Published on 19 April 2022
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 43246/21
D.B.
against the United Kingdom
lodged on 16 August 2021
communicated on 29 March 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
On 5 January 2016 an adoption order was made in respect of the applicant’s children, J. and K., owing to concerns about the parents’ behaviour and drug use. The applicant’s partner subsequently became pregnant with D. Prior to D.’s birth, the authorities agreed that in view of the parents’ history D. would be removed from their care at birth and placed in foster care. On 6 May 2017 D. was born with neonatal abstinence syndrome. Upon his release from hospital, he was placed in foster care with a view to adoption. On 22 January 2020 the Sheriff Court granted an adoption order in respect of D. The applicant was ultimately refused permission to appeal on 19 February 2021 by the Court of Session. He complains under Article 8 about D.’s adoption.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?
In particular:
a) Were the measures taken by the United Kingdom authorities consistent with the ultimate aim of reuniting the natural parents and the child, were adequate steps taken to facilitate family reunification as soon as reasonably feasible and did the authorities seriously contemplate any possibility of D.’s reunification with his biological family (see Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, §§ 206-08 and 220, 10 September 2019)? In this regard, did social services make adequate attempts to help the applicant rehabilitate and was adequate contact allowed between the applicant and D. (see, in particular, Strand Lobben, cited above, § 221)?
b) Did the domestic authorities perform a genuine balancing exercise between the interests of the child and his biological family and was the adoption order justified by an overriding concern pertaining to D.’s best interests (see Strand Lobben, cited above, §§ 209 and 220)?
c) Was the reasoning adduced by the domestic courts relevant and sufficient, in particular in so far as it placed emphasis on the prior experience regarding J. and K. (see Strand Lobben, cited above, § 210)?
d) Was the applicant involved in the decision-making process to a degree sufficient to enable him to present his case and protect his interests? In this regard, was adequate account taken by the domestic courts of his attempts to rehabilitate and refrain from drug use (see Strand Lobben, cited above, §§ 212 and 225)?