The judgment gives guidance on three main issues in relation to adoption.

1. In dispensing with parental consent the paramount consideration is the child’s welfare throughout his life.

2. Dual planning is an appropriate approach as it widens the range of carers and shortens the period of time that the child ‘remains in limbo’.

3. Although it is unusual for a contact with the birth family to be ordered if the prospective adopters object it is ultimately a matter for the court to decide.

The child was placed for adoption because of the parents’ problems with violence, alcohol, and drugs. They overcame their problems and sought leave under s 47 to defend the adoption proceedings. Their application was refused and their subsequent appeal was dismissed.

When granting leave to oppose adoption proceedings a two-stage test must be satisfied:

• there must have been a change in circumstances—s 47(7).

If this is satisfied, then:

• the paramount consideration must be the welfare of the child throughout his life—s 1.

A girl aged 4 in foster care, had weekly contact with her 17-year-old half-sister. When she was placed for adoption, the older girl sought leave to apply for a contact order. The prospective adopters were concerned about the disruption to the child and the issue of confidentiality as the older girl was still in touch with the mother. The application was refused.

‘The imposition on prospective adopters of orders for contact with which they are not in agreement is extremely, and remains extremely, unusual’—Wall LJ.

A similar approach was taken in Oxfordshire County Council v X and Others [2010] EWCA Civ 581.

Adoption orders were applied for in each case, but the local authorities recommended special guardianship.

The situations in the White Paper, where special guardianship may apply, are merely examples. Nothing limits special guardianship or adoption to any given set of circumstances. The Human Rights Act requires intervention in family life be only such as is necessary and proportionate so, if the welfare objective can be equally met by special guardianship, that should be preferred to adoption.

A couple had three children, one of whom had suffered injuries which were believed to be non-accidental and caused by the parents. All three children were taken into care and were subsequently adopted. In proceedings in relation to a fourth child, medical evidence was submitted that the injuries were a result of iron and vitamin C deficiency. The parents applied for the adoption orders in respect of their other children to be set aside. This was refused.

Once adoption orders have been made they can only be set aside in highly exceptional and very particular circumstances.