Family Archives - Parklane Plowden

Expertise

Our Expertise

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Sara Sharif Judges to be Named – Court of Appeal Delivers Stinging Judgment

Tickle & Anor v The BBC & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 42  Avaia Williams, a first six pupil under the supervision of Sara Anning and Rebecca Musgrove, summarises the Court of Appeal judgment in Tickle & Anor v The BBC & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 42, the appeal concerning whether the historic judges involved in Sara Sharif’s family proceedings should be named.  The background to the matter concerns the tragic circumstances of the murder of Sara Sharif by her father and step-mother. Following her murder, several journalists sought information from the family proceedings and accordingly applied to the court for this disclosure.  A vast amount of material was disclosed, however, in making this order, Mr Justice Williams unilaterally made an order that the judges who had previously been involved in proceedings must not be named. This focused mainly on the Article 8 rights of the judges.  The decision was quickly appealed, and the decision, the first of its kind, was considered by the Court of Appeal who, in delivering a stinging and critical judgment, found that:  “…the judge had no jurisdiction to anonymise the historic judges either on 9 December 2024 or thereafter. He was wrong to do so…”  The Master of the Rolls further explained that:  “…He knew he had no evidence, and he could have realised that the judges would not wish to provide any evidence (as has happened). In short, the whole idea of anonymising the judges was, I have to say, misguided.”  The judgment is a significant moment in reaffirming the principle of open justice, particularly within the context of the family courts, still known for their overarching secrecy. The Court of Appeal’s decision emphasises the constitutional importance of transparency and accountability in judicial proceedings.  For the full summary and commentary, visit <a href="https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/judgments/tickle-anor-v-the-bbc-ors-2025-ewca-civ-42/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Family Law Week</a>.  The full judgment is available on <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2025/42.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">BAILII</a>.

