Maria* has been looked after by a relation, but now the Court has agreed for her to be ‘freed’ for what’s known as a ‘closed’ adoption.
In a recently published decision, the Royal Court commented: “..we have noted in particular evidence of Dr Briggs that parenting by the mother along with the father was simply not viable, and as to her ability to parent the child alone, there would be ongoing concerns.
“Dr Briggs believed the mother’s difficulties were complex and required intervention with sophisticated psychotherapy, but the timescales for that were likely to be medium to long-term rather than short-term. It is tragic but in his view the mother was trapped in a web of personality and emotional difficulties, impoverished social support, a weak infrastructure to support her parenting and a vulnerability to substance misuse.”
Maria is the second child to be taken out of the care of the mother, whose first one now lives with relations.
The main issue before the Court was not whether to allow Maria to be adopted or not, but whether she should have further contact with her mother:
“…the mother’s position statement made it plain that she fully accepted the need for the child to have a stable and permanent home, and that although she would have liked that home to be with her, she accepted that this was not possible. She wanted the best for the child and she thought that included the possibility of an on-going relationship with her and the child’s maternal family.
“Although she accepted that contact would be determined by the adoptive parents, with the child’s needs and wishes as the determining factor, she thought that a closed adoption order would not be satisfactory as it would rule out the possibility of the child having contact with her in the future, and that this would be unhelpful to the child because of the positive nature of the contact which she and the child enjoyed.”
However, the Court heard evidence from a representative of the Childrens’ Service, who considered:
“…a closed adoption was appropriate, with no contact with either parent, as this would be in the child’s best interests. He thought that it optimised her opportunities for a settled and stable placement. He feared that if there were not a closed adoption, the mother would not acknowledge what had actually taken place and would find it impossible to relinquish her motherly role.
“That would be likely to have a negative emotional impact upon the child in terms of her identity – who was her real mother, if in fact there were two mothers for her; and it would undermine the child’s ability to be part of her new family, especially as she grew older.”
The Bailiff, Sir William Bailihache, sitting with Jurats Paul Nicolle and Sally Sparrow, concluded that:
“In making our decision, we are charged to make an order which is in the best interests of the child. The fact that one can feel desperately sorry for the mother and the position in which she now finds herself is not relevant as a matter of law to the question which we have to decide, which is what order to make in the best interests of the child.
“As far as that question is concerned, all the professional advice is that it is in the best interests of the child that she should be freed for adoption and that this should be a closed adoption without any ongoing contact between the child and the mother, unless for some reason in the future, the adoptive parents consider that it would be in the child’s bests interests that such contact takes place.
“We accept the advice of the professionals. We think that the mother has not moved on from the care order made last year. From her perspective, it is much to be regretted but there we are. The order that has been made is in our view undoubtedly in the best interests of the child.”
The court order of a closed adoption means Maria will not come into contact with her birth parents, unless it is felt to be in her best interests by her adoptive parents.
*The child’s name has been changed to protect her anonymity.