Boy ‘could be taken from prospective adopters’, court hears

By The Press Association28th September 2015News EnglandAdoption, Childrens Services, Foster Care, News England

A little boy could be taken from the prospective adopters he has lived with since he was a day old and handed to grandparents with whom he has “no relationship”, judges have heard.

Detail of the case has emerged in a court ruling after the couple who want to adopt him lost the latest round of a legal dispute about the future of the boy, who is approaching his first birthday.

The couple were approved as adopters by a local authority shortly before the boy’s birth, courts have been told.

Neither of the boy’s parents was able to care for him and he was placed with the couple a day after being born, under a procedure known as an “early permanence placement”, with a view to him being adopted.

But six months later council social services bosses changed their mind and abandoned the adoption plan.

They told the couple that their new plan was for the youngster to be cared for by his father’s parents under a “special guardianship order”.

The boy’s parents approve the new plan but a guardian appointed by a judge to protect the boy’s interests says more evidence is needed before a family court judge decides where the boy should grow up.

Issues have been analysed by a family court judge in Leeds and three Court of Appeal judges, and the boy is continuing to live with the couple pending a decision on where he will grow up.

No-one involved has been identified.

The couple who want to adopt had asked to be given the right to make submissions and present evidence to the judge who will decide the boy’s future.

But the Court of Appeal has rejected arguments from lawyers representing the couple and the boy’s guardian, and has refused to allow the couple to be made “parties” in the care proceedings.

Barristers Pamela Scriven QC, for the couple, and Deirdre Fottrell QC, for the boy’s guardian, argued that there were “two realistic options” for the boy and said a judge would have to evaluate both.

Miss Scriven said a judge could not do that unless the couple were able to participate in care proceedings and make representations.

Miss Fottrell said the couple were the boy’s “de facto parents” and if the boy was to “removed” from them they needed “to be heard”. She said it was particularly important if the plan was to place the boy with people “with whom he has no relationship”.

But barristers Will Tyler QC, for the council, Lewis Donnelly, for the boy’s father, and Sara Anning, for the boy’s paternal grandparents, disagreed.

They said there was no need for the couple to be parties in the case because a judge would already have all necessary information about them. Mr Tyler said it was “wrong in principle” to allow the couple the right to “set themselves against” a family member in the circumstances of the case.

The three appeal judges, who included Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division of the High Court and the most senior family court judge in England and Wales, have ruled against the couple.

Sir James indicated, in a written appeal court ruling, that the couple could still apply to adopt if a judge ultimately decided that the boy should not live with his grandparents.

He said the proceedings had “inevitably imposed an enormous strain” on the couple and added: “Anxiety and anguish was etched on their faces as they sat before us. (This) outcome will come as a terrible blow.”