A Mother v A Local Authority

applies for permission to oppose the making of an adoption order in respect of her son, who I shall refer to in my judgment as ‘B’. The application for permission to oppose was listed before me for final hearing on 10 June 2022. The mother represented herself with the assistance of a McKenzie friend. The Local Authority was represented by Ms Harland. I have read the hearing bundle and heard oral submissions from the mother and on behalf of the Local Authority.

The Law

order may not be made in respect of a child who has been placed for adoption under a placement order where a parent opposes the making of such an order. However section 47(5) of the Act says that a parent may not oppose the making of an adoption order without leave of the court. Section 47(7) provides that the court cannot give leave to oppose the making of an adoption order unless there has been a change of circumstances since the placement order was made.

summarised by Pauffley J in Re LRP (A Child)(No 2) (Leave to oppose adoption application), CH v London Borough of Merton [2014] EWHC 3311, as follows:

“It was entirely appropriate that the judge should consider L’s circumstances

“In evaluating the parent’s ultimate prospects of success if given leave to oppose, the judge has to remember that the child’s welfare is paramount and must consider welfare throughout the child’s life.”

The President also added that:

“There will be cases, perhaps many cases, where despite the change in

The Background

is unconfirmed. The mother initially informed the local authority that B’s father was a married man with whom she had had a relationship, however DNA testing established that that man is not the father. The mother then informed the local authority that her former partner, A, was the other putative father. However A has denied paternity to the local authority, has declined to undergo DNA testing, and he has played no part in court proceedings concerning B. B has three older half siblings, X, aged 18, Y, aged 17 and Z, aged 12. In 2019 care orders were made in respect of X and Y and a special guardianship order was made in respect of Z. None of the three half siblings live in the mother’s care.

findings in which he found that B’s older siblings were suffering and were likely to suffer significant physical and emotional harm and neglect as a result of the care given to them, or likely to be given to them if no order were made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give. In 2019 X described how the mother’s partner, A, had hit her six times with a metal pole from the hoover on her arms and legs and had kicked her in the back. The Court found that the mother had failed to protect X from physical harm by allowing A to hit her. The Court found that the mother prioritised her need to have a relationship with A over the physical and emotional needs of the children, and that even when the mother was advised by the local authority of the risks posed by A that she dismissed the local authority concerns and allowed A to spend unsupervised time with the children.

numerous hospital appointments and that she had failed to ensure that the children attended school regularly, in 2017-8 X’s school attendance being 36.1 %, Y’s being 0 % and Z’s being 76.5%. The children’s bedrooms were seen to be unclean and unhygienic.

the mother sent X and Y abroad without any planning and did not attempt to bring them back for nearly a year, causing them significant emotional harm by the mother failing to prioritise her relationship with them. The mother regularly left Z with family friends. In September 2015 at the beginning of a new school term (and whilst X and Y were still away) the mother left Z with a family friend so she could travel abroad to a different country (other than where X and Y were living). The mother was away for around five weeks. Shortly after the mother left, the friend relinquished care of Z to another friend. The Court found that Z will have been frightened and bewildered by the mother leaving him in this way without any planning and that he will have suffered significant emotional harm. The Court found that the mother has had ongoing problems with her mental health and issues with her use of alcohol, placing the children at risk of emotional harm and neglect. The mother has been unable to protect Z from the escalating unpredictable behaviour of X and Y, with X and Y each having poor mental health, X having threatened to kill Z on a number of occasions and Y’s mental health posing a risk of physical and emotional harm to her siblings. The Court found that the mother had continued to inflict significant emotional harm on Z by giving him a photograph on which she had written ‘You are from my sacred place, my womb, therefore no evil, no demon, no enchantment, no witchcraft can take you away from me. My ancestors who are your ancestors will not allow strangers to raise their offspring while I’m still alive. No psychological manipulation will work on you. You are coming home to me where you belong after court. I love you, your ancestors love you, you don’t belong where you are, and whoever tries to keep you away from me it shall never be well with them’. The Court also found that the mother had continued to cause significant emotional harm to X even through indirect contact, by bombarding X with telephone calls about the pending court final hearing, leading to X making threats against children’s services and the judge that if the mother did not get Z back, X would end her life.

A child protection plan was subsequently formulated in February 2021 and the public law outline commenced on 12 March 2021. Care proceedings in respect of B were

issued on birth. He was made subject of an interim care order the day after his birth and on discharge from hospital was placed in foster care in an early permanence placement. During the care proceedings a capacity to protect assessment was undertaken of the mother, which was negative in its conclusion.