International Adoption – PLWG Best Practice: A Guide

Moving onto the fourth and penultimate article in my series covering the Public Law Working Group’s recommendations for best practice for adoption, we consider Chapter 4 of the PLWG report. This section addresses a more niche element of adoptions, those that are either international, or have an international element. As it stands, adoptions with an international element are extremely confusing, legislatively complex, and rife with delay. This chapter aims to provide background to the chaos involved in such adoptions and seeks to provide a comprehensive recommendation to move forward.  As with previous articles in the series, this follows the general chronology and sub-headings of the report to ensure consistency and to break the report down into a bite sized and user-friendly guide as to the recommendations.  The terms ‘country’ and ‘state’ are used interchangeably in this article to refer to the Central Authority within that country whose role it is to deal with international adoptions.  Introduction  The Working Group’s remit was to consider not only reform to the procedure of international adoption, but any changes to the substantive law. As part of this, three key areas were identified:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>Whether the statutory framework is sufficiently clear;</li>  <li>Whether there needs to be any changes to the statutory framework or procedure;</li>  <li>Whether good practice guidance would be of assistance.</li> </ol>  International Adoptions Generally  Broadly speaking, the PLWG define international adoptions as any incoming or outgoing adoption involving another country. These include adoptions under the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (“the Hague Convention” or “the 1993 Convention”); adoptions governed by s.66 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002; adoptions under s.57 of the Family Law Act 1986 and common law adoptions; and domestic adoptions concerning overseas resident children.  It is not common in England and Wales for adoption orders to be made in favour of wider family, but where a placement is overseas, adoption may be necessary with respect to security of placement and immigration status. Similarly, there are children from outside the jurisdiction placed in the UK for adoption.  These cases are very complex and often lead to delay. The aim of the PLWG report in this area is to identify how improvements can be made to these harmful complexities.  Adoptions Pursuant to the 1993 Hague Convention  The UK is a Contracting State to the 1993 Convention, incorporated domestically via the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 and the Adoptions with a Foreign Element Regulations 2005 (“the 2005 Regulations” or “the AFER 2005”). The 1993 Convention, at its core, is a partnership agreement between countries – the ‘origin’ country of the child is responsible for assessing the child, and the ‘receiving’ country is responsible for assessing the adopters. Neither state has a higher authority.  The Convention requires the receiving state to confirm that, upon adoption, the child will receive an immigration status such that they can permanently remain within the jurisdiction. Upon both confirming the match and an order being made, ALL Convention states MUST give effect to the order. There is no need to seek further orders within those states.  Whichever jurisdiction makes the adoption order (usually the ‘origin’ country, but there is nothing in law preventing the ‘receiving’ country making the order), must issue an Article 23 certificate confirming the Convention process has been followed (including dates of Article 17 agreements). This certificate (subject to the rare exception under Article 24 that the adoption is contrary to that state’s public policy) then binds every Convention state.  The 2005 Regulations are not a self-contained set of rules. They instead supplement the existing domestic framework contained within the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the Adoption Agency Regulations 2005. International adoptions are also dealt with by way of further legislation (Children and Adoption Act 2006; Local Authority (Adoptions) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2005). As such, those unfamiliar with the process, including professionals, can quickly become overwhelmed. The need to cross reference numerous regulations is complex, however, the legislative framework is very thorough and specialist lawyers are able to navigate this (though this requires Local Authorities to either have, or instruct, said specialist lawyers).  Outgoing Convention Adoptions  Local Authorities and the courts must consider whether a child who cannot be cared for by their birth family can be cared for by their wider family. This duty exists even if the wider family live overseas (the rationale being that it is better for a child to maintain family ties abroad, than to sever those ties domestically).  The PLWG did not look at the conduct of assessments of overseas family members, however, the Working Group did note that some authorities were reluctant to engage with the overseas assessment process in a timely manner. The Working Group note that authorities can seek support from Children and Families Across Borders and the Outbound Permanence Service (via Coram BAAF).  Many overseas placements do not involve adoption (these can often be affected under other orders such as Special Guardianship Orders), but some placements necessitate this, such necessity often coming from immigration status or SGO’s not being an order in the receiving state.  The Convention framework does not sit well with the typical adoption process in England and Wales, where children are removed due to abuse or neglect, or where there is nobody to exercise Parental Responsibility. Article 4 of the Convention specifically sets the groundwork that a Local Authority must obtain a placement order, Article 17 further set out requirements that the Central Authorities have agreed the adoption.  Children habitually resident in England and Wales are very rarely placed abroad for adoption unless it is to be with family members due to parental abuse or neglect. These children should be placed as soon as possible, but the Convention requirements, domestic legislation, and immigration laws make this very difficult, in some cases impossible.  The domestic legislation sets up somewhat of a paradox. Section 85 ACA 2002 makes it an offence to remove a child from the UK for the purposes of adoption, unless the prospective adopters have been granted parental responsibility via section 84. The issue, however, is that an application under section 84 cannot be made unless the court is satisfied that the child and the prospective adopter have had sufficient opportunities to be seen together – both countries additionally still need to comply with Articles 15, 16, and 17 of the Convention.  It is therefore in the child’s interests to obtain a Convention adoption order in the domestic courts. Re M (A Child) (Adoption: Placement Outside Jurisdiction) [2011] 2 WLR 1264 held that an offence would not be committed under s.85 in those circumstances as, any ‘visit’ the child made to the prospective adopters would not be for the purpose of adoption in that state, but to further a domestic Convention adoption.  Incoming Convention Adoptions  Incoming adoptions are not a frequent occurrence and, when these do happen, the burden on the domestic authorities is lesser given the assessment of the children is for the state of ordinary residence. The PLWG do however note that, adoption agencies do not always appreciate the complexities of Convention adoptions.  It is recommended that there is an open access hotline for social workers to obtain advice and information on any adoption with an international element, this is especially vital where the prospective adopters do not, or cannot, instruct lawyers. Procedural difficulties are often not noticed until several steps into proceedings, leading to significant delay and harm to the child and families.  Non-Convention Adoptions (Outgoing)  Children can only be taken out of the UK for adoption purposes via a section 84 order. This requires compliance with the 2005 Regulations. Section 84 is not available to those normally resident in the UK, it is designed solely for foreign nationals to assist in foreign adoption.  A s.84 order removes parental responsibility from all other people and grants this to the prospective adopters. It also authorises the removal of the child from the jurisdiction for the purposes of adoption. An order under s.84 is not, however, guaranteed to be recognised in the foreign court.  If the adoption is agency, the child must be placed with the prospective adopters for at least 10-weeks before an application under section 84 is issued.  If the child is looked after by a Local Authority, permission to remove from the jurisdiction can be sought under Schedule 2 of the Children Act 1989 prior to the granting of a placement order. Where a Local Authority is permitted to place a child for adoption, removal from the jurisdiction is then governed by section 28 ACA 2002. The position is not clear on whether s.28 can be used to allow the child to remain outside the jurisdiction, or to be placed for adoption whilst they remain outside the jurisdiction (there are no reported cases on this matter).  If the child is not looked after, it is difficult for the prospective adopters to comply with section 84, and s.42 where it is a non-agency adoption (this requires the child to be seen by the Local Authority). One possible way around this is that the Local Authority make a temporary home for the prospective adopters within the jurisdiction, for 10-weeks. It is clear this is not a viable position. It is therefore more straightforward for public law orders to be made and for a mirroring order to be obtained in the non-Convention state.  This is not always the right path for a child, and it may not overcome immigration issues in some states. But if it is, the proposed adopters may then seek to adopt at a later stage (having then complied with the s.84 requirements by virtue of an alternative order), this is uncontroversial if the state is a party to the Hague Convention Parental Responsibility and Protection of Children 1996 (not to be confused with the 1993 Convention which has been the subject of this Chapter) this is simple. If the state is not a party, it is liable to be extremely complicated. Though the cases where these issues transpire are very small.  Non-Convention Adoptions (Incoming)  Unlike outgoing non-Convention adoptions, there are a significant number of inbound adoptions under section 57 of the Family Law Act 1986. These cases are dealt with under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction but can be heard by a High Court Judge sitting in the Family Court.  If the adoption is an overseas adoption pursuant to s.87 ACA 2002 (under the law of a country listed in the Adoption (Recognition of Overseas Adoptions) Order 2013), it will automatically be recognised in England and Wales and there is no need for proceedings to recognise the child’s status under English law (but this process does not confer British citizenship).  If an adoption order is made outside the jurisdiction and neither the Convention nor s.87 apply, the adoption may be recognised according to common law. Re Valentine’s Settlement [1965] Ch 831 set out four principles:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>The adoptive parents have been domiciled in the foreign country at the time of the adoption;</li>  <li>The child was legally adopted according to the law of that jurisdiction;</li>  <li>The adoption has the same substantive characteristics and concept as an English adoption;</li>  <li>There must be no public policy reason refusing the recognition.</li> </ol>  Where these criteria are met, a person may apply under s.57 Family Law Act 1986 for recognition of the common law adoption.  Where the criteria in Re Valentine’s Settlement are not met, the courts may still recognise an adoption where to not do so would be a breach of the Article 8 rights of the children and prospective adopters (such cases being extremely rare, and extremely complex).  Dual applications for common law recognition and declarations of status requires the court to deal with different principles to each application and their domicile. Recognition will rely on the applicant’s domicile at the date of application, but a s.57 declaration will rely on the applicant’s domicile at or prior to the application.  Section 83 ACA 2002 makes it an offence to bring a child resident outside the UK into the UK for the purpose of adoption (a reverse of s.85) unless the Convention has been complied with. Whilst such adoptions are factually complex, the courts apply domestic law and assessment takes place within the jurisdiction. Where a person breaches s.83, the courts do not automatically refuse to make an adoption order.  Most applications to adopt from overseas are compliant with the 2005 Regulations, the prospective adopters will be registered and approved by the Department of Education. Upon returning to the UK with the child, there is further assessment and, following the child having lived with the prospective adopters, a further report to the court.  The biggest issue with such adoptions, despite a rigorous and complex process, including government departments, is that there is no recognition of the process at the visa stage when the child is finally ready to join their intended family. As noted by the Working Group:  “The apparent systemic failure to process visa applications promptly…to enable the child to enter the UK and begin their lives with their newly adopted parents…is lamentable.”  In some cases, years off delay can ensue, causing unnecessary emotional and financial hardship. The Working Group recommend that policy is amended to allows such children a special status with the Home Office at the visa stage. Whilst the usual checks should continue to apply, these should be fast-tracked, the delay otherwise being harmful to the welfare of the child.  Where adopters are domiciled in the UK but are habitually resident elsewhere, section 83 does not apply. If an adoption is made in a country not on the list in the 2013 Order, then it will not be recognised. A visa can be applied for on the basis of a period of care abroad, this may allow the child to settle in the  UK, but it does not alter the family law status – these parents may apply for a domestic adoption despite being habitually resident elsewhere.  In these cases, the child must have lived with the prospective adopters for at least three-years (unless this time is abridged by the court). At the point of being able to make the application, three years having passed often means there are difficulties tracing parents to obtain consent. The PLWG suggest considering whether allowing an application after 6 to 12 months would be more appropriate.  PLWG Conclusion  “The current system is just about working but the sheer complexity of it is illustrated by the number of statutes and statutory instruments which govern the process in England…”  With a possible combination of up to 18 pieces of legislation dealing with adoption (not including the international law), the complexity cannot be understated. Delays, misunderstanding, and mistakes are too common in adoptions with an international element.  The overarching recommendation of the Working Group is to review the legislative framework for international adoptions, such that this is contained within a single Act of Parliament, with regulations where necessary. Where regulations are required, these should be dealt with in a way to not require cross-referencing so as to leave the process more accessible to all involved.  The PLWG recognise that this is a major statutory task, and, outside of such reform (hopefully in the interim at most), recommend the following:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>The Central Authority’s should update and expand the written guidance for intercountry adoptions to draw together the legislation into one place.</li>  <li>Consideration should be given to setting up a specialist referral unit.</li>  <li>The Central Authority’s should work closely with the Home Office where applications are relevant to immigration status decisions.</li>  <li>Section 84 ACA 2002 should be amended to make explicit that prospective adopters may be assessed overseas without committing an offence under s.85.</li>  <li>The regulations should be reviewed for inconsistencies (such as the paradox created by regulation 46, requiring a placement order and parental consent)</li>  <li>Regulation 47(1)(d) of the 2005 regulations should be amended to make clear this relates to the receiving state.</li>  <li>Practice Directions should be drafted to govern applications under Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989 or applications under s.28 ACA 2002.</li>  <li>Cafcass Legal must be given sufficient resources to allow them to advise in such complex cases, often being the only lawyers involved.</li>  <li>The Home Office should create a fast-track process for visa approval where the applicant has fully complied with the regulations.</li>  <li>Section 42 should be amended to allow applications where adopters are habitually resident outside the UK to be made after six months.</li>  <li>Consideration should be given to amending the Children and Adoption Act 2006 to require mandatory review of countries on the banned list every three years.</li> </ol>  Conclusion  The PLWG's recommendations on international adoptions highlight the significant complexities and challenges within the current system. By addressing gaps in legislative clarity, procedural inefficiencies, and the burdens placed on families and professionals, these proposals aim to simplify the framework while safeguarding the welfare of children involved in cross-border adoptions. The overarching call for consolidating legislation into a single statutory framework is a bold but necessary step towards reducing delays and ensuring that all parties can navigate the process with greater ease and confidence.  The proposed amendments to legislation and practice have the potential to transform the landscape of international adoptions. Streamlining the statutory framework into one cohesive Act would resolve much of the confusion caused by the current patchwork of regulations. This would not only benefit legal professionals and social workers but also provide prospective adopters with a clearer understanding of their obligations and rights. Such simplification is particularly critical for cases involving vulnerable children, where unnecessary delays can have a profound and lasting impact on their stability and well-being.  The emphasis on inter-agency collaboration, particularly with the Home Office on immigration matters, is another pivotal recommendation. By fast-tracking visa applications for children who have complied with all adoption regulations, the welfare of these children can be prioritised, reducing emotional and financial strain on families. Furthermore, enabling overseas assessments under section 84 without triggering offences under section 85 would mitigate procedural roadblocks and allow children to transition into stable placements more swiftly.  Whilst the PLWG report does not consider this position within Chapter 4, the Working Group’s vision for "open" adoptions domestically, as advocated for in Chapter 1 of the report, introduces an interesting parallel for international adoptions. If adopted children can maintain ties to their birth families without severing connections entirely, the rationale for prioritising family placements abroad – despite logistical challenges – may shift. Courts might feel more confident in pursuing domestic solutions or alternative orders when open adoptions ensure that biological ties remain intact and meaningful. This evolution could reduce reliance on complex international placements, particularly in cases where immigration or procedural barriers make overseas placements less practical, but, at least currently, mandatory to pursue.  The PLWG's recommendations for international adoptions reflect a nuanced understanding of the countless challenges faced by children, families, and professionals. By fostering legislative coherence, enhancing inter-agency cooperation, and promoting a child-centred approach, these proposals have the potential to transform the adoption system. Ultimately, the recommendations align with the broader goal of creating a framework that balances the need for permanency and security with the preservation of identity and familial connections, ensuring the best outcomes for children involved in international adoptions.

