[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales County Court (Family)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales County Court (Family) >> B Adoption, Re [2014] EWCC B25 (Fam) (19 March 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCC/Fam/2014/25.html Cite as: [2014] EWCC B25 (Fam)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE STOKE-ON-TRENT COUNTY COURT
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION and CHILDREN ACT 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF B (A CHILD)

		19th March 2014

Judgement 19 March 2014 (following hearing on 13 March 2014)

1. I am considering an application by birth parents for leave to oppose the making of an adoption order in relation to their child C aged two and a half years. The case has attracted widespread publicity because it was necessary for the court to make orders restraining the child's grandmother from using the internet to find the child and disrupt her new home. See Re B (A Child) reported on Bailii at [2014] EWCC B1 (Fam).
2. The child was made the subject of Care and Placement Orders in the FPC on 23 May 2013. The parents did not oppose the orders. The maternal grandmother made an unsuccessful application for an order that the child live with her, an application which the parents then opposed. Appeals by the grandmother to myself in the County Court and then to the Court of Appeal were unsuccessful so the plan to place for adoption was approved.
3. The child was placed with the proposed adopters on 5 September 2013 and they have now applied for an Adoption Order based upon the previous orders of the court. The reports establish that the child is now very settled in a successful placement. Adoption will follow unless the parents successfully oppose the proceedings. Notice of the proceedings has been duly given to the parents and on the day prior to the hearing they contacted the court by email.
4. They explained that they wished to oppose but could not afford to travel to court. The court staff contacted me and at my request asked if the parents wanted an adjournment or preferred to participate in the hearing by telephone. They were told I needed to know if anything had changed since May 2013. As a result I received two emails containing their responses and a request to participate by telephone.
5. When the hearing commenced the parents were contacted and played a full part in the hearing by telephone, expanding on their written account.
6. Because the plan for adoption had been established by the previous court orders, sections 47(5) and (7) Adoption and Children Act 2002 provide that the parents need the court's leave to oppose the proceedings and that the court must first be satisfied that there has been a change of circumstances since the Placement Order was made. I have followed the guidance of the Court of Appeal in the case of Re P [2007] EWCA Civ 616. The test should not be set too high but the change must be of a nature and degree sufficient, on the facts of the particular case, to open the door to a second stage comprising judicial evaluation whether leave to oppose should be given.
7. The material available to me fails to establish the necessary change of circumstances. As the parents were unrepresented, I pressed them to give details of changes since May 2013. The changes are:-

•    The removal of the parents 75 miles from their original home;

•    An improved relationship with the grandmother following removal from her town, conducted now largely by telephone. They had discussed today's hearing with her. Her circumstances were said to be unchanged;

•    The establishment of a two bedroom home;

•    Employment;

•    The mother's presence on a waiting list for psychological therapy;

•    A late change of heart to now oppose adoption and support the grandmother as a potential carer.

8. Otherwise the evidence provided by the parents comprised the repetition of issues on which they were disappointed in the 2013 proceeding. They also complained how they have been treated. In at least one respect the complaints are justified. In the Court of Appeal McFarlane LJ was very critical of the local authority for placing the child while the grandmother's appeal was pending and for misleading the family when an encounter with the proposed adopters was permitted. However the appeal failed and these criticisms cannot have relevance to my task today.
9. I conclude that the changes claimed by the parents are not relevant to the case against them. The important bases of the Placement Order were:-

• A volatile relationship between the parents, with domestic violence;

• The mother's inability to care for the child, established by an unsuccessful period in a mother and baby foster home where the foster mother was forced to take over the care of the baby;

• A psychological assessment of the mother recommending therapy for up to 2 years to address a poor attachment history arising from her dysfunctional family life. Only this would allow her to develop parenting skills;

• The grandmother provided poor parenting for the mother and continued to control her and undermine her. There was no strong attachment between the baby and her grandmother.

10. In this context I am driven to the conclusion that the first stage test of a sufficient change of circumstances is not met. As a check I have asked myself how the parents would fare if a change of circumstances did take the application into the second stage. The familiar test from Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 would not be satisfied as these circumstances could not provide the necessary solid grounds for a successful challenge to adoption.
11. The parents' application for leave to oppose the making of an adoption order must be dismissed. Any challenge by application for leave to appeal must be lodged at the Court of Appeal in London by 4pm on 9 April 2014. The case will be relisted before me at 10am on 16 April 2014 to consider the granting of the adoption order.

RD

12. 3.14