Re B (A Child) (Post-adoption contact) [2019] EWCA Civ 29 is the first time (since a change in the law in 2014) that the Court of Appeal has considered when an order should be made that an adopted child will have continuing contact with their birth family after he or she is adopted.
We are now looking at section 51A Adoption and Children Act 2002 – which was inserted in that Act in 2014 – instead of private law section 8 Children Act 1989 orders. This is because, in 2014, the old section 8 contact orders became “child arrangements orders”; they were no longer appropriate in an adoption context. Although there are some subsequent published High Court cases where contact was discussed, this Court of Appeal judgment has now provided guidance on the interpretation of S 51A.
Although it has just been published, the judgment dates from last November. In it, Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, is clear that, although the legislation is now different, the court’s approach is not. He confirms and applies the pre-2014 case law which says that making an order that adoptive parents must allow their child contact with their birth parents will be exceptional. In this particular case, the evidence led to the conclusion that the adopters’ position regarding contact was reasoned, flexible, and would adapt to the child’s needs as she got older. Therefore, an order was not necessary.
This was a foster to adopt placement which meant that the child was already living with the adoptive applicants (in a foster placement) before the care and placement orders were made. The adopters and the birth parents therefore know each other. According to this judgment, the adopters had interpreted some of what was said by the original judge, when he made the care and placement orders, as meaning that the future adoption order would probably include an order for contact. Unfortunately, this led to a year’s delay with an impact on the stability of the placement. The judge who then made the adoption order refused the section 51A application, and the birth parents appealed. The Court of Appeal heard some interesting arguments on behalf of the birth parents (and the Official Solicitor who was the mother’s litigation friend) but agreed with the adoption judge’s decision that a section 51A order would not be in the child’s welfare.
The adoption judge and the President both referred to recent and ongoing research about open adoption and emphasised that this should be applied by social workers and experts to the welfare issues in each particular case. However, “the law remains … that it will only be in an extremely unusual case that a court will make an order stipulating contact arrangement[s] to which the adopters do not agree” [para 59].
For any readers who don’t already know about the research-based practice resources provided by the University of East Anglia and Research in Practice – here is the link to Contact after Adoption
Image by Skitterphoto on Pixabay
I don’t suppose for one second there are any figures because such families are not going to draw attention to themselves, but I wonder how many adopters proceed to move as far away as they can and generally drop off Xshire County Council’s radar in order to shake off the birth family.
Adopters are not required to stay in touch with local authorities or adoption agencies after the adoption order. The problem seems to be more the other way around if the child needs post-adoption support.
I am not surprised most birth family’s are not wanting contact. What concerns me more is the story the children get of their parents from court paperwork.
I was taken to court, to have all 6 of my children removed 4 of them adopted.
The lies and inacuracey in the court papers is horrific. My papers were full of untruths all pointing towards removal of my children. The inacuracey that cause many adoptions are based on mother’s and father’s who have been lied about, who haven’t had the legal protection that they should have had.
We can’t fault the system at the end of a legal process that is faulty for many parents from the start.
Pre court date and attendance, my social worker kept giving me list of family solicitors, she kept saying ring them they will help you. They will stop us taking your children away. You don’t need any court letters, just tell them to talk to us and they will take up your case. She said don’t worries about court dates they will talk to us first before you get a date for court. So talk to the solicitors for some advice and then they will talk to us, then we will take you to court.
She brought the list 5 times over a month, she kept telling me I had to use the solicitors on her list. She spent hours telling us to use the list. The social worker ignored me and my husband request for the bundle to be sent to our home. She also disregarded us when we were saying we had legal protection in place. They even tried giving us the list again the day before they gave us a letter saying they were going to take us to court. And again the day before the baristors were going to talk about the ico. I have on dvd a full hour visit of her insisting I ring one of the solicitors form her list whilst she was present during the visit.
The solicitors she kept pointing us towards were the same ones they themselves as a county council decided to use. The cafcas decided to use the other solicitors on the list. So not pointing towards a conflict of intestinal but the third on their list was supposed to be for us.
The solicitor that looked after me is amazing, the person who helped me before the solicitor was amazing.
I got no less than 15 times thrown in my face by the social worker on audio and camara I was an unfit parent because I chose the solicitor I did. Her gripe was she was not on their list and was out of area.
Having the opportunity to have the legal representation I did meant my children were not kidnapped.
I still have my children at home.
Contact after court is important but how many parents would be still at home with their children if they had proper representation.
This is how cases up and down this country are conducted by all Local Authorities FACT
by people who have no conscience or religion, to win? and that is the word they use,
without fear of reprisal or consequence, best legal system in the world, NOT?
Luckily, technology does not allow any hiding place for any knowing wrong doing, the truth will out
I believe my post adoption application has been the most successful to date, where doors were left open and I did it prioritising my child (natural)
However, I never did receive the Judgement I requested and recall being told there was not one.
It’s interesting mine was more of a success, yet it was never made public then this said Case and Kirsty Seddon’s who both lost their Cases have both been made public xx
Thank you for approving my comment.
There is just one error in it though, I had stated ‘said’ which has been amended to stating ‘sad.’
Many apologies – my fault! I’ve corrected. Annie
Thank you Annie.
As adoptive parents (a baby, now a parent of teenagers), we would gladly have allowed contact with the single birth mother. We did not know it was possible. Later, we gave all the details to our child, who chose not to pursue contact, though we made it clear we would support it.
How could any adoptive parent not support this; it is the child’s right.
I had my child removed when she was 4 and now she is a teenager she wants contact with me I’ve had letter contact with since she was adopted but the adoptive parebt won’t allow her