[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions >> S (Children - Application to oppose Adoption) [2014] EWHC 1768 (Fam) (08 May 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2014/1768.html Cite as: [2014] EWHC 1768 (Fam)

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

IN THE FAMILY COURT
AT NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE

IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF: S (CHILDREN)

		The Law Courts The Quayside Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 3LA
		8th May 2014

1. THE JUDGE: This is an application which was to be made by M, the birth mother, for permission to oppose the adoption applications in respect of her two children, A, born on 12th November 2009, and B, born on 24th February 2011, and so the children are aged 4 and 3 respectively.
2. The adoption applications were issued on 16^th August 2013 in the Family Proceedings Court by the prospective adopters, now not far short of nine months ago. The applications proceeded in the Family Proceedings Court until a hearing on 28^th January 2014, at which directions were given following M's indication that she intended to oppose the adoption applications. A further hearing took place before the Family Proceedings Court on 4^th March 2014, when the proceedings were transferred to the County Court for that issue to be determined.
3. On 28^th January 2014 the Family Proceedings Court gave directions for the Local Authority to file a summary of the previous proceedings by 11^th February 2014, the mother to file a statement by 18^th February 2014 and the Local Authority to file a statement in reply by 25^th February 2014. The application for permission to oppose the adoption was listed on 4^th March 2014, when the proceedings were transferred to this court.
4. Following transfer, I gave directions in writing on 11^th March 2014 for a hearing on 24^th March 2014. For reasons which do not need to form part of this judgment, neither the mother nor the Local Authority attended that hearing. I therefore gave further directions on paper. I ordered that M file a statement, in circumstances in which the only document which had been filed by her was a short handwritten statement which dated back to January 2014. I directed the Local Authority, if so advised, to file a further statement in reply (the Local Authority having already filed a social work statement in accordance with the earlier directions). I directed the Local Authority to file the bundle from the earlier proceedings, together with a bundle relating specifically to the application for permission to oppose the adoption. I listed this application for hearing today. Notice of the hearing was sent to the mother at her current address (which is her mother's address) on 26^th March 2014.
5. M has not attended today's hearing. It has been a feature of previous proceedings, which I will turn to shortly, that she has disengaged for significant periods of time. I am very grateful to Mrs Clayton (the Local Authority solicitor) and Rebecca Schutt (the social worker) for the extensive efforts they have made to ensure that M has been aware of today's hearing and the importance of her engaging with the proceedings.
6. The solicitor who acted for M in the earlier proceedings, which led to the making of care and placement orders in 2013, was consulted in relation to her wish to oppose the adoption applications. He submitted an application for legal aid on her behalf which was not granted. The solicitor is not on the court record, as a result of which correspondence is sent by the court directly to the mother. The Local Authority has, however, endeavoured to keep M's former solicitor appraised of the developments in the case. Today, in circumstances in which the mother has not attended, the solicitor was contacted. He also sought to make contact with M (on both her mobile and landline numbers) without success.
7. The social worker visited M at her mother's home on 15^th April 2014. The social worker confirmed the hearing date to M and stressed the need for her to attend if she wished to participate in the proceedings. I am satisfied from the material before me that M is aware of the hearing date and has, for whatever reason, chosen not to attend.
8. It is clear from the chronology that I have already outlined that these proceedings have been before the court for a significant period of time. When I set out the circumstances of the children in a little detail, it will be clear that there is a need for the proceedings to progress. As will be seen, M previously failed to engage in the care proceedings, despite her earlier indication that she would participate.
9. It is right in my judgment that M's application is determined today. I have made it clear to Mrs Clayton that I will deal with the application on its merits and, in due course, direct a transcript of this judgment. The court will, of course, notify the mother of the outcome of the application. I am, however, grateful to the Local Authority for agreeing to use their best endeavours to make the mother aware that the application has been determined and explain to her the steps that she will need to take if she wishes to challenge the court's decision.
10. The background to the proceedings can be set out in brief. Although M has named the children's fathers, paternity has not been confirmed in either case. The very limited information provided by M about the parentage of each of the children did not allow the Local Authority to trace their fathers. The children's fathers have played no part in any of the proceedings or, indeed, the children's lives.
11. The children were accommodated on 23^rd January 2012 (and so now almost two and a half years ago). The circumstances in which they were accommodated resulted from a serious assault which had been sustained upon M by her then partner. The circumstances of that are set out in greater detail in the material which was filed in the care proceedings which followed. Although the children were initially in separate placements, on 31^st January 2012 they were placed together and remained together in that placement until they moved to their prospective adopters. At the time of their accommodation in foster care, A was then only just over 2 and B was not yet 1.
