Re R (A Child)

Re R (A Child)

[2014] EWCA Civ 1625 · Court of Appeal

What happened: A mother appealed against care and placement orders concerning her child. The Court of Appeal also used the case to address misunderstandings of earlier decisions about the justification required for adoption. In particular, it considered how courts should compare adoption with other realistic ways of caring for a child.

What the court decided: The appeal was dismissed. The court confirmed that Re B-S had not changed the law: decisions still required an assessment of the child's welfare throughout life and comparison of realistic options. Courts did not have to investigate every conceivable alternative before adoption could be considered.

Why it matters to adoptees: Phrases such as 'nothing else will do' can sound absolute when taken out of context. This judgment explains that the question remains whether adoption is necessary and justified on the evidence about this child and the options actually available. For adoptees examining their records, the useful enquiry is what alternatives were realistically considered and why they were rejected. The judgment is not permission to skip that comparison or treat adoption as the default outcome.

Limitations: Does not weaken the need for necessity and proportionality. Every conceivable alternative need not be assessed; realistic options must be compared.