2021 found the threshold for making a public law order to be overwhelmingly crossed on the basis of the findings made in 2019 (as set out at paragraphs 5 – 7 above), in conjunction with the Court’s additional findings that:

Z told his carer that he had had contact with mother’s former partner, A, at his

Despite the mother being aware of the local authority’s concerns around A and

On 4 December 2020 the mother stated the previous concerns were ‘fabricated

On 12 March 2021 the mother said the outcome of the previous proceedings was

The mother has failed to properly understand the concerns of the local authority.

be summarised as follows:

When DNA tests proved that the person the mother had named as B’s putative

The local authority has assessed the mother however she continues to lack insight

The mother has continued to put her needs above B’s, being unhappy that contact

The mother accepts that the previous court findings were made but does not

In September 2021 the mother sent a number of TikTok messages to Z, then aged

The mother is not in a position to work with the local authority or any protection

approached the care proceedings with an open mind and had given the mother the opportunity to engage with them, however Recorder Taylor observed that from the very outset, especially with regard to paternity, the mother showed that she was prepared, if not to mislead, to keep matters close to her own chest in order to further her own ends in her wish to care for her son. The mother was aware of the difficulties

arising from the previous proceedings and knew the importance of engaging openly and honestly with the local authority.

order in respect of B, finding that no lesser order would secure B’s welfare for the rest of his life and that B’s welfare demanded that the mother’s consent be dispensed with.

made the following changes since the placement order was made:

Her mental health is stable;

She does not have a problem with alcohol, having attended two sessions with

She attended all ante-natal appointments for B, met her own and B’s needs during

She is in full time responsible employment;

She is not in a relationship with anyone and has had no involvement with A since

She has a better relationship with her daughters

She has commenced the Freedom Programme as an attended course (having

The local authority’s position

Court that the mother has not demonstrated an ability to work with the local authority, saying that she did not attend the farewell contact set up for B in January 2022 and that she has missed some previous contact with him, having last attended

contact on 6 December 2021, saying that she has not enquired about B’s welfare, that she has not communicated with social workers for the older children and that she has missed some review meetings. The local authority also says that the mother has allowed Y to visit her home in breach of the safety plan. The local authority disputes that the mother has effected relevant change and contends that it would be contrary to B’s welfare for leave to oppose to be given.

The mother’s response

statements of the social worker filed in these proceedings. She accepts that she missed the farewell contact with B, but says that she did so as she found the prospect extremely distressing and says that the local authority dismissed her request for an alternative date to be arranged. She says she missed a previous contact because it clashed with a leaving care tea party for X and that the local authority had not responded to her request to make up the time missed with B as a result of the clash. She says there have been a number of changes of social worker for the older children and says that poor communication is attributable to the local authority, not to her. She says that she is willing to work with the local authority and that she has an issue with B’s social worker, against whom she has made a complaint, but not with the local authority in general. She told me that she has requested the local authority to communicate with her via her advocate because she did not feel listened to.

unable in the absence of oral evidence tested by cross -examination to determine the facts in dispute between the local authority and the mother which relate to the period since the placement order was made. However I do not consider determination of these facts to be necessary to enable me to reach my decision because it seems to me that they are not relevant to the central issues of whether a change of circumstances of sufficient nature and degree has occurred and whether it is in B’s welfare for permission to oppose to be given. I therefore disregard the disputed recent assertions of the local authority in reaching my decision today.

Analysis

circumstances of a nature and degree to warrant the granting of permission to oppose
– and I have determined that the mother has failed to do so. In reaching my decision I have relied upon the following factors:

Recorder Taylor referred at paragraphs 44 and 45 of her judgment to the mother

The fact that the mother has no current problem with alcohol use similarly in my

It is to the mother’s credit that she attended all ante-natal appointments for B, ate

Again it is positive that the mother has full time responsible employment, but this

The mother says that she is not in any relationship and that she has had no contact

I am pleased that the mother considers her relationship with her daughters to

I am also pleased that the mother has arranged to repeat the Freedom Programme

Taylor to conclude that nothing less than placement for adoption would suffice to meet B’s needs throughout his life were the mother’s lack of acceptance that the findings of the court accurately reflect her culpability, her inability to fully understand and take on board her responsibility as a parent to emotionally nurture her children and protect them from harm and her failure to work openly and honestly with the local authority. I considered that the mother had not addressed these issues in her statement in support of her application and therefore gave her the opportunity to address me in submissions about any additional matters she wished to raise in response to the previous threshold and welfare findings and any further changes she considers she has made.

addressed me at length and in detail. It was very clear to me from her submissions that the mother continues to dispute many of the earlier findings of the court. In particular, the mother disputes the conclusions of the capacity to protect assessment. She accepted that the Court had made findings based on the evidence of the local authority, but told me that she felt that the local authority had been biased since her pregnancy, that she had felt discriminated against, that the circumstances of B’s removal from her care had undermined her confidence and ability to engage with the local authority, that there had been insufficient engagement by the local authority with her and insufficient assessment sessions had been undertaken.

