G (A Child)
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE AIKENS
- LORD JUSTICE McFARLANE
Areas of Law
- Family Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case reviews the contact arrangements for a child, E, placed under long-term foster care while her younger siblings are adopted. The court initially decided to prioritize contact between E and her younger siblings, which meant ceasing contact with her parents and older sibling, L. On appeal, it was found that the judge failed to properly evaluate future implications, E's wishes, and the role of social media. The appeal was allowed, and the issue was to be reheard by a different judge. The importance of maintaining regular contact with family for children in foster care was emphasized.
Judgment
Lord Justice McFarlane :
This appeal relates to a boy G, born on [on a date in] 2011 and now aged nearly 3 years, who was made subject of a final care order and an order authorising the local authority to place him for adoption made on 2 nd November 2012. The underlying facts are to a degree unusual, and, as a result, they have thrown up a technical novelty with respect to the law relating to adoption. In this judgment, after a short description of the background circumstances, I propose to deal with the point of law and procedure before turning, finally, to consider the outcome of the appeal.
Brief background
G’s mother, at the time of the child’s birth, concluded that she was unable to provide a home for her son. At that time the mother was in a relationship with a man, DT, who is not G’s father. The identity of G’s father is unknown. Shortly after G’s birth the mother handed over the care of G to the appellant in these proceedings, AR, who is the mother of DT. It follows that the appellant is in no manner related to the child G.
The appellant cared for G from those early days until the conclusion of the care and placement order proceedings some 18 months later in November 2012. In consequences of the court’s orders, G was removed from her care at that time and was, subsequently, placed with prospective adopters in May 2013. The prospective adopters issued an application to adopt G on 19 th August 2013.
On 21 st October 2013 the appellant made an application within the adoption proceedings seeking “leave to oppose the adoption order on the ground that there has been a significant change in her circumstances”. The application form then went on to list details of the alleged changes to which I will turn later in this judgment.
The appellant’s application came on for hearing before Her Honour Judge Edwards in the Swansea County Court on 29 th November 2013. The local authority, the appellant and the Children’s Guardian were all legally represented at that hearing. The mother was unrepresented but attended in person.
The judge, correctly, held that a formal application for leave to oppose adoption under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 47 (“ACA 2002”), may only be made by “a parent or guardian” (within the meaning of the ACA 2002) and, on any view, the appellant did not come within the terms of that provision.
The judge, therefore, considered what alternative procedural avenues might be open to the appellant. She described the positi