Thursday, 30th January | Hybrid training event – OurFamilyWizard

PLP's Family Team are hosting a hybrid training seminar, taking place both in chambers and online, on 30th January at 4:30pm, in association with <a href="https://www.ourfamilywizard.co.uk/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">OurFamilyWizard</a>, the global co-parenting platform.  The event will cover OurFamilyWizard's parenting app, including the features of the app, new additions to the app such as recording phone calls, and information about the scheme OurFamilyWizard run which enables clients with certain financial needs to obtain the app, with full features, for free.  Following the training there will be a Q&A and general discussion.  Light snacks and refreshments will be served for those attending in person; for those attending remotely the link will be sent out closer to the date.  If you would like to attend, please contact <a href="mailto:events@parklaneplowden.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">events@parklaneplowden.co.uk</a>.

New Clerking Appointment at Parklane Plowden

PLP continues to expand and enhance its clerking team, further strengthening its stellar reputation for client service.  Following the appointment of Paul Clarke as Senior Practice Director for the Civil and Employment teams in November 2024, PLP is pleased to announce the appointment of a new Assistant Practice Director for the Family, Chancery, and Commercial teams.  <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/clerks/matthew-taylor/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Matthew Taylor</a> joins PLP with extensive experience in clerking across various legal disciplines, making him a valuable addition to the team.

Welcome Back Maxine Best and Naakesha Michl

Parklane Plowden are delighted to welcome back family barristers Maxine Best and Naakesha Michl.  Maxine and Naakesha both return to Chambers on the 15th January 2025 after a period of maternity leave and will be accepting instructions in family law children matters.  To instruct either Maxine or Naakesha, please contact the family clerking team on <a href="mailto:familyclerks@parklaneplowden.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">familyclerks@parklaneplowden.co.uk</a> or call 0330 390 4303.  You can find out more about Maxine and her practice <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/maxine-best/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>, and Naakesha and her practice <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/naakesha-michl/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.

Justice Is Seen to be Done – High Court Considers Fairness of Counsel’s Interactions with Opposition

F v M & Z [2024] EWHC 3190 (Fam)  Avaia Williams, a first six pupil under the supervision of Sara Anning and Rebecca Musgrove, summarises the recent High Court case of F v M & Z [2024] EWHC 3190 (Fam).  The High Court tackled a critical issue of procedural fairness, examining whether a barrister’s prior interactions with the opposing party compromised the perception of justice in family law proceedings.  The case involved a father’s appeal against a Child Arrangements Order allowing the mother to relocate with their child to Hungary. The father argued that his previous interactions with the mother’s counsel, including sharing case materials and discussions about instruction, created a conflict of interest and undermined the fairness of the proceedings.  Mr Justice Hayden ruled that the professional engagement, even if limited, posed a sufficient risk of perceived unfairness, stating:  “The weight of the professional obligation is to avoid the appearance or risk of unfairness and, in the time-honoured phrase, for justice not only to be done but to be seen to be done.  This judgment highlights the significance of maintaining procedural fairness and the ethical responsibilities of legal professionals. It serves as a reminder that even the perception of unfairness can undermine judicial integrity, necessitating rigorous adherence to ethical and procedural safeguards in family law.  For the full summary and commentary, visit <a href="https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/judgments/f-v-m-z-2024-ewhc-3190-fam/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Family Law Week</a>.  The full judgment is available on <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2024/3190.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">BAILII</a>.

