Submissions
76.Both sides would have me find this is an easy case with a straightforward answer, with the other side’s position being absurd. My view is that because of the difficult issues highlighted in this case it is not as straightforward as suggested, and the only way to properly decide it is to follow Baroness Hale's advice as set out in Re G. 77.In relation to submissions, a number of points arose which I found were of particular note. For the local authority the following points were raiseda)The local authority was determined not to be discriminatory with regard to a failure to consider and, if appropriate, seek a placement order. The local authority regard T's primary care needs as so great that this factor should be the primary factor of the court. It was submitted the availability of a ‘forever family’ post-eighteen is a significant advantage of an adoptive placement. b)It was suggested that most of the scepticism towards adoption was based on an erroneous assumption that it would not be possible to find adopters. Adoption would prioritise T's right to a family life. It was suggested that the Children’s Guardian had closed her mind to adoption and thus failed to consider its advantages and thus the disadvantages of long-term foster care. It was further suggested she lacked the experience to guide the court on these issues.c)It was suggested that the court should not pay too much regard to the end-of-life issues, as they may well not arise during T's minority. 78.For the parents and Children’s Guardian, I particularly noted the following:a)there was a softer option to adoption via long-term foster care, and their view was that the analysis really needed to stop there. Given the foster carers were the only potential adopters, the usual arguments as to stability were suggested to fall away. b)In terms of disability, it was suggested the responsibility of the local authority is not to act in a discriminatory manner. That does not displace the welfare analysis required by the various checklists. T will always have intrusive involvement in his life, and this is a given. c)It was strongly suggested that contact is one of the few pleasures he has. d)It was further submitted that if the placement broke down, whatever form of placement it was, the outcome was likely to be a return to hospice care and thus, there was not a cataclysmic sequence of events awaiting if placement broke down. It was suggested that T's health has deteriorated, with two recent hospital admissions and thus, there was no guarantee any placement would succeed. It was suggested to me the goals of the court in this case should simply be to preserve the small happiness that T has. It was suggested there were issues post-eighteen, and the parents being able to see T in the event of an adopted environment.e)I was urged not to ignore V, forensically applying the welfare checklist from the 1989 Act to her. f)I was urged to see the present care plan as entirely inadequate as it left open a longer search for adopted parents and did not close down the possibility that other adopted parents would not support contact. I was reminded of the real difficulties that these grandparents or parents would have to enforce any orders in their favour. I was correctly returned to the end-of-life position, and the very complex legal and medical environment which would exist.