[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> MJC (adoption), Re [2015] EWFC B121 (24 August 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2015/B121.html Cite as: [2015] EWFC B121

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

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT EAST LONDON

		11 Westferry Circus, London E14 4HD
		24th August 2015

HER HONOUR JUDGE CAROL ATKINSON:

1. MJC is a baby girl who was born on 11^th February 2014. She is 18 months old. MJC's mother is RW (the mother). Her father is MC (the father). This is the final hearing in an application by Mr and Mrs A to adopt MJC.
2. On 24^th October 2014, I made a care order in respect of MJC to the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. On the same day, after dispensing with the parents' consent, I made a placement order. I handed down a full written Judgment setting out my reasons and I do not intend to repeat even a summary of those reasons here. It is necessary to read that Judgment to understand why I considered that "nothing else would do". The parents appealed. The decision was upheld on appeal for the reasons set out in the Judgment, handed down by the Court of Appeal on 17^th March 2015 (see Re C(a child) [2015] EWCA Civ 221).
3. MJC was placed with Mr and Mrs A on 14^th November 2014. On 14^th April 2015, Mr and Mrs A issued their application for an adoption order in respect of MJC. The parents indicated that they wished to oppose the adoption.
4. On 9^th June 2015 I refused the parents' permission to oppose the adoption of their child, MJC. I had no time to deliver a fully reasoned judgment but I considered that the parents, who are acting in person, should know my decision as soon as possible. Accordingly, I gave my decision and brief reasons. The parents indicated that they wished to appeal and so I undertook to prepare the written reasons as soon as I was able. I handed down a copy of that fully reasoned Judgment on 23^rd June together with a bundle of documents that I put together for them so that they could pursue their appeal quickly.
5. The parents did appeal but failed at the first hurdle. They were refused permission to appeal by Ryder LJ who considered their application to be without merit. Accordingly he refused them the opportunity to seek an oral hearing of their application for permission making clear that this was their final appeal and an end to any further challenge.
6. So it is that I now turn to deal with the substantive application for an adoption order in respect of MJC. I have read very carefully the application, the suitability or Annex A report which recommends an order be made and I have reminded myself of the evidence filed by the parents at their application for permission.

The legal framework

7. The provisions governing the making of an adoption order are contained in s.47 Adoption and Children Act (ACA) 2002. In this case the provisions under s.47(4) apply. MJC has been placed for adoption by an adoption agency and pursuant to a placement order. Although the parents oppose the making of the adoption order, I have already dispensed with their consent and I have found no basis for giving them permission to oppose the making of an order.
8. In deciding whether or not to make an adoption order in respect of MJC, my paramount consideration must be her welfare throughout her life and I must have regard to the matters set out in s1(4) ACA 2002. I have in mind the key authorities on these provisions and reminded myself of the guidance given regarding the significance of making an adoption order in Re B-S (Adoption: Application of s.47(5)) [2013] 2FLR 1035 .

The welfare checklist

Ascertainable wishes and feelings regarding the decision in light of his age and understanding.

9. MJC is too young to express any wishes and feelings but I have in mind always that children are bound to prefer the care of their natural parents and natural family.

Child's particular needs.

10. After the severe disruption of the weeks following the making of the care order when MJC was first abducted by her parents and then when found removed from their care, her primary need is for permanence: a safe, secure and stable home in which she can continue to thrive, receive continuity of care and commitment from a carer to whom she can form a secure attachment and from there develop a sense of her own identity.

The likely effect on MJC throughout her life of ceasing to be a member of the original family and becoming an adopted person.

11. I do not underestimate the impact of severing natural family ties. As I set out in my last Judgment:

"I accept that the effect upon MJC of ceasing to be a member of her natural family is significant. She will lose the chance to be brought up by her birth parents. She will be reliant upon others to gain a proper sense of her true identity. I bear in mind the effect upon MJC of severing not only her relationship with her parents but also with her maternal grandmother – a significant figure in her life. These are all significant matters."