Practice and Procedure – PLWG Best Practice: A Guide

Moving onto the third article in a series covering the Public Law Working Group’s recommendations for best practice for adoption, we consider Chapter 3 of the PLWG report. This section covers a wide area of issue regarding practices and procedures in adoption proceedings. The current practices are often slow, confusing, and, in any event, distressing for those involved. This chapter seeks to improve best practice within the current framework, and advocates for reconsideration of the law where longer term issues need addressing.  As with all articles in this series, this will follow the general chronology and sub-headings of the report to ensure consistency and to break the report down into a more bite sized and user-friendly guide as to what the report recommends.  To avoid confusion with the duplication of headings and sub-headings, Chapter 3 of the PLWG report sets out the current practice and procedure, and notes the problems with these, and then, later in the report, under headings named the same, makes specific recommendations – this format has been followed within this article.  Background  Placement and adoption applications are currently governed by the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the Family Procedure Rules, and the Adoption Agency Regulations. In the past 20 years, there have been no substantial or material changes to the law or procedure for adoption.  Most of the recommendations in the report related to detail of the process and procedures, rather than the substances. An area where concern is continually raised is applications for leave to oppose adoption orders, providing parents the ability to oppose an adoption order when they are already placed for adoption. The overwhelming majority of these cases fail, and some have suggested removing this ability to oppose; others have pointed out that legal aid changes mean parents may now be assisted to realistically oppose applications.  Another common area of concern raised to the PLWG is that regarding Rule 19 applications (pursuant to FPR r14.21), notably with respect to wider family in relinquished baby cases.  Finally, specific attention has been given to the issues raised in Somerset County Council v (1) NHS Somerset Clinical Commissioning Group and (2) The Primary Cohort Children [2021] EWHC 3004. Recommendations are also made from the Cumbria Child Safeguarding Practice Review and Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel.  Applications to Oppose Adoption Orders  Where a placement order has been made, the next steps is to place the child for adoption. This can be a very long process, for some there will be no placement found (often resulting in a revocation application).  Once the child is placed and sufficient time has passed, an adoption application will follow. Notwithstanding there being a placement order, the parents will be served with the adoption application, including offering the chance to oppose the application.  Many parents, quite understandably and obviously, tick ‘yes’.  Per s.47(7) ACA 2002, the court can only allow an application to oppose if there has been a change in circumstances since the placement order. This requires a two stage test. First, there must be a change in circumstances, but, and crucially, secondly, the court must be satisfied in any event that it is in the child’s best interests to grant to application, considering the child’s entire life. If, and it is a big if, the parents are granted leave to oppose, the application becomes fully contested.  Almost all parents are unrepresented at the time  off service of the adoption application. Parents will unlikely be aware of the tests involved, nor will they necessarily understand the process to oppose, many parents failing to file a specific application (thought Judges often do not insist on compliance due to the circumstances).  Given the circumstances, many parents do oppose the adoption order without considering their case, resultingly, the majority fail. As the PLWG report note:  “Many judges have contacted the group to express concern that this process is inhumane and damaging. They consider it creates false hope and further pain for birth parents at the same time as delay for the children.”  Given these applications are permitted by statute, any significant change would require Parliament to amend the legislation. The Working Group recommend that it may be beneficial to wait to see whether there is any impact from the changes to legal aid funding for parents opposing application will have any significant change.  Applications to Oppose – Notification of Fathers and Wider Family  Ss.19-20 ACA 2002 provides that, a mother who relinquishes a child may consent to their adoption. There is a procedural issue whereby putative fathers and wider family members are not routinely notified of the application.  s.19 provides that a child may be placed for adoption where each parent has consented to the adoption. A parent, pursuant to s.52(6), means a parent with parental responsibility. The overriding principles in s.1 are fundamental to adoption applications, notably, the Court must have regard to the welfare checklist, including the child’s relationship with relatives. Such relatives being defined in s.144 as grandparents, siblings, aunts and uncles.  FPR r14.21 provides*:  “Where no proceedings have started an adoption agency or local authority may ask the Court for directions on the need to give a father without parental responsibility notice of the intention to place a child for adoption.<a></a><a></a>”  *It should be noted that the online versions of the FPR note applications must be made to the High Court under the inherent jurisdiction, this has been removed by virtue of the Family Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2020 No.135, but this change has not been reflected in the online version of the Rules.  The procedural lacuna arises from the reference only to fathers without parental responsibility, there being no reference to any wider family members. As such, an adoption agency must have regard to the child’s welfare with the wider family, but there is no clear pathway to seek directions on this issue.  The Court of Appeal grappled with this issue in A, B and C (Adoption: Notification of Fathers and Relatives) [2020] EWCA Civ 4, noting that the welfare of the child is not the key test, rather, it is an exercise of balancing the rights of the family members and the child, whilst welfare plays an important role, the Article 6 and 8 rights of those who can establish potential family life will be a vital consideration.  Placement Applications  A placement application will often be made alongside care proceedings. S.22 ACA 2002 requires a Local Authority to issue such proceedings if:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>The child is placed for adoption or is accommodated;</li>  <li>No adoption agency is authorised to place the child for adoption;</li>  <li>The child has no parent or guardian, or the child is suffering, or at risk of suffering, significant harm (s.31(2) CA 1989); and</li>  <li>The Local Authority is satisfied the child should be placed for adoption.</li> </ol>  There are exceptions to the above, notably where the child is living with somebody who has already given notice to adopt the child (s.22(5) ACA 2002).  The placement application is made via Form A50, along with: the child’s birth certificate, a statement of facts giving detail about the case, any relevant Order, any parental consent document.  The Local Authority must also prepare an Annex B and this is governed by FPR PD14C. It provides that an Annex B should contain three distinct sections, providing sufficient information as to the following.  Section A: Report and Matters for Proceedings – This should include the details of the author of the Annex B, including their qualifications and experience. Information should also be given as to whether there are others who should be made respondents to the proceedings.  Section B: Child and Birth Family – This section is designed to provide information to the Court, adopters, and importantly the child, as to their background, likes, dislikes, and siblings. There is also information provided about the parents of the child (including a photograph of them). Further information is provide as to the child’s wider relationships, their wishes and feelings, and contact arrangements leading up to and following adoption.  Section C: Recommendations – This section is for the Local Authority to set out their case for what should happen to the child, evidently noting the merits of the placement order and future contact.  Whilst placement applications are often made within care proceedings, and they are often dealt with alongside the care case, they remain distinct proceedings. Placement Orders, if made, will very likely be made at the final hearing in the care case, such that a Final Care Order and Placement Order will be made on the same day. Resultingly, most early Case Management Orders now provide directions to a Local Authority in respect of issuing placement applications.  It is extremely time intensive for Local Authorities to issue placement applications, with a separate A50 and supporting documentation being required for each child, as opposed to applications for care orders which can be made ‘in bulk’. Further, the Local Authority plan for adoption must be ratified by the Agency Decision Maker (“ADM”).   Whilst it raises significant emotions for parents, the benefit to the placement proceedings running alongside the care proceedings is that the parents will benefit from legal aid and be represented at these hearings. The Working Group recommends that there should be a leaflet which explains the placement process and how it relates to adoption.  A Local Authority or the child has an inherent right to apply to revoke the placement application; parents may also make sure an application, but only with the permissions of the court. As previously noted, this will only be allowed where there has been a change in circumstances.  Should a substantive revocation application be pending, the Local Authority may not place the child for adoption without court approval. Revocation applications will often delay permanency for the child, particularly if they are made once family findings has been successful. That being said, the PLWG notes that this should not be changed, explaining:  “There are cases where it is entirely proper for the parents to be able to challenge the placement of their child. Unlike applications to oppose an adoption order these are usually not prompted by the court process itself and the issue of delay is a matter for the judge determining the application for leave.”  Adoption Applications  An adoption order will have the effect of severing legal ties between the child and their biological family, as such, there are various steps which must be taken before an application can be dealt with. These steps vary depending on whether the application is via an adoption agency or via a private application. All cases have a prerequisite placement time, whereby the child must have lived with the prospective adopter for X amount of time before they can apply, this varies as follows:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Agency Adoption: 10 weeks</li>  <li>Parent or partner of parent: 6 months</li>  <li>Foster Parent: 1 year</li>  <li>Any other person: 3 years</li> </ul>  Agency adoptions are such that the prospective adopters have been approved and matched by a panel prior to the child being placed with the proposed adopters.  Regulation 24 of the Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005, requires the Local Authority to provide appropriate preparation to prospective adopters. As noted in earlier chapters of the report, concern has been raised about the consistency and level of training provided to adopters. Concern was raised to the Working Group with respect to suitability and matching reports varying considerably across agencies.  In non-agency adoptions, whereby a ‘private’ individual applies to adopt a child, the applicant must give the Local Authority notice of at least 3 months that they intend to adopt the child. In Re A [2020] EWHC 3296, the Court held that non-compliance with the notice period did not result in an ineffective application.  As with placement applications, the Local Authority must prepare a report, the Annex A. This report has six sections as follows:  Section A: The Report and Matters for Proceedings – This should include the details of the author of the Annex A, including their qualifications and experience. Information should also be given as to whether there are others who should be made respondents to the proceedings.  Section B: Child and Birth Family – This section includes information about the child and each parent for the child. It also includes details of the important relationships to the child, contact arrangements, and the views of the child. There is also a summary of the actions of the adoption agency.  Section C: Prospective Adopter – This section provides detail about the prospective adopter, most notably their suitability to adopt the child. It should explore whether the prospective adopter will follow the wishes of the child, parents, and guardian in matters such as religious and cultural upbringing. Further, the section explores the prospective adopter’s reasons for the child.  Section D: The Placement – This section provides information regarding the placement and the timescales for support post adoption.  Section E – Recommendations  Section F: Further Information for Convention Adoption – This section only applies where the adoption relates to a Convention Adoption Order, s.84 Orders or s.83 adoptions. This section must comply with FPR PD14C.  It is important for a prospective adopter, in a non-agency case, to issue their application in a timely manner following notification to the LA. Failure to do so may result in the Annex A being out of date by the time of proceedings, risking delay in proceedings for an updated report to be completed.  Issuing the Application  The applicant must issue three copies of Form A58 along with the relevant forms. Directions will be made and a first hearing should be listed within 4 weeks. It is common for first hearings to be on the papers instead of an attended directions hearing.  There is confusion with the adoption forms, however, the Working Group is hopeful that the Reform Programme will aid in this aspect given that the applicant will be supported by prompts when completing the application online. The Working Group recommends condensing the existing consent forms into a single one.  Where possible, the Annex A should be lodged with the application to prevent delay; the PLWG notes that doing so may reduce the application time by half compared to cases where the Annex A is issued only following the first case management order.  Case Management  As noted, most initial hearings will be heard on the papers, with Judges providing directions without a hearing pursuant to FPR r.14.6(4). The Working Group recommends this practice should continue, with most hearings being suitable to be dealt with on the papers, reducing pressure on listing the hearing and avoiding delay.  FPR r14.8 notes the matters that the Court must consider when giving directions, this includes setting the timetable, requirements for any reports, party status for the child, directing tracing, and setting out directions for the final hearing. The initial case management orders vary across the country, and a standard order would be helpful  Final Hearings & Celebration Hearings  Where time to appeal any opposition to the adoption application has expired, the Working Group consider that there should be a block listing of final hearings to allow these to be made in bulk. A template order should be created for this.  A celebration visit is a hearing sometimes offered where the adoptive family attend the Court and formally ‘celebrate’ the granting of the adoption order. There are significant concern and risks with such visits. The adoptive family would be attending a family court with other parents engaged in care and adoption proceedings, possibly leading to upset for both families; it is possible even that the adoptive family could come into contact with the birth family.  The Working group noted also that:  “The point was also made that the word ‘celebration’ can be inflammatory from the viewpoint of the birth parents.”  Whilst these are legitimate concerns, the celebration hearing is an important steps in the adoption process. There was concern raised that some families had to travel considerable distances to courts across the country.  