President of Family Division concerned about recurrent inadequacy of analysis & reasoning put forward in support of the case for adoption
The President of the Family Division has voiced concern about the “recurrent inadequacy” of reasoning by social services and family judges in adoption cases where the birth parents do not consent.
Dismissing the mother’s appeal in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, Sir James Munby said: “We have real concerns, shared by other judges, about the recurrent inadequacy of the analysis and reasoning put forward in support of the case for adoption, both in the materials put before the court by local authorities and guardians and also in too many judgments.
“This is nothing new. But it is time to call a halt.”
Sir James said senior family judges in the Court of Appeal had expressed concern about this in four separate cases in the last ten days of July.
He said it was time to spell out what was required by good practice, the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the European Convention on Human Rights.
There must be “proper evidence” from the local authority and the guardian, addressing all the options “realistically possible”, pointing out the arguments for and against each, and providing “a fully reasoned recommendation”, he said.
Too often there was “sloppy practice”, with little or no evidence given about the merits or otherwise of an adoptive placement, and this was “simply unacceptable”, Sir James said. It was also “essential” that there be “an adequately reasoned judgment by the judge”.
If the court did not have evidence and was not fully equipped to deal with the issues then it must call an adjournment – even if that took it over the upcoming 26-week limit.
“Where the proposal before the court is for non-consensual adoption, the issues are too grave, the stakes for all are too high, for the outcome to be determined by rigorous adherence to an inflexible timetable and justice thereby potentially denied,” he said.
In Re B-S, a five year-old and four year-old had been fostered against the mother’s wishes. The mother appealed, unsuccessfully, on the grounds there had been “an astonishing change in circumstances” since the care and placement order.
