Re B-S (Children) (Adoption: Leave to Oppose) [2013]

1. Facts:

• Case Background: Two children, aged 2 and 3, were removed from their mother’s care. Orders were made with the parents' consent for the children to be placed for adoption. Over time, contact between the mother and children broke down.

• Mother’s Appeal: The mother opposed the adoption order, arguing that she had changed and should be given a chance to regain custody. Her initial objection was refused, and the case was appealed.

• Appeal Outcome: The appeal was dismissed. The court found that although the mother’s circumstances had improved, it was improbable she could convince the court that it was in the children’s best interests to refuse the adoption order.

2. Outcome:

• First Instance Decision: The initial court refused the mother's application to oppose the adoption order.

• Appeal Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the decision, noting that while the mother's situation had changed, it did not sufficiently alter the conclusion that adoption was in the children's best interests.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Principle of Least Intervention: Sir James Munby P highlighted that the Adoption and Children Act 1989 embodies a well-established principle that courts should adopt a least interventionist approach. This means:

1. Proper Evidence: There must be proper evidence addressing all available options for the child’s future.

2. Adequately Reasoned Judgment: The judge must provide a judgment that adequately weighs all the pros and cons of each option, considering both the positives and negatives.

• Judicial Reasoning: The case underscores the importance of thorough judicial reasoning. Judges are required to carefully consider and articulate their evaluation of all potential outcomes before making a decision that significantly impacts a child’s future.

• Case Law Reference: The decision reaffirms the importance of not only evaluating the current circumstances but also ensuring that all reasonable alternatives to adoption are considered and properly reasoned.

• Macfarlane Quote: The judgment cited a quote from Macfarlane, emphasising the need for balanced consideration in judicial decisions regarding adoption and the welfare of children.