W and M, Re Freeing For Adoption Order

A Director of Child and Community Care Services (JL) who had been the subject of criticism in my earlier judgment invited the parents to meet him to discuss their views, wishes and submissions on 7 April 2005 in his office. A minute of that meeting at which both parents and their solicitors attended was before me. It was a lengthy note and the following extracts are particularly relevant, anonymised where appropriate:

The note went on to record in detail the views of the parents, their opposition to adoption and their dissatisfaction with the process to date. JL asked a number of pertinent questions about their capacity to care for the children and their views about adoption and long term foster care. Towards the end of the interview as recorded in the notes, the following extract appears:

Subsequently by a letter dated 22 April 2005 JL, described as "(the Trust) decision-maker", wrote to the parents a letter couched in the following terms:

(i) Relying on the leading authority of Porter v Magill [2002] 1 AER 506, (" Porter's case ") he submitted that having looked at all the circumstances of the case, a fair minded and informed observer would conclude that there was no real possibility or real danger of JL being biased in this matter. The court should observe an objective test when looking at this matter.

(ii) Counsel argued that it must be borne in mind that the decision of this Trust to bring forward an application to free these children for adoption was simply a decision to accept the recommendation of the Adoption Panel. Ultimately it is the decision of the court that would determine whether the application was granted or not. It was his submission that the respondents were elevating bias and procedure in this context into the criteria of the decision by this court.