Child Care Solicitors

Alia Lewis was the child’s solicitor in a case involving an adoption application made by the foster carers of a 2 year old child, who had been placed with them for seventeen months, which was contested by the child’s birth parents.

The child, E, was placed in foster care after findings were made against his birth parents during care proceedings, leading to the making of care and placement orders. A fact-finding hearing found that the child’s father had been physically abusive towards the mother, that the mother had failed to protect her child from exposure to harm by reconciling with the father, and that the birth patents’ inability to accept the findings made against them and work honestly with professionals put their child at risk.

Both the parents were successfully granted leave to oppose the adoption application on the basis that they had seemingly separated and thus it appeared that the risks previously identified during the care proceedings may have reduced. In addition, following a successful application by the Children’s Guardian, the Judge requested an analysis of the birth parents’ mobile phone records and an assessment of the mother’s ability to protect and safeguard her child to be undertaken by DV Act, a specialist domestic abuse agency. The primary aim of these investigations was to determine whether the parents remained in a relationship and whether they had truly come to accept the findings against them.

Despite an initial social work assessment concluding that the parents had separated and that the mother understood the risks posed by the father, the in-depth specialist DV Act assessment found that this was not in fact the case. The assessment, coupled with the phone data analysis, indicated on the balance of probabilities that the parents had maintained contact both physically in person and over the phone. In addition, the parents had not been open and honest with professional about the extent of their contact, which underlined their inability to understand the risks posed by their ongoing relationship.

The court found that both parents had failed to develop their insight and neither parent really accepted the court’s findings. In addition, the court concluded that the mother did not understand the risks posed by the father and that by prioritising and continuing her relationship with him, she had failed to protect herself which led to the conclusion that it was unlikely she would be able to protect her child if he was returned to her care. 

The court’s primary concern in reaching its decision was the child’s welfare throughout his life. The court reminded itself that it should not attach too much weight to the short or medium term difficulties the child would likely encounter if removed from the care of the prospective adopters, who were the only carers he could remember. Furthermore, it was highlighted that there is no presumption of a family placement, and that the court had to consider the child's welfare in a manner which is proportionate and compatible with his right to family life. The court went on undertake a comprehensive balancing exercise in terms of the benefits and risks to the child of each placement option and considered the ways in which the child could be supported to understand his life story and culture. The decision was made to dispense with the parents’ consent and the adoption order was made.

The case serves as a helpful reminder to family law practitioners of the importance of undertaking robust specialist assessments of risk. The involvement of DV Act in this case enabled professionals to delve in to the parent’s true perception of the earlier findings against them. The case also highlights how mobile phone data analysis can provide crucial evidence in relation to the veracity of an individual’s assertion that they have separated from an abusive partner. The court acknowledged what an emotionally fuelled case this was and that inevitably one party, whether the birth parents or prospective adopters, would be devastated by the final decision.

Read the full case here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2023/294.html

Alia Lewis represented the child through their Cafcass Guardian and was assisted by Caseworkers, Isobel Beaumont and Timothy Colley. Caroline Croft of Coram Chambers was instructed counsel for the final hearing.

About the Instructing Solicitor

Director of Family & Child Care Alia Lewis is ranked as a Next Generation Partner in the Legal 500 UK for her work cross the South East and London. She specialises in all aspects of family law relating to children, particularly in public law (care) cases. Alia also leads Duncan Lewis’ specialist Autism & ADHD team who are experts in assisting clients in cases involving neurodivergence including Autism, ADHD, Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, Dyscalculia and Tourette Syndrome, learning difficulties, learning disabilities and special needs, in addition to assisting clients who are deaf or hearing impaired and children of deaf adults.

Duncan Lewis Solicitors

The ‘exceptional’ Family & Child Care team at Duncan Lewis Solicitors dispenses advice on the full spectrum of family law matters, with a particular emphasis on international child abduction cases, special guardianship orders, and wardship issues. Our solicitors have broad knowledge spanning surrogacy issues, adoption cases and financial proceedings, and is described in The Legal 500 UK independent legal directory as "particularly adept at acting for children in public law care cases." The Family team has extensive expertise in advising on forced marriage and female genital mutilation matters, and a great deal of experience in handling high-net-worth divorces, cohabitation agreements, non-molestation injunctions, and care and emergency protection orders.

If you require specialist support from our Family & Child Care team, please contact Alia Lewis via email at AliaL@duncanlewis.com or via telephone on 02031141193