The Court of Appeal has refused an appeal by the Child and Family Agency and A against a High Court decision not to authorise the adoption of B, a girl who was weeks from turning 18 when the appeal judgment was delivered.
In a judgment delivered on 10 August 2022, Ms Justice Power said she was not persuaded that severing B’s legal relationship with her birth mother, C, would be in B’s best interests. The judgment records that B would turn 18 on 3 September 2022. The court’s decision left the High Court refusal in place; it did not make an adoption order or decide a wardship application.
B had lived with her foster family since infancy. The judgment describes her as loved by both her birth mother and foster mother, A. C placed B in care voluntarily in December 2004 during a period of domestic violence and crisis. C later entered rehabilitation, abstained from alcohol and raised her other children. Although distance and periods without an assigned social worker limited contact, she continued seeking visits. By the time of the appeal, B and C had regular contact, including visits and video calls. The judgment says B enjoyed that contact.
The Agency and the Adoption Authority argued that the High Court judge had erred in applying statutory safeguards for adoption and assessing B’s best interests. The appeal court noted the High Court’s finding of parental failure over the required period, but raised questions about how some statutory tests could be meaningfully applied when a child was so close to adulthood. It also criticised the absence of expert evidence about B’s disability and the Agency witness’s lack of personal knowledge of B’s earlier years in care.
Justice Power said the adoption safeguards required separate, stringent proof and could not be presumed satisfied because the required period of past parental failure had been established. She was not persuaded that the court should speculate about B being removed from her foster home, which was not proposed. The judgment also records that no expert evidence established the level of B’s disability, and that the appeal court was not deciding whether wardship or other measures would be appropriate after she turned 18.
On B’s best interests, the court accepted that adoption can provide benefits, but said the trial judge was entitled to give significant weight to B’s continuing relationship with C and her birth family. It found no clear and convincing evidence that adoption was required for B’s best interests. Justice Power also considered that the trial judge was entitled to conclude that B had limited understanding of adoption, and that her views were not determinative.
Justice Power said she would refuse the appeal because she was not persuaded it was truly in B’s best interests to sever the constitutional link with C and change B’s legal identity. The judgment’s approval stamp is dated 7 October 2022.