T (A Child, by his Children’s Guardian) v Wirral Borough Council
November 10, 2017
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE GROSS
- LORD JUSTICE McFARLANE
- LORD JUSTICE PETER JACKSON
November 10, 2017
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
Re T (A Child: Adoption or Special Guardianship)
Lord Justice Peter Jackson :
Liam (18 months old, not his real name) has lived since his birth with his maternal cousins ‘Mr and Mrs Smith’, and his maternal half-brothers ‘Simon’ (6) and ‘Stephen’ (5). The older boys were removed from their mother in February 2015 and placed with the Smiths in August 2015 under care orders. They have no contact with their mother, but continue to see their father and their two older maternal half-siblings – ‘David’ (10, in foster care) and ‘Dawn’ (9, living with a paternal relative). It is not disputed that Simon, Stephen, and Liam will remain living with the Smiths for the rest of their childhoods, nor that the appropriate form of order for Simon and Stephen is a special guardianship order. What is disputed is the most appropriate order for Liam: special guardianship or adoption?
The parties’ positions are as follows. The local authority argued for a placement order for Liam as a step to adoption by the Smiths, while the Children’s Guardian (for all three children) argued for special guardianship so that the three boys would be treated alike. The children’s mother plays no part in this appeal. Liam’s father, who has never met him and does not have parental responsibility, is not represented on the appeal; he accepts that he should grow up with the Smiths, but does not agree to adoption. The Smiths want to adopt Liam, but are also committed to keeping him as special guardians.
The brief history is that local authority involvement with the mother began in 2009 and in 2013 care proceedings were taken in relation to her then four children, leading to the making of care orders. Care proceedings for Liam began at birth and in August 2016, the local authority applied for a placement order. At the same time, it applied to discharge the care orders for Simon and Stephen and to convert them to special guardianship orders.
In September 2016, following a judicial remark that their care plan was anomalous in proposing adoption for only one of the three children, the local authority changed its care plan to seeking placement orders for all three with a view to adoption by the Smiths, but at the start of the final hearing in March 2017 it reverted to seeking special guardianship for the older two and adoption for Liam.
It was in that way that the case came before Recorder Harris-Short at Liverpool on 8 and 9 March 2017. She heard evidence from the social worker and the Gua
AI Generated Summary
In Re T (A Child: Adoption or Special Guardianship), the Court of Appeal (Peter Jackson LJ, with McFarlane LJ and Gross LJ concurring) dismissed the Children’s Guardian’s appeal from Recorder Harris-Short’s orders concerning three siblings living with their maternal cousins, Mr and Mrs Smith. Simon and Stephen, aged 6 and 5, had active contact with their father and were granted special guardianship and supervision orders. Liam, aged 18 months, has never had a live parental relationship; the local authority sought adoption for him, while the Guardian urged special guardianship to align his status with his brothers. Applying the welfare checklist under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and Article 8 ECHR proportionality, the Recorder concluded adoption best met Liam’s need for permanence, stability, and lifelong parental commitment. The appellate court, citing Re S and Re M-J, held there is no presumption favoring special guardianship, the trial judge’s welfare evaluation was sound, adoption’s enhanced security outweighed manageable status differences, and the appeal was dismissed.