Other Areas of Concern  The PLWG noted several areas of concern that, whilst beyond the scope of the report, were of such importance that they felt it vital to flag them. These matters are such that they likely require changes to legislations to address:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Regulation 23 and 25 AAR 2005 deal with stage one and two checks. Stage one checks are enhanced police checks to assess suitability to adopt, once clear, stage two checks are completed. There is a significant delay in obtaining stage one checks, leaving Local Authority’s in a position where they must either delay the report or complete one without suitable checks.</li>  <li>A placement becomes an adoptive placement where the match is approved by the ADM; however, time that the child has lived with the applicant under an Early Permanence Placement (“EPP”) does count towards the time spent with the applicant. The Working Group note this should be reflected in update statutory guidance.</li>  <li>The current guidance implies EPP should be used before the making of a placement order. It is not clear whether EPP can be approved after a placement order or whether it can principally be agreed by the ADM prior to birth. Guidance should be updated to clarify these areas to assist Local Authority’s in adoption planning.</li>  <li>S.44(3) ACA 2002 provides that the prospective adopter must give at least 3 moths notice to the LA of their intent to adopt, the time limit for notification is capped at two-years. The Working Group note that two years is excessive.</li>  <li>S.42(3) ACA 2002 provides that a child must live with a step-parent for at least 6-months before they can apply to adopt the child. The Working Group note that this period is not sufficient and should be extended.</li> </ul>  Schedule of Recommendations  The Public Law Working Group makes numerous recommendations regarding the practice and procedure in adoption proceedings; these broadly follow the areas discussed above and can be broken down as set out below.  Leave to oppose adoption orders – Recommendations  The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Family and Domestic Abuse) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2023 changed the legal aid position in relation to applications to oppose an adoption order. The Working Group recommends that there be a review in 12 months’ time to assess whether the greater availability in legal aid makes a difference to the number of applications made and/or refused.  During this 12 months, records of all applications should be kept and the final review should also allow representations from organisations as to the perspective of birth parents.  A nationally adopted leaflet about the adoption process should be created and provided to all parents on issuing the application. This should include information about the right to apply for leave to oppose and, importantly, the legal test to be applied.  Should a parent give notice they seek to oppose the order, Form FP2 should be sent to the parents, allowing them to formally seek to oppose in the proper form. The Working Group recommends it still be open to the judge to permit applications that still do not use FP2, but encouraging the proper form will aid in applications.  A template statement should be created allowing parents present evidence to support an application for leave to oppose. This template should follow the legal test, allowing parents to set out the changes in their circumstance and why their proposals are in the best interests of the child.  Applications to Oppose – Notification of Fathers and Wider Family – Recommendations  The Working Group note that, since the references to “inherent jurisdiction” and “High Court” have been removed from FPR r14.21, it is not considered necessary to make such applications for a declaration as to notification to the High Court or section 9 Judge. The Working Group does, however, recommend that these applications should be made to the Designated Family Judge who can ensure allocation to a suitably experienced Judge.  Notice of such an application should not be give to fathers without PR or family members until any issues regarding such notice are determined. Applications should be listed for an Urgent Case Management Hearing and matters such as further evidence or appointment of a guardian should be considered.  In relinquished baby cases where the mother does not wish for the father without PR or family to be notified, the Working Group endorses the approach taken by Jackson LJ in A, B and C (Adoption: Notification of Fathers and Relatives) [2020] EWCA Civ 41.  Rule 14.21 should be amended such that it includes reference to wider family members given the adoption agency, and court, must consider the relationship the child has with such relatives.  The English Adoption Statutory Guidance 2013 and draft 2014 version should be updated to reflect the current law and practice. It is noted the guidance was issued before the creation of regional adoption agencies and several significant cases.  Issuing the Placement Application – Recommendations  The PLWG advise that there be changes to advice and guidance in relation to placement applications. The Guidance Notes for completing the Form A50 should be revised to clarify confusion and a new leaflet should be created explaining the process of placement applications (especially where they are issued on a stand alone basis).  There should be a template statement of facts to provide uniformity. The statement should consistently include the nature of the current placement, decision of the ADM, and when parents were informed.  Instead of a separate form being completed to keep a child’s address confidential (Form A65), consideration should be given to amending Form A50 to include this as a section.  The Working Group notes the following as documents which should be lodged with an application for a placement order:  <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha" class="wp-block-list"> <li>Form A50</li>  <li>Form A65 where the Local Authority seeks to keep the child’s address confidential</li>  <li>Certified copy of the child’s birth certificate (originals are currently required)</li>  <li>Statement of facts complying with FPR 14.9 and the above recommendations</li>  <li>A copy of any Final Care Order</li>  <li>A copy of any Parental Responsibility Order</li>  <li>A copy of the ADM decision</li>  <li>The Annex B</li> </ol>  Case Management  It is recommended that, where applications are received on time, the Court should always acknowledge receipt. Short form standard orders should be encouraged and Case Management Orders should include timing for ADM decisions.  Where ADM decisions are delayed, the ADM should notify both the court and the parents as to the reasons, action being taken to address the delay and the next ADM date.  As above, a placement application leaflet should be created and served upon the parents alongside the application and supporting material. This leaflet should includes information about revocation of placement orders and an explanation as to the legal test.  Applications to Revoke a Placement Order  It was noted during the consultation that the wording of s.24(1) was, in some cases, leading to multiple applications for leave to revoke a placement order from multiple family members. The Working Group recommends that:  “…research be undertaken to establish whether this is a regional or more widespread issue, and to inform whether consideration needs to be given to any reform.”  Applications to revoke a placement Order should be made on the proper form, Form FP2, and this should be sent to applicants following issue. Failure to use this form would not bar an application.  The Local Authority should produce a template letter for parents and the court where the placement circumstances have changed, such as from a foster placement to a prospective adoptive placement. The Local Authority needs to be proactive in advising of such changes.  Annex A and B Reports  The preparation of the Annex B, Annex A, and Child Permanence Report are time consuming and involve repetition across reports. Where simple errors are made, these are likely to be replicated and liable to cause delay to proceedings. The Working Group suggests that reducing pressure on social workers by limiting information repetition could alleviate such errors.  The PLWG recommends that a unified report is created. There is already a combined report for the Annex B and CPR developed by CoramBAAF, but adding in the information from the Annex A would save further time. Streamlining reports must still ensure compliance with AAR and FPR PD14C.  Adoption (Pre-Issue)  The Working Group makes several recommendations in respect to pre-issue matters, aiming to ensure a smoother process and easier process for all parties involved, these recommendations are as follows:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>The Annex A should be prepared before the application is issued so as to streamline the process. It is recognised this requires collaboration between the applicant and the Local Authority.</li>  <li>Applicants, when giving the Local Authority notice, should advised when they intend to apply to allow the Annex A to be prepared pre-issue.</li>  <li>Local Authorities should be proactive in communicating with birth parents post-placement and information should be provided to the court advising what steps have been taken to maintain contact, last contact, and last known address.</li>  <li>A national protocol governing transfer of information between Local Authorities and regional adoption agencies should be established.</li>  <li>S.19 and s.20 ACA 2002 cases (adoptions by consent) should be revised under a single form designed to address issues of statements and notification of parents.</li>  <li>To avoid delay in non-agency adoptions, applications should proceed with applications at an early stage after giving notice.</li>  <li>Where a non-agency application has been delayed, and the Annex A is thus outdated, the Social Worker shall provide a statement confirming any change of circumstances or lack of change.</li>  <li>There should be a national training and information protocol, specifically addressing the areas of documents, notably those placed before the ADM and Annex A, B and CPR reports. There should also be training on working with applicants.</li>  <li>A national protocol should be established with the police to ensure more efficient stage 1 checks.</li>  <li>There should be standard templates for suitability and matching reports.</li> </ul>  Issuing the Adoption Application  On issuing an application, it is suggested that the following documents are lodged:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>A58 application</li>  <li>Birth certificate copy</li>  <li>Marriage/civil partnership certificate</li>  <li>Any Deed Poll</li>  <li>A copy of the Care and Placement Order</li>  <li>A copy of the placement application statement of facts</li>  <li>Any consents</li>  <li>Annex A report</li>  <li>Any request for DWP disclosure</li> </ul>  There should be templates for the initial case management order and final adoption orders to provide for continuity and efficient timetabling through to final hearing. In addition, clear guidance notes should be served on parents alongside the application.  Adoption Visits  There should continue to be the opportunity for adoptive parents to attend court for an adoption visit (also known as celebration visits). These visits are termed differently across regions and there should be continuity across the country, such visits should be referred to as “adoption visits”.  Whilst not all adoptive parents will want such a visit, they must be advised this is an option and the adoptive parents should confirm whether they want to attend such a visit. Courts should take necessary steps to ensure those attending these visits do not come into contact with parties engaged in care proceedings – each court should have a plan on how this will be achieved.  There should be a national protocol to allow a case to be transferred to a local court to allow adoptive parents to attend.  Other Areas of Concern  Parliament should consider whether the AAR 2005 should be amended to make clear that a Local Authority may proceed with stage 2 checks notwithstanding stage 1 checks being outstanding. Stage 2 checks should then be able to be terminated if stage 1 checks come back unsuitable without having to present to ADM or having appeal recourse (as is the case where only stage 1 checks are done and show unsuitability).  Parliament should consider whether to amend s.44(3) ACA 2002 such as to reduce the ceiling for the notice period from two-years to one-year. Any such notice should also be in writing and clearly dated to avoid issues with date of notice.  Parliament should consider whether to extend the ‘live with’ requirement under s.42(3) ACA 2002 to stepparents.  Postscript  In Somerset County Council v NHS Somerset CCG [2021] EWHC 3004 (Fam), several cases were raised where adoption medical reports had not been completed, in breach of the regulations. In order to avoid a repeat of these situations, the PLWG recommends that there should be some written memo (an email exchange sufficing) to confirm who the agency medical advisor is and this memo should be explicit in exhibiting that the medical advisor complies with the Schedule 1 requirements in the AAR 2005.  Several issues came out of the Cumbria Child Safeguarding Practice Review and the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel. From this, the Working Group recommends that:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>The agency medical advisor’s summary report is required for Annex A’s.</li>  <li>Adopter’s health is subject to ongoing review in agency applications, as such the medical summary may be older than 3pmonths. Where there is no material change, this can be attached to the Annex A.</li>  <li>The prospective adopters’ social worker shall write to the applicants GP and referees before matching panel and application. There should be a standard template letter including a safeguarding statement, relevance of information, and seeking updating in the event of anything new coming to light.</li>  <li>There should be a consistent template for the medical advisors summary.</li>  <li>The child’s social worker and prospective adopters’ social worker should confirm they have reviewed the medical summary and addressed any concerns.</li>  <li>There should be a checklist of document required for ADM. This checklist, and the documents, should be placed before ADM when making the best interests decisions.</li>  <li>Local Authorities should ensure quality control mechanisms and team manager and agency adviser reviews of the checklist documents – these mechanisms should reflect the duty in para 1.32 of the 2013 Statutory Guidance on Adoption.</li>  <li>Local Authorities should ensure parents are notified of the proposed ADM decision date and a template letter should be created explaining the decision. Similarly, parents should be notified of the outcome.</li> </ol>  Conclusion  Chapter 3 of the Public Law Working Group’s report on best practice in adoption focuses on the practices and procedures surrounding adoption proceedings, highlighting the need for streamlined processes that better support children, birth families, and prospective adopters. The recommendations in this chapter emphasise the importance of reducing unnecessary delays, addressing procedural inconsistencies, and providing clarity to all parties involved.  Central to these reforms is the recognition that current practices often create confusion, distress, and inefficiencies, which ultimately fail to serve the best interests of the child. By advocating for national templates, updated statutory guidance, and clearer procedural frameworks, the recommendations aim to ensure consistency and fairness in adoption proceedings.  The PLWG also underscores the importance of keeping children’s welfare at the forefront, making clear that procedural improvements must align with their emotional, cultural, and identity needs. This includes revising outdated systems, ensuring proper training for professionals, and addressing gaps in areas such as the notification of wider family members and the preparation of Annex A and B reports.  Whilst several of the recommendations will require legislative change, adoption systems rooted in these recommendations are more likely to deliver timely, transparent, and child-centred outcomes. By addressing both short-term procedural issues and longer-term legislative reforms, these proposals aim to create a fairer, more efficient adoption framework. Ultimately, this will help ensure that children in adoption proceedings find stability and security in a process that respects their unique circumstances and needs.

