applicants can be legally
recognised
as
N's
parents. As Ms Segal submits, an
adoption
order is the 'optimum (and only) legal and psychological solution for securing
N's
lifelong welfare
needs'.
Each case is fact sensitive as to what order best meets the lifelong welfare
needs
of the child.
N's
lifelong welfare
needs,
Ms Segal submits he has expressed clear, cogent and informed wishes and feelings as to why he supports the application. She does
not
suggest these views have decisive weight however the depth of his feelings and the fact that he is
now
an adult means his views should be given significant weight.
relies
on the following considerations as being
relevant:
Mr and Mrs J have an established family life with
N
which has been in existence for a
number
of years; it is a settled family unit with de facto family ties well established. The child arrangements order was time limited, has expired and when effective Mr and Mrs J exercised all aspects of parental
responsibility.
N
is Mr J's genetic child. The legal
relationship
that exists between Mr and Mrs P and
N
does
not
reflect
N's
day to day life and the legal and practical consequences for
N
if an
adoption
order is
not
made are
real
and stark e.g. the impact on inheritance rights. Due to the care taken by Mr and Mrs J,
N
is fully aware of his origins and his own background.
required
to consider any existing or proposed contact arrangements (s 46(6) ACA 2002). In
reality
there is likely to be
no
change to
N's
relationship
and contact with Mr and Mrs P if an
adoption
order is made.
reasons
why Mr P is unable to provide his consent. She submits
N's
welfare does
not
require
the consent to be dispensed with.
N
was born as a
result
of a
surrogacy
arrangement with him having two sets of parents who wished to bring him up. Mr P believes
N's
welfare
needs
are met if his legal
relationship
with Mr and Mrs P is maintained and considers it could have been enhanced if there had been more contact between
N
and Mr and Mrs P. Ms Gartland
relies
on the observation made by Mr Egan in the Annex A
report
when he states 'It is unfortunate that the law does
not
allow for Mr and Mrs J to be
recognised
as
N's
legal parents without
removing
that privilege from his birth mother, and her husband. The idea, in these specific circumstances, might be that all four adults could be 'parents', but this is
not
possible'.
relationship
between
N
and Mr and Mrs P has existed throughout his life, they cared for him for his first eighteen months and the intention behind the 2007 order was that
N
would benefit from ongoing
regular
contact with Mr and Mrs P, which happened until 2021. To their credit, Ms Gartland submits, Mr and Mrs P have
not
sought to undermine
N's
placement with Mr and Mrs J and do
not
suggest that
N's
living arrangements going forward should be changed. Ms Gartland submits all four adults could be considered as
N's
parents in accordance with the observations made by Baroness Hale in
Re
G [UKHL 43 at [33] where she set out the three ways a person can become a parents,
namely
a genetic parent, a gestational parent and a social/psychological parent. She
recognises
that at the moment
N
does
not
wish to have an ongoing
relationship
with Mr and Mrs P but Mr P hopes that
N
will continue to be part of their family.
N
where the 2007 order envisaged an ongoing role by them in circumstances where
removal
was
not
as a
result
of any parenting deficit, such as when the court is considering orders made in care proceedings.
N's
legal and factual position. Mr J is
N's
genetic father. Mr and Mrs J are his de facto, social and psychological parents but he
now
has
no
legal tie with them. Mrs P is his genetic and gestational mother who he has
not
seen for fourteen years. Mr and Mrs P are his legal parents who
N
has exercised his choice
not
to have a
relationship
with either of them. The divergence between the legal and factual position is, Ms Fottrell submits, stark and
N
was clear in his evidence it should be corrected.
N
and Mr and Mrs J is as a
result
of the
requirement
that
N
should have the 'fullest possible protection of his family life with his parents and his sibling' and that protection should be, in accordance with the principles set out in Marckx (ibid), '
real
and effective, rather than theoretical and illusory'.
adoption
order will 'create lifelong legal ties to
N's
genetic and de facto family which do
not
currently exist. The transformative effect of the order will establish, as well as sever, a tie to the genetic family'. By making an
adoption
order in this case it will 'create, maintain and strengthen' the tie to his genetic father, Mr J.
adoption
order is the only route by which a lifelong legal tie can be established and
N
is entitled to be
recognised
as a matter of law as the child of his genetic father and his de facto mother with whom he has lived for most of his life. In addition, he is entitled to be placed on an equal footing with his sibling, A, which should last for the
rest
of
N's
life.
adoption
order being made. In her comprehensive position statement she agrees with the framework set out above and echoes many of the submissions made by Ms Segal and Ms Fottrell.
