S (A Child)
April 30, 2021
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LADY JUSTICE MACUR
- LORD JUSTICE MALES
Areas of Law
- Family Law
April 30, 2021
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
Try asking the following...
Macur LJ:
This appeal arises from the order of HHJ Jack on 19 November 2020 which refused the application made by the Appellant mother (“mother”) pursuant to s.47 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 , for leave to oppose an adoption order in respect of her 5 (now nearly 6) year old son Z. The mother is a litigant in person. The Respondent Local Authority (“LA”) is represented by Mrs Farrington, who did not appear in the court below.
The nature of the appeal was restricted, by virtue of the limited permission I granted in March 2021, to scrutiny of two procedural issues and the consequent impact upon the fairness of the hearing. The question for this court was whether the mother had been afforded due process; as such, we did not consider the merits of her application and would not have been in a position to do so as I indicate below.
At the conclusion of the hearing, we allowed the appeal and gave directions for the rehearing of the mother’s application, mindful of the need for expedition, with reasons to follow. These are the reasons why I concluded, subject to my Lords, that the appeal must be allowed.
Background
The mother has six children, none of whom live with her. Care proceedings were issued by the LA in respect of Z and his four elder siblings on 22 February 2018, following concerns of neglect, domestic upheaval, and emotional harm. On 1 February 2019, HHJ Heaton QC made final Care Orders in respect of all five children and a Placement Order in respect of Z.
The mother last saw Z on 24 March 2019. Z was placed with prospective adoptive parents on 16 September 2019.
In the meantime, the mother applied for permission to appeal against the making of the Care Orders, and by extension the Placement Order in respect of Z. This application was dismissed in July 2019 for failure to comply with procedural requirements. The mother’s application for permission to reinstate the request for leave to appeal was dismissed on the merits on 22 October 2020.
Prior to this, the mother’s youngest child, by a different partner, was the subject of separate care proceedings which concluded in November 2019. HHJ Heaton QC made a residence order in favour of the child’s father subject to a Supervision Order and a Child Arrangements Order. The mother’s application to revoke the Placement Order made in respect of Z was heard at the same time by HHJ Heaton QC. Her application was dismissed.
Thereafter, on being notified of the application for an adoption order in r
AI Generated Summary
Lady Justice Macur, with Lord Justice Males and Lord Justice Phillips concurring, allowed the mother’s appeal from HHJ Jack’s refusal of leave under section 47 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to oppose the adoption of her son Z. The Court of Appeal restricted its consideration to procedural fairness, not the merits, focusing on two issues: the absence of a transcript or judgment recording the baseline findings from HHJ Heaton QC’s placement order; and the judge’s heavy reliance on an Annex A report which the mother, a litigant in person, had not seen. The court explained the two-stage section 47 test (change in circumstances and welfare analysis) and emphasized the fundamental fairness principle from Re D and the availability of disclosure under FPR 14.13. It criticized the Local Authority’s failure to supply necessary materials and to address disclosure. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for an expedited rehearing with due process.