Re D (A Child: Placement Order) [2022]

1. Facts:

• Case Background: A three-year-old child was placed for adoption rather than with the paternal grandmother.

• Initial Decision: The original court decision favoured adoption over placement with the grandmother, based on concerns about the grandmother's ability to protect the child from parental conflicts.

• Social Work Input: There was no reference to the opinion of a second independent social worker in the decision-making process.

2. Outcome:

• Court of Appeal: The appeal focused on whether the initial decision had been made after a rigorous evaluation of all relevant factors.

◦ Critique of Initial Ruling: The Court of Appeal criticised the judge for having “telescoped” the arguments, meaning the judge may have prematurely narrowed the focus without fully considering all aspects.

◦ Key Issues:

▪ Grandmother’s Capability: The original decision dismissed the grandmother’s suitability based on the belief that she would not adequately manage the risks associated with parental disputes.

▪ Risk Management: The appeal highlighted that the risk management and likelihood of issues arising were not thoroughly evaluated.

• Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted for reconsideration, emphasising that decisions leading to adoption must involve a thorough and rigorous evaluation of all options and risks.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Importance of Comprehensive Evaluation: The case underscores the necessity for courts to conduct a rigorous and comprehensive evaluation when making placement decisions, ensuring all factors and opinions are considered.

• Role of Independent Opinions: It highlights the importance of including multiple professional opinions, such as from independent social workers, to provide a balanced assessment of the child’s best interests.

• Procedural Fairness: The ruling reflects the need for procedural fairness and thorough reasoning in decisions affecting the child’s future, particularly in adoption cases where alternative family placements are considered.

• Risk Assessment: The case illustrates that judicial decisions must carefully weigh the management of potential risks, rather than relying on assumptions about a relative’s ability to protect the child from familial conflicts.