Lauren Suding represented the child through his guardian in care proceedings. The mother had allowed the father (who had sexually abused a child within a previous adult relationship) to live with her and their son despite the court previously returning the child to her care on the basis that he would have no contact with his father because of the significant risk he posed.
Background to the care proceedings
The court was concerned with the care arrangements for a child.
In care proceedings which had concluded 14 months earlier in April 2023, the child had been returned to his mother on the basis that she would not allow the father any direct unsupervised contact with their son.
This followed a finding 2 years earlier that the father had sexually abused a child within a previous adult relationship and was a paedophile.
The mother had no findings of abuse against her and said that she did not intend to maintain a relationship with her child’s father.
The child was placed in the care of his mother.
In December 2023, the local authority applied for a care order due to concerns that the mother had:
- maintained a relationship with the father
- permitted the father to have direct unsupervised contact with the child (including leaving him in his care on numerous occasions) and
- successfully deceived the court and professionals about it.
The court made an interim care order and the child was separated from his parents.
The court approved a consent order providing for carefully supervised contact for the child with his father, in recognition that the child had been having (unsanctioned) daily unsupervised contact with his father, due to the parents maintaining their relationship and living together during the first proceedings and beyond.
Final care order hearing
At the final care order hearing, the court considered:
- whether to make a placement order as proposed by the local authority and Lauren’s client or to allow the alternative plan for long-term foster care proposed by the parents and
- if the plan for adoption was granted, how much should the applicant plan for post-adoptive direct contact (open adoption) between the child and his parents.
Judgment in Z (A Child) (Long-Term Fostering or Adoption), [2024] EWFC 148
After analysing the benefits and drawbacks of the adoption compared to long-term fostering, His Honour Judge Willans agreed with the local authority and guardian and concluded that an adoption plan was necessary.
He stated that it was ‘the outcome that would meet [the child’s] welfare needs throughout his life.’
In relation to contact and possibility of an open adoption, he considered that there was a likelihood of contact being limited to indirect contact only within an adoptive family, in part because of the level of deceit and the perception of risk. The judge was not asked to encourage or limit the initial search only to those who expressed a willingness to entertain an open adoption and said if he had been asked to do so, he would have refused.
The court agreed with Lauren’s client that there should be no fixed time for searching for an adoptive family, prior to widening the options.
Read the judgment in full in Z (A Child) (Long-Term Fostering or Adoption), Re[2024] EWFC 148