12. These will be significant losses to MJC though the impact of that will not be apparent at this young age.
13. However, she is settled and happy in her adoptive placement with Mr and Mrs A where she will continue to thrive in a loving, safe and happy environment where she will be cherished and have her needs met; for MJC that is the practical effect of becoming an adopted person and one from which she will benefit through her formative years.

MJC's age, sex and background and other relevant factors.

14. MJC is described as a "petite" child with hazel eyes and fair hair and skin. When first received into care, following the abduction, she was described as being a "very serious child who rarely cried or demanded adult attention…and avoided eye contact". She now presents very differently. Following work using "theraplay" techniques she is now able to accept the physical closeness of her adopters with whom she has a "very loving and physically affectionate relationship".
15. MJC is described as having a "strong" personality and presents as a "happy and confident" little girl. There are no concerns regarding her development. She loves books and being read to.

Risk of harm

16. MJC was at risk of harm in the care of her parents for the reasons that I have set out in the Judgment given at the conclusion of the care proceedings. In the judgment given on refusal of permission, I considered that the risk of harm continued for the reasons set out there. I do not intend to repeat those matters here. Nothing has changed.
17. MJC is not at risk in her current placement; she is now cared for extremely well by her prospective adopters in a loving family environment free of conflict and safe from the risk of harm. This is fully evidenced in the suitability report and in the manner in which she has settled and begun to form attachments in that placement.

MJC's relationship with mother, father and grandmother and the ability and willingness of any of the parents and natural family to provide MJC with a secure environment in which he can develop and otherwise to meet his needs

18. For the reasons already given, neither the parents nor the grandmother are able to offer a secure environment in which MJC can develop and meet her needs.
19. MJC lived with her mother and grandmother and had contact with her father for the first 8 months of her life. She was happy in their care. After the conclusion of the care proceedings it was intended that there should be reducing face to face contact following placement in an adoptive family and a farewell visit. Thereafter the proposal was for indirect contact to include the exchange of cards and letters and photographs.
20. As a result of the abduction the local authority moved swiftly to place MJC with the As and contact ceased immediately as a result. There was also a change in the proposals for indirect contact. It is no longer proposed that there should be face to face contact because the local authority and the A's fear interference with the placement by the parents. The parents have challenged these proceedings at every turn. That, of course, is understandable and is their right but their challenges are rooted in their continuing belief that there are no risks for her in their care. So whilst it is still proposed that there should be indirect contact in the form of exchange of cards and letters through the adoption "letter box" and that the A's will accept photos of the natural family they do not intend to send photos of MJC for fear that they will be used by the parents to identify her as they search for her.
21. The parents who attended this hearing for the first 10 minutes or so left the court room shouting and swearing about the court process and before they were able to comment upon this issue. However, I know that they would oppose such a restriction and would probably invite me to order the local authority to make photos of their child available to them. In my judgment that would not be in MJCs interests. The history of this case demonstrates that there is a real risk that these parents will continue to search for their child and armed with a photograph I am concerned that they would be better equipped to identify and destabilise the placement. In my assessment the history of this case supports the conclusion that there is a continuing real risk of a further abduction here.
22. Whilst I acknowledge then that adoption will mean that MJC will lose key relationships with her mother, father, grandmother and extended natural family. Those losses can be ameliorated in part by life story work and indirect contact and I am entirely satisfied that the restricted indirect contact arrangements set out for MJC will nevertheless meet her emotional and identity needs without compromising her placement.

Decision

23. I have considered the court's powers. I remind myself that I must not make an order unless it would be better for MJC than not doing so. I also remind myself that any delay in coming to a decision is likely to prejudice MJC's welfare.
24. I am satisfied from the evidence before me that although these parents love their child unconditionally, neither they nor the grandmother nor any member of the extended family is able to care for MJC. I have faithfully applied the appropriate welfare checklist. Balancing all of those factors, I am entirely satisfied that MJC's welfare throughout her life requires me to make an adoption order. I commend the prospective adopters for their devotion to MJC and have no hesitation in making an adoption order in their favour.