12. Arrangements had been put in place for M to have contact on a regular basis with the children. They had barely started before they broke down. There was an unhappy history of non-engagement by M in the care proceedings. Between February and August of 2012 (and, therefore, a period of six months) she had no contact. In August 2012, she re-engaged in the proceedings. Weekly contact was arranged for her which she attended, but only until 7^th December 2012, following which there was no further contact. Although M was given the opportunity of attending a nurturing programme and The Freedom Programme, she failed to complete either of them.
13. At the end of 2012, M informed the Local Authority that she was to be evicted, as she had not engaged with a referral for further support in relation to her housing. The Local Authority's understanding is that, since December 2012 when she was evicted, M has not had her own home. She has been living at her mother's home - certainly in recent times - at an address known to the Local Authority and the court.
14. The case was listed through to an issues resolution hearing in the Family Proceedings Court on 10^th January 2013. The Local Authority assessments had concluded that the children could not safely be placed in the care of their mother and that there were no alternative family placements that could properly care for them. The local authority plan was for adoption. The mother was in contact with the social worker by telephone on 7^th January 2013, a matter of days before the issues resolution hearing. In the course of that conversation, M said that she was living in Wolverhampton, but said that she would attend the issues resolution hearing. In the event, she did not.
15. The court considered the circumstances of her non-attendance, but proceeded to deal with the care application. The local authority's schedule of threshold findings is at A2 of the original care bundle. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the threshold were conceded (relating to the mother's inappropriate partners and lifestyle choices, a history of unacceptable home conditions and a history of failure to engage with the Local Authority and other professionals seeking to provide support for the care of the children). M did not accept the Local Authority's case in relation to the neglect of the children's developmental needs, but the reasons of the Family Proceedings Court set out the conclusions that they reached in making findings which, under a number of a specific headings, identified shortcomings in the care the children had received which had had an impact on their development. The court proceeded to determine the application for a care order, concluding that the Local Authority's care plan of adoption with indirect contact was the plan that would best meet the welfare needs of the children.
16. The court did not proceed to determine the placement application and adjourned that to a hearing which took place on 31^st January 2013. Once again, there was no attendance by M. Her solicitor, Mr Waugh, was present. The court considered the applications for placement orders and concluded that the orders sought met the welfare interests of the children throughout their lives and concluded that the mother's consent to those applications should be dispensed with.
17. Following the making of the placement orders, there was no further contact from M. The children were matched and then placed with their prospective adopters on 24^th April 2013, now more than a year ago. At the time of their placement, the maternal grandmother told the Local Authority that she was unaware of the mother's whereabouts. It was only when the adoption applications were lodged that an order was made directing disclosure of M's address by HMRC, which revealed her current whereabouts. A meeting took place with the Local Authority social worker and M in February 2014. M was then living with her mother, but with a plan to move into a neighbouring property. That move did not materialise.
18. It is against that background that the mother's application falls to be considered. The only information that she has provided is the short letter to which I have made reference. In that letter she sets out in very short terms the circumstances in which she says she failed to engage with the proceedings as a result of the domestic abuse she had suffered and the serious assault she was subjected to. M records that she has attended counselling, parenting classes and a domestic violence course to assist her in her future life. Those are the only changes that are relied upon by her.
19. In determining an application for permission to oppose an adoption application, the court must consider in the first instance whether a change of circumstances has been established which is sufficient to justify the court revisiting the issue. If such a change in circumstances is established, the court must then look to the welfare considerations. The application for permission to oppose has not been pursued by M. The material that she has provided is scant, but demonstrates very little by way of a meaningful and sustained change which would allow the court to have confidence that there are changes which can be relied upon to warrant the welfare analysis being undertaken. Attendance at courses is not, of itself, sufficient.
20. For the sake of completeness, I should make it clear that I consider the welfare arguments in this case to be compelling. If M were able to establish changes sufficient to allow the court to revisit the issue, the welfare analysis - in circumstances in which these children were in Local Authority care for a significant period, they have been in their adoptive placements for more than a year and their mother has failed to engage consistently in the proceedings to determine their future - would argue compellingly, in my judgment, in favour of a rejection of the mother's application.
21. In those circumstances, and without her attendance, I dismiss the application by M for permission to oppose the adoption applications. The Part 1 hearing will be deferred for a period of four weeks to ensure that there is time for this order to be served upon M, for contact to be made with her by the Local Authority and for the period within which any appeal is to be made to elapse.
[Judgment ends]