Lies in Family Law Proceedings – Clarification from the Court of Appeal

H (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator: Lies) [2024] EWCA Civ 1261  Avaia Williams, a pupil barrister under the supervision of Sara Anning and Rebecca Musgrove, analyses the recent judgment in H (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator: Lies) [2024] EWCA Civ 1261, which provides insight into the handling of lies and credibility in family proceedings. This case clarifies the treatment of lies in family courts, particularly as it relates to fact-finding in child welfare cases and the distinction between the criminal and family courts.  Full Judgment can be found <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/1261.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.  Facts  This case arose in care proceedings for three children following the youngest suffering bruising and fractures while in the care of their mother and her new partner (who appeared as an intervenor). Following an extensive fact-finding hearing, the trial judge concluded that both the mother and the intervenor were in a “pool of perpetrators” but could not identify either as the likely perpetrator on the balance of probabilities. Both adults had opportunity and motive, and both had told multiple lies during the proceedings, including that their relationship had ended a significant time prior to the hearing.  The mother’s appeal focused on the judge’s analysis of the identified lies and the Judge’s reliance upon the lies thereafter.  Legal Background  In addressing the mother’s appeal, the Court noted that the trial judge had correctly identified the relevant legal basis for considering lies, notably <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/136.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Re H-C (children) [2016] EWCA Civ 136</a> which held:  “in an appropriate case, a judge will not infrequently directly refer to the authority of Lucas in giving a judicial self-direction as to the approach to be taken to an apparent lie. Where the "lie" has a prominent or central relevance to the case, such a self-direction is plainly sensible and good practice […[ there should be no distinction between the approach taken by the criminal court on the issue of lies to that adopted in the family court. Judges should therefore take care to ensure that they do not rely upon a conclusion that an individual has lied on a material issue as direct proof of guilt."  As well as the recent case of <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/451.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Re A, B and C (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451</a>, in which the Court suggested it would be good practice:  “…when the tribunal is invited to proceed on the basis, or itself determines, that such a direction is called for, to seek counsel's submissions to identify: (i) the deliberate lie(s) upon which they seek to rely; (ii) the significant issue to which it/they relate(s), and (iii) on what basis it can be determined that the only explanation for the lie(s) is guilt.”  Lord Justice Peter Jackson highlighted the importance of examining lies within the specific context of family proceedings, where they often play a role in assessing credibility but do not always carry the same implications as in criminal trials.  The Appeal  The mother’s appeal raised three grounds:  The Handling of Lies: She argued that the trial judge inadequately analysed her lies and should have excluded them from consideration unless they indicated guilt.  Identification of the Perpetrator: She contended that the judge had not sufficiently distinguished between her and the intervenor as potential perpetrators.  Factual Findings: She claimed the judge’s conclusion was contrary to the weight of the evidence.  Lord Justice Peter Jackson responded with a clarification on the interpretation of lies in the family context. He noted that while the Lucas direction’s caution is prudent, it should not lead to the exclusion of lies from consideration unless their only explanation is concealment of guilt.  The key passage is illustrative:  “I would therefore make one observation about the description of good practice in Re A, B and C. At [58(iii)] it is said that the court should seek to identify the basis on which it can be determined that the only explanation for the lie(s) is guilt. That draws on the slightly different jury direction in the Crown Court Compendium… which requires that a lie is only capable of supporting other evidence against a defendant if the jury are sure that it was not told for a reason advanced by or on behalf of the defendant, or for some other reason arising from the evidence, which does not point to the defendant's guilt.”  Lord Justice Jackson continued, rejecting an overly literal application of Re A, B, and C in the family context:  “Relying on a literal reading of Re A, B and C, Mr Barnes [for the mother] further argues that the court is required to exclude a lie from consideration altogether in any case where it cannot be satisfied… that the only explanation for it is to conceal guilt. I do not accept that submission… A general exclusionary rule, exclusively directed at lies, would be inconsistent with the duty on the court to consider all the evidence… It will be sufficient for the judge to recall that the true significance of a lie must be carefully assessed, for all the well-known reasons noted by the judge in the present case.”  In sum, he stated, “Any other approach would hamper the court in carrying out its important assessment of credibility and its evaluation of particular issues of fact.”  Commentary  This judgment offers valuable guidance on how family courts should consider lies within fact-finding hearings. Although the Lucas direction advocates restraint when considering lies, the court’s duty in child welfare cases is to weigh all evidence and assign due significance to lies where relevant to credibility or a party’s overall behaviour.  Re H (Children) thus brings a refinement to the guidance provided in Re A, B, and C, clarifying that courts are not required to apply a restrictive interpretation in family matters. In assessing lies, judges may consider these as part of a holistic view without needing to exclude them unless they clearly indicate guilt. This more flexible approach ensures that the court can evaluate the broader context of each case, rather than being unduly limited by any single direction.  Lies must therefore be assessed with a sense of proportion, contextualising them as part of the overall picture. It also reaffirms that lies should be contextualised, not as proof of guilt but as part of a broad evaluation of credibility and reliability.  The decision reinforces a measured approach to lies in family proceedings, ensuring that courts can consider all evidence without being overly constrained by the Lucas direction. By clarifying that lies can be relevant even if their purpose is not solely to conceal guilt, the judgment supports the family court’s focus on a holistic assessment aimed at safeguarding the child’s welfare, whose interests remain paramount, over that of the protections placed on parents which the Lucas direction otherwise seeks to safeguard.  With different aims and procedural basis, notably the interests of the child in each case being at the centre of the Courts decision, it is only right that the Family Court not strap itself firmly to Lucas, evolution of this direction must be very carefully handled, but allowing a more flexible approach to lies, the Court is able to consider the wider picture to cases.

