Published on 14 March 2022
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 38134/20
N.S.
against the United Kingdom
lodged on 27 August 2020
communicated on 21 February 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant is a single mother with a history of mental health support needs. Her children, X and Y, were born in 2002 and 2011 respectively. In 2013, she was detained under the Mental Health Act and care proceedings were started by the local authority in respect of her children. In 2014, the local authority returned the children to her care and introduced intensive family support.
In 2015, following a relapse in her mental condition, the local authority again removed her children from her care and placed them with separate foster carers. The applicant was permitted to see them together for one hour per week. The local authority subsequently applied to the Family Court for a placement order in respect of Y. On 10 January 2017, the Family Court directed that X be rehabilitated to the applicant’s care and that Y be placed with a prospective adopter. On 8 June 2018, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 15 August 2019, the Family Court granted an adoption order in respect of Y, rejecting the applicant’s request that it make a more limited “special guardianship order” instead.
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about Y’s adoption.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her 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 Y’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, were the support measures introduced between 2014 and 2015 appropriate and adequate and was adequate contact allowed between the applicant and Y after his removal to local authority care (see in particular see 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 Y’s best interests (see Strand Lobben, cited above, §§ 209 and 220)?
(c) Was the reasoning adduced by the domestic courts relevant and sufficient (see Strand Lobben, cited above, § 210)?
(d) Was the applicant involved in the decision-making process to a degree sufficient to enable her to present her case and protect her interests? In this regard, was adequate account taken by the domestic courts of her attempts to cooperate with the relevant counselling services and to improve her ability to manage her mental health symptoms (see Strand Lobben, cited above, §§ 212 and 225)?