Issues in cases linked to Somerset ruling found to be more widespread
In November Roberts J handed down a judgement in the first part of a case in which Somerset County Council were seeking declarations that placement orders had been lawfully made despite breaches of the Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005. The breaches of Regulations 15 & 17 related to the agency medical adviser’s contribution to the information gathering and preparation of the Child’s Permanence Report.
Roberts J considered ten cases in which orders had been made but the children had not yet been placed for adoption. In each of those cases she found that the placement orders had been lawfully made. The next tranche of linked cases relates to children who have been placed for adoption but not yet adopted. This was listed in January, but has been delayed by the discovery that the issues are common in several local authorities and it is not yet clear how many children may be affected. The President of the Family Division will be considering how the cases can be dealt with generally, and will be handing down a judgement in March.
In the meantime, local authorities are asked not to make applications for declarations that a placement order has been lawfully made, and judges are asked not to consider any applications that have been made, unless there are cases of exceptional urgency. Examples are cases where a child is at risk of losing an adoptive placement or a placement is at risk of disruption if an order is not made.
In urgent situations, the Designated Family Judge should be able to deal with cases on an expedited basis and on written submissions. Birth parents should be contacted and local authorities should offer to fund legal advice to allow parents to make their own submissions.
If applications for placement orders have been made, local authorities may apply to withdraw the application, re-make the decision that a child should be placed for adoption and re-issue the application to avoid delay. Alternatively they may wish to wait for the judgement in March.
There is nothing in the Somerset judgement or in the President’s Announcement that prevents local authorities continuing to match children with prospective adopters (although matching panels cannot be held unless the Agency Decision Maker (ADM) decision has been properly made or re-made), or placing children in fostering to adopt placements with their prospective adopters and these may be ways of reducing the delays for children. Prospective adopters must have the situation clearly explained to them before they are asked to consider being matched or accepting a child before the status of the placement order is resolved and they must be prepared to accept that there is some risk that the child will not ultimately be placed for adoption.
For more information, members can access Somerset Ruling: FAQs or contact the Advice Line to discuss specific cases. Members can watch Somerset, the impact webinar to find out how local authorities can avoid these in the future, and what to do about cases currently in progress.
UPDATE
At a hearing in March, CoramBAAF represented the views of our members directly to the President of the Family Division and also suggested possible solutions. Whilst the President considers the case, issues around the role of the agency medical adviser in the information gathering and preparation of the Child’s Permanence Report (CPR) remain. We are aware that linked cases have been delayed due to the discovery that the issues in Somerset are common across many local authorities.