Adoption Records – PLWG Best Practice: A Guide

In this second article in a series covering the Public Law Working Group’s recommendations for best practice for adoption, I consider Chapter 2 of the PLWG report. This section covers the crucial issue of access to adoption records. For children who have been adopted, and their families, the ability to access information on birth families can be vital in facilitating connections and ensuring that the child’s sense of identity is secured. This chapter advocates for a simpler, accessible and streamlined approach to accessing records.  As with the rest of the articles in this series, this will follow the general chronology and sub-headings of the report to ensure consistency and to break the report down into a more bite sized and user-friendly guide to what the report recommends.  Introduction  It is of huge importance to those who have been adopted to be able to access information about their birth families. Whilst there is of course a need for sensitivity, the historic “shroud of secrecy” that has cloaked adoption for many years is to the clear detriment of all involved. There are several routes to accessing information, most notably via the adoption agency, however, the Courts have seen an increase in requests for access to information, prompting the Working Group to consider whether there is a need for reform.  Following work on the PLWG report starting, the individuals behind a significant amount of the research which formed part of the report, announced a project that seeks to identify and address the barriers to tracing – A briefing paper was prepared on this which the PLWG notes covers this area in greater detail, including some important recommendations (practitioners may find this briefing paper of use).  Routes To Obtaining Access to Records  The Working Group identified numerous routes to obtaining access to records. These routes are dependant on who is making the application and the date on which the adoption took place.  Pre-Commencement Adoptions are those adoptions which took place prior to 30 December 2005, the following are routes to obtain access to records:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Adults adopted before 12 November 1975 – can apply to the General Register Office (GRO) for a copy of their original birth certificate. The GRO must also provide certain information from the Adoption Contact Register. If the applicant does not know the original names of their birth parents (as is common pre-1975), counselling is mandatory. Those adults can apply to the GRO who will send forms to the applicants relevant Local Authority or Adoption Support Agency (ASA). Once the birth certificate is obtained, adoption records can be applied for.</li>  <li>Those adopted between November 1975 and December 2005 – can also apply to the GRO in the same way as above. Birth parents were not offered anonymity during this period so counselling is not a requirement.</li>  <li>Court application post GRO information – the information provided by the GRO above will identify the Court who ordered the adoption, an application can then be made for the details of the adoption agency, once they are identified the adoption agency can be applied to for records. These forms of application are usually made by the Local Authority or ASA. If the adoption agency is not in possession of the files, the court directly can provide this information.</li>  <li>Intermediary applications – under The Adoption Information and Intermediary Services (Pre-Commencement Adoptions) Regulations 2005, an individual can apply for information. Such information can not be disclosed without consent of the subject of the information. This route may be subject to charge whereas other routes are not. This route is available to those who have been adopted, their birth relatives and anybody under s.1 CFA 2014 can apply.</li>  <li>Subject Access Request – adopted adults can apply to the Local Authority for any information about time they have spent in care, these records fall outside the remit of adoption regulations and are governed by data protection legislation. These requests must be dealt with in line with the Data Protection Act 2018.</li>  <li>Direct court applications – anybody can apply pursuant to rules 53(4) Adoption Rules 1984 and 32(6) Magistrates Courts (Adoption) Rules 1984. Such documents require leave of the court to be subject to disclosure. This route is not limited to specific individuals.</li>  <li>Exceptional application – orders can be made against the Registrar General to disclose information to obtain a certified copy of birth under s.79(4) ACA 2002 on application by any person only in ‘exceptional circumstances’.</li> </ul>  Post-Commencement Adoptions are those adoptions which took place on or after 30 December 2005, applications for information regarding these adoptions are more regulated, with the following being routes to obtain access to records:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>S.60(2)(a) ACA 2002 – allows an adopted adult to apply to the adoption agency for information which will enable them to obtain their birth certificate. The adopted person or the adoption agency can then apply to the GRO. The adoption agency can apply to prevent disclosure in exceptional circumstances.</li>  <li>S.60(2)(b) ACA 2002 – allows an adopted adult to apply to the adoption agency for the information shared with adopters during proceedings (this will be the Child Permanence Report and other relevant information).</li>  <li>S.60(4) ACA 2002 – allows an adopted adult to apply for those documents listed in rule 14.18 and PD14F FPRs. Such disclosure is subject to redaction (unlike under s.60(2)).</li>  <li>S.61 ACA 2002 – allows a person to apply for information from an adoption agency which is related to an adult. There is a discretion to provide this and the agency may need to seek permission to disclose information, and there is a requirement to take reasonable steps to obtain the views of those adults to whom the information relates. Under s.62, a similar provision exists to obtain protected information about a child.</li>  <li>Subject Access Request – as above, an individual can apply for their care records pursuant to the Data Protection Act 2018.</li> </ul>  Finally, there are two routes under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 to obtain information. Firstly, pursuant to Rule 14.24 which allows documents to be disclosed by direction of the court. Secondly, pursuant to Rule 14.14 which provides the Court with discretion to communicate information. There is no restriction or guidance on the use of Rule 14.14.  The PLWG Report appends a flowchart at Appendix A of Chapter 2 which shows the routes to obtaining the original birth certificate, seeking information via intermediary services, pre-commencement access, and post-commencement access.  Which Agencies Hold Records  Adoption records are, in the first instance, kept by the relevant adoption agency, that being the agency responsible for placing the child. This could the via a Local Authority or voluntary agency. In 2020, responsibility for disclosure was passed from the local adoption agency level to regional adoption agencies. The expectation being a smaller number of more structured and resources agencies should be able to better address the deficits seen in adoption.  The regional agencies tend to hold responsibility for adoption support, but there remains confusion in where to seek support. Some agencies contract work and some do not. In addition, many records are still held in paper format.  Supporting an individual to access records is a significant time commitment which the responsible agencies in England and Wales simply do not have the resources to dedicate. There are lengthy waiting lists as demand outweighs available resources.  Applications to Court  Usually reserved for situations where difficulties have been encountered in accessing information via the adoption agency, though there is no restriction to only these situations. An issue with applications through the courts is that many courts have closed or merged into combined centres; there is no register or facility which identifies where records from these courts will be.  There is limited guidance available to courts on what the approach should be for adoption disclosure applications made pursuant to the general powers in rules 53(4) and 32(6) and FPR 14.14 and 14.24; judges across the country have raised concerns about how to determine these applications.  There is only one reported case which deals with this issue, in Re X (Adopted Child) Access to Court File [2014] EWFC 33, several principles were laid down in relation to an application by the daughter of an adopted person where the adopted person and adoptive parents were all deceased, the principles were:  <ol style="list-style-type:upper-roman" class="wp-block-list"> <li>The court has discretion whether to disclose information contained within the court file.</li>  <li>The court should have regard to all the circumstances and exercise this discretion in a just manner.</li>  <li>Maintaining confidence in the confidentiality of adoption files is an important public policy consideration.</li>  <li>The time since the order and whether any affected parties are deceased are both important considerations.</li>  <li>The connection between the applicant and the information sought should be considered.</li>  <li>The court must take account of the impact of disclosure on any relevant third parties (though it should consider if any safeguards could mitigate this).</li> </ol>  Whilst this guidance provides some structured approach, in practice judges report this guidance is of limited assistance as the facts of Re X were so uncontroversial with respect to making the disclosure.  Current Practice  The PLWG conducted a country wide survey to consider how disclosure applications are dealt with. From this survey, the Working Group identified 10 key findings:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>Most requests are from adults regarding pre-commencement adoptions.</li>  <li>Many services noted insufficient resources to meet demand.</li>  <li>Service availability varies across the country.</li>  <li>The approach to applications, and the responses received, is inconsistent.</li>  <li>Support agencies and the courts both identified an increase in demand.</li>  <li>The judiciary deal with applications inconsistently, including the detail required on the application, the criteria applied in deciding, the level of judge who deals with applications, and whether applications require a hearing.</li>  <li>Courts set their own timetables and some courts do not prioritise requests.</li>  <li>There is confusion about the difference in pre and post commencement adoption.</li>  <li>There are few services available for pre-commencement adoptions.</li>  <li>A quarter of courts charge a fee, with there being no standard fee.</li> </ol>  The process as it stands is inconsistent, confusing, time consuming and inadequate. Given the importance of access to information for adopted people and their families, the current practice is not good enough.  Recommendations  The report makes several recommendations, all of which were agreed and endorsed by the overwhelming majority of respondents to the consultation. These recommendations are  explored below, however an overriding theme from those concerned was:  “…that adoption should be recognised for the lifelong process that it is, and that those affected should have access to services and support at a point in their lives when it is needed.”  Training – Experiential training may assist professionals to understand the real world impact of adoption. Those who prepare adoption reports should receive sufficient training and this should be available to all professionals across the board of adoption work. The Working Group also recommend that adopters receive training on information sharing and contact with birth relatives.  Service Information – Comprehensive information should be available online across the spectrum of relevant stakeholders, including adoption agencies, support services, the courts and more. There should be simple advice on how to apply for a birth certificate, adoption records, and how to engage with intermediary services. The Working Group has prepared a template application form, but recommends a template is formulated by Adopt England and NASW to ensure national consistency.  National Registers – There needs to be greater clarity as to the whereabouts of adoption records:  “www.familyconnect.org.uk and www.adoptionsearchreunion.org.uk are of great assistance to service users and professionals alike, and Family Connect is developing into the ‘go to’ hub for finding out about adoption agency records and how to find relatives lost through adoption.”  The PLWG endorses a central and maintained source of adoption information. All agencies endorsed the need for an easier way to locate records and a National Register of Court Adoption Records should be established via cooperation with HMCTS.  Record Retention – There should be a protocol to standardise archiving, retention and retrieval of information. The PLWG endorses the recent good practice guide, <a href="https://www.accesstocarerecords.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/CALGG_FINAL-adoption-and-care-experienced-records2024.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">The records of Adopted and Care-Experienced People – Good Practice Guidance for Record-Keepers and Care Professionals</a>. Further, it is recommended that adoption records are retained for at least 100 years, it being recognised that descendants of adopted people have a stake in making applications many years down the line. This 100 year period would reflect that already in place with the courts.  Counselling – Under Schedule 2 ACA 2002, counselling is only required for those adopted pre November 1975. Even then, the counselling is in the form of advice, guidance and support, not therapeutic counselling:  “The lack of definition of the term counselling in adoption legislation and guidance has created confusion over the years, and if this cannot be resolved we recommend that agency workers and their service users should decide together what kind of support might be of use in any given situation.”  Timescales – Applications should be dealt with in consistent, appropriate and realistic timescales. For courts, there should be a national protocol providing a standard procedure; 14 days for acknowledgment, 28 days to locate a file, and full response within 4 months are recommended as appropriate. Good communication is key where there are any delays.  For adoption agencies, there should be timescales compatible with the court process. Whilst consideration needs to be given to resources, it is important for agencies to meet reasonable timescales. The PLWG advises a response within 1 month (in line with SARs)l allowing for a response within 4 months for complex requests.  Priority should be given to pre-1976 adoptions.  Exercise of Discretion – Guidance should be given (or approved) by the President of the Family Division in respect of the exercise of discretion in disclosure applications. This guidance should account for information sharing practices, primary legislation, and the pre and post-commencement regulations.  Review of Post-Commencement Adoptions – There should be a review by the Government as to the provision of information for post-commencement adoptions, ensuring inconsistencies or anomalies are addressed.  Intermediary Services – For pre-commencement adoptions, intermediary services need to be accessible to all adopted adults and their relatives, those adopted pre-1976 should be treated as a priority.  For post-commencement adoptions, there is currently no provision, the PLWG recommends s.98 ACA 2002 is amended to include post-commencement adoptions, noting the evidence supports the need for intermediary services.  The GRO should hold a register of vetoes such that an intermediary who requires information from the GRO can include a request for veto information at the same time, saving time for the birth relatives.  Service User Views – The Government should specifically seek out and address the experiences of adopted adults who request access to their adoption records.  GRO – Whilst beyond the scope of the PLWG report, it is noted that improvement are required within the GRO.  Practice Guidance and Statutory Guidance – New practice guidance for pre and post-commencement adoptions has been produced by IASA, however, the statutory guidance has not been updated in 11 years.  The statutory guidance should include information on how adoption information should be shared between Local Authorities and Regional Adoption Agencies as RAAs were not in existence at the time of the last guidance. There should also be updated statutory guidance on s.62 applications.  Wales – There is currently no statutory guidance on access to information or intermediary services in Wales, there is limited reference within the Codes of Practice, but these should be updated to ensure detailed guidance.  Clear Records – Adoption records should be in plain and appropriate English. There needs to be greater clarity regarding who records are for, notably the Child Permanence Report is a document for the court, the adopters, but also the child themselves – the requirements of such a document should be clear to the author at the outset.  Conclusion  Chapter 2 of the Public Law Working Group’s report emphasises the vital role of accessible adoption records in supporting adopted individuals' sense of identity and connection to their history. The recommendations call for a move from the current fragmented and inconsistent system to one that prioritises clear and consistent access to information. This is essential to ensuring that adopted people can navigate their personal histories with dignity and support.  Central to these recommendations is the need for standardised training, regulation, and guidance for professionals across adoption services. Such consistency will ensure that all involved are equipped to handle adoption records access with the sensitivity and understanding that the lifelong impacts of adoption demand. The recommendations further advocate for centralised registers and protocols that remove barriers and simplify access to vital information, making it a right rather than a challenge.  The present approach to access adoption records reflects the shady legacy of secrecy in adoption, which serves to prevent individuals from fully understanding their origins. Research and experience are clear: this approach does not serve the best interests of those affected by adoption. A modern, reformed system based on these recommendations will allow adopted individuals to engage with their histories, retain connections to birth families where possible, and feel secure in their identities. Ultimately, this reformed framework promises to create a more supportive and respectful adoption system that values individuals' right to their own stories.