from her care following birth, the fact that she had not been given an opportunity to move to a mother and baby placement with B following his birth, the sense of betrayal she feels in respect of the local authority because she says she was told she would be able to breast feed him for seven days before he would be removed. It is clear that the mother feels very deeply about these issues. I am conscious that B’s removal from her care (irrespective of the merits of that decision, which was made at a time when the mother was legally represented and had the opportunity to argue her case at the time the order was made) will have been traumatic for her. The prospect of B’s adoption I understand must also be extremely difficult for the mother to face and I have no doubt of her love for her son. But none of these factors assist me in deciding as I must whether the mother can satisfy me that there has been a change of circumstances since the placement order was made. It was clear to me from the mother’s submissions that she continues to dispute significant aspects of the findings of the court and that she has failed to reflect on, acknowledge and address the deficiencies that the court has found in her parenting of her three older children and her lack of openness within the proceedings and the risks that would be posed to B, in light of those deficiencies, were he to be placed in her care.

in circumstances, it follows that the second stage of the test – consideration of whether B’s welfare requires me to exercise the court’s discretion to grant permission
– does not arise. But for the sake of completeness, I proceed to consider this question in any event.

which by its irrevocable severance of the parental responsibility of the birth parent and the legal link to the birth family represents an extreme interference in the right to respect for family life of B, his mother and his siblings. In this case B is a black child whose mother is of African heritage. He is placed with a white prospective adopter. Post adoption contact is proposed to take place between B, his mother and his siblings by letterbox only. The local authority has filed a statement setting out the steps taken

to date and the ways in which, if an adoption order is made, the prospective adopter intends to ensure that B’s cultural and identity needs are met.

challenges that would pose, given that B has remained in his early permanence placement since his discharge from hospital. The benefits of permission to oppose being granted are that this would allow the mother to advance her case for B to move to her care. If the mother were successful, this would give B the opportunity to be brought up by his birth mother, who clearly loves him. He would have the opportunity to form relationships with his half siblings and his cultural and identity needs would be met. The disadvantages of permission to oppose being granted are that in the short term B’s carer would face a period of uncertainty and the prospect of a contested adoption application, the stress of which may indirectly be felt by B. B himself, if the mother is successful, would face the disruption and emotional harm of being moved from his current carer, with whom he is familiar. Much more significantly, B would be exposed in the care of his mother to the risks of significant harm identified by Recorder Oldham and Recorder Taylor, which Recorder Taylor concluded following a contested hearing could not be adequately managed other than by a placement outside the mother’s care.

the adoption application would be determined without delay. In remaining with his current carer B would have the benefit of stability and security of care from his main attachment figure who has demonstrated an ability to meet his needs and who has been carefully assessed to ensure that he will be cared for free from risk of harm. The prospective adopter has shown a willingness to integrate B in the Black African community to ensure that B’s cultural and identity needs can be met, and has demonstrated an understanding of the importance of life story work to assist B to grow up knowing at an age appropriate level about his birth family and having ongoing letterbox contact with them. The disadvantages of permission to oppose being refused are that this would mean that B’s birth mother would be unable to oppose his adoption and B would lose the opportunity to be brought up in his birth family or to

grow up with a direct relationship with his mother and siblings. He would be brought up by a carer of a different heritage, and despite the adoption agency’s best efforts, no placement can ever be said to be risk – free.

short -term disruption to B and to B’s carer which would result from the granting of permission to oppose, as it appears to me essential to take a medium to long term view of welfare given the importance of the decision to B throughout his life. I am sure that B, if he could understand the issues, would wish to be brought up within his birth family if he could safely do so. If B in due course is adopted, the fact of being and the reasons why he is an adopted person are things that as he grows older he would need to come to terms with and would remain part of his identity throughout the rest of his life. Although B’s mother wishes to be able to care for B, if he were placed in her care the risks identified by Recorder Taylor remain. B’s older three half siblings have in the past suffered significant physical and emotional harm and neglect due to the mother’s inability to protect them from harmful behaviour posed by her former partner and due to her own inability to recognise and meet their emotional needs. The mother has not been open and honest with the local authority in the past, which means that the significant risks to B in the mother’s care could not be effectively managed by professional monitoring and support.

her focus to acquiring insight into the deficiencies in her past parenting, her responsibility for the harm suffered by her older children, her responsibility to work openly and honestly with professionals and to consider how she can change in order to become a better parent, B would be at risk of significant harm in the mother’s care and the mother would be unable to provide B with a suitable environment in which he could grow up free of harm.

ethnicity and outside his birth family against the benefits that would be conferred on him were he to be brought up by his mother. I consider that B’s overriding need is for

a stable and secure placement in which he can be brought up free from harm. The findings of Recorders Oldham and Taylor show that the mother sadly is unable to meet this need. B’s carer has demonstrated a good understanding of B’s identity needs, given his ethnicity, and a commitment to promoting an understanding by B of his heritage. If B is adopted, he will grow up with a knowledge that his older half- siblings were not adopted, however he will be able to understand in due course that, like him, they were also unable to remain in their mother’s care for the same reasons that led to his adoption.

prospects of success in seeking to oppose an adoption order lack solidity. Even if the first stage of the test were met, given my view about the prospects of success, I consider it to be contrary to B’s best interests to grant the mother permission to oppose.

accordingly dismissed. The time for appeal against this decision is 21 days.