Discussion and decision
now
nearly
seventeen years since the order was made transferring
N's
care to Mr and Mrs J and fourteen years since Mr and Mrs P have seen
N
in person.
N,
have complied with the indirect contact order made by Coleridge J in July 2010 until
N
attained the age of 16 years, when the order lapsed.
N
has
not
continued that contact, through his own choice although has had intermittent WhatsApp communication with Mr P.
N
about his own particular background and making this application. Through their sensitive and loving parenting
N's
knowledge about his background is known and fully understood by him.
N's
factual and legal position. In his compelling and articulate oral evidence, which the court accepts,
N
said that he had always considered himself a member of the J family, yet everything (such as his birth certificate) says the surname P. He described how a big part of his life is his identity and as he so accurately described 'Things don't add up for me at the minute'. He said his
relationship
with Mr and Mrs J is important, he considers them his only parents and wants them to be his legal parents. As
regards
his
relationship
with his brother, A, he said, whilst
recognising
that Mr and Mrs J had always treated him and A equally, 'I want to be able to legally say I am his brother for the
rest
of my life'.
remain
locked in what they consider are the injustices of the past. Although Mrs P did
not
take any active part in these proceedings, Mr P confirmed he had discussed what he set out in his statement with her. That
replicates
what happened in September 2023 when he sent a message setting out Mrs P's views about opposing the
adoption.
What was so
noticeable
about Mr P's statement and his oral evidence was the sole focus by him only on his and his wife's position. At
no
stage was he able to consider the issues from
N's
perspective or how it must feel for him,
now
age 18 years. That also
reflected
what he said about
notice
of these proceedings, he clearly had known of them since September 2023.
reality
but it should
not
distract the court when considering this application under the
relevant
statutory framework in the ACA 2002, where the court is
required
to consider the lifelong welfare
needs
of the child in considering this
adoption
application. It is within that context that the consent of Mr and Mrs P and the
relevance
of any other public policy considerations are to be evaluated.
no
issue that the
relevant
gateway criteria under the ACA 2002 are met in this case. The only issue that
requires
determination is whether
N's
lifelong welfare
needs
require
the consent of Mr and Mrs P to be dispensed with.
relevant.
In particular, the strong family ties that exist between Mr and Mrs J and
N.
N
has lived with them for the last sixteen years, he
regards
them as his parents and A as his brother. They are his family in every sense of the word.
N
is very clear he wants those important
relationships
to be secured in a legal and lifelong way, which an
adoption
order would do. Mr and Mrs P
remain
his legal parents but have had only limited indirect contact with
N,
which ceased in 2021, with only intermittent indirect contact since then. The evidence demonstrates that they are unable to properly consider
N's
welfare
needs,
remaining
focussed only on their own
needs
with, sadly, absolutely
no
insight into the impact of that position on
N.
now
18 years of age, an adult. He was described by Mr Egan as an intelligent and articulate young man. I agree with that description. In his oral evidence he displayed a maturity about these difficult issues that was beyond his years. He was able to explain why this order is so important to his identity and how deeply upsetting it would be for him if the order was
not
granted. The
reality
in this case is the loss of his legal
relationship
with Mr and Mrs P and their wider family is a
relatively
low interference in their family life due to the history, their limited involvement with
N
and the situation on the ground is unlikely to change. Due to the care taken by Mr and Mrs J
N
is clear about the position of Mr and Mrs P in
relation
to his background.
N
and Mr and Mrs J family life if this order was
not
granted. It would mean the disconnect between the factual and legal position would
remain,
it would adversely impact on the lifelong stability and security of
N
due to the continued uncertainty
regarding
the important and lifelong
relationships
in his life and it would be against his express and carefully considered wishes. Whilst such wishes are
not
determinative on their own, in this case the court does and is entitled to attach significant weight to them due to
N's
age, maturity and the rational and measured way he expresses them.
adoption
order would secure his lifelong legal
relationship
with the key people in his life, Mr and Mrs J and A. It would
remove
the disconnect
N
so keenly feels between his day to day life and his legal
relationships
with these important people in his life.
remains
the lifelong welfare
needs
of
N.
In my judgment, the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that
N's
welfare
needs
require
an
adoption
order to be made, and, in those circumstances, Mr and Mrs P's consent should be dispensed with.
adoption order will be made.