Non-Sexual Transmission of Gonorrhoea in Children Cases

Liverpool City Council v M and F and P [2024] EWFC 318 (B)  Avaia Williams, a first six pupil under the supervision of Sara Anning and Rebecca Musgrove, explores the fact-finding judgment in Liverpool City Council v M and F and P [2024] EWFC 318 (B). This case examines the complex issue of inferring sexual abuse versus nonsexual transmission in cases involving sexually transmitted infections in children.  The case concerned a six-year-old girl, C, diagnosed with gonorrhoea, with no allegations of abuse made by the child. The local authority sought findings against the mother or maternal uncle, asserting the infection must have been sexually transmitted. However, expert evidence highlighted the rare but plausible alternative of nonsexual transmission via fomites (such as shared towels in a humid environment).  The Court, guided by established principles, scrutinised the evidence holistically and found insufficient proof of sexual abuse and concluded that the likely cause was nonsexual transmission due to the uncle’s poor hygiene while contagious.  This judgment reiterates the necessity for thorough, evidence-based evaluations in such cases, avoiding premature conclusions based on the presence of an STI alone. It also highlights the broader implications for culpability and significant harm findings, even where transmission is nonsexual - the infection itself being a cause of harm, rather than the way it has been communicated.  It is understood that the Local Authority is appealing this decision.  The full summary on Family Law Week can be found <a href="https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/judgments/liverpool-city-council-v-m-and-f-and-p-2024-ewfc-318-b/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.  The full Judgment can be found <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2024/318.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.

Latest News

Legal Update

4 February 2025

Not “On a DOLS” – Court of Protection Clarifies Terminology

Read time: 6 m

News

3 February 2025

Symptoms of perimenopause found to have contributed to the death of Danielle Moore, lead singer of Crazy P

Read time: < 1 m

News

3 February 2025

Settlement Success in Clinical Negligence Birth Injury

Read time: < 1 m

News

29 January 2025

Critical Failure to Report a Gastric Band Slip Found to be Neglect

Read time: < 1 m

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Your Shortlist (0)

Our Expertise

Sara Sharif Judges to be Named – Court of Appeal Delivers Stinging Judgment

International Adoption – PLWG Best Practice: A Guide

Thursday, 30th January | Hybrid training event &#8211; OurFamilyWizard

New Clerking Appointment at Parklane Plowden

Welcome Back Maxine Best and Naakesha Michl

Justice Is Seen to be Done &#8211; High Court Considers Fairness of Counsel&#8217;s Interactions with Opposition

Practice and Procedure – PLWG Best Practice: A Guide

Lies in Family Law Proceedings &#8211; Clarification from the Court of Appeal

Adoption Records &#8211; PLWG Best Practice: A Guide

Non-Sexual Transmission of Gonorrhoea in Children Cases

Latest News

Not “On a DOLS” – Court of Protection Clarifies Terminology

Symptoms of perimenopause found to have contributed to the death of Danielle Moore, lead singer of Crazy P

Settlement Success in Clinical Negligence Birth Injury

Critical Failure to Report a Gastric Band Slip Found to be Neglect

Thursday, 30th January | Hybrid training event – OurFamilyWizard

Justice Is Seen to be Done – High Court Considers Fairness of Counsel’s Interactions with Opposition

Lies in Family Law Proceedings – Clarification from the Court of Appeal

Adoption Records – PLWG Best Practice: A Guide