A boy born with a serious drug withdrawal condition to a mother with severe addiction issues may be adopted by his foster parents without his birth mother’s consent, a High Court judge has ordered.
The boy, Master D, aged over five and under 10, is the youngest of four children, all in voluntary care, born to Ms A, who has a history of addiction to heroin and other drugs. Ms A was raped by two men soon after his birth and described as having a chaotic life during his early years.
Ms A did not oppose the care orders for her children, continues to try and battle her drug issues and has had periods of stability.
She was consistently offered access to Master D but her take up was sporadic and inconsistent, Mr Justice Max Barrett noted. Unlike her other children, who are not subject of adoption applications, Master D has never spent a consistent period of time with her.
Christmas TV and movie guide: the best shows and films to watch
Laura Kennedy: We like the ideal of Christmas. The reality, though, is often strained, sad and weird
How Britain’s prison system is teetering on the brink of collapse
Fostering at Christmas: ‘We once had two boys, age 9 and 11, who had never had a Christmas tree’
Ms A opposed the adoption application for Master D, which was supported by the Child and Family Agency and the Adoption Authority, for reasons including she feared she would be unable to apply to a court for access to him and that his access to his siblings might not continue. She wanted him instead to remain in the care of the CFA, with the foster parents as his primary carers, until he turns 18. His birth father, who has not been involved with the boy, consented to the adoption.
The CFA and foster parents said access would be facilitated in line with the boy’s wishes and best interests.
Having considered the evidence and the law, Mr Justice Barrett concluded adoption was in Master D’s best interests and made an order dispensing with Ms A’s consent to that.
Among various findings, he held, after the boy was placed in the foster parents’ care days after his birth, Ms A has never fulfilled, nor sought to fulfil, any of her parental duties. He could not see how this “could not yield a likelihood, in truth a certainty, of prejudicial effect”, only minimised through the intervention of the CFA and, more particularly, the foster carers.
The evidence showed there is no real prospect of rehabilitation or family reunification and all previous efforts have failed, the judge said.
The time of his mother’s pregnancy with Master D was “particularly difficult”. Her grandmother, who cared for her for much of her childhood, became ill during the pregnancy, Ms A’s drug use escalated and the child was born with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome, a serious condition affecting executive functioning and psychological and emotional development into the future.
The rape of Ms A and her grandmother’s death some months later all lead to a crisis in her mental health, a spiralling drug problem and inconsistent take up of access with her infant son. She spent periods in prison during his early years and was drug free there.
She saw prison as “a blessing in disguise” because it gave her space to try and turn her drug habit around, the judge noted. Her efforts in that regard are continuing and he applauded those, he added.
The evidence showed Master D’s foster parents have worked hard to accommodate his needs since they began caring for him when he was just days olds and suffering with extreme drug withdrawal symptoms, they love him greatly and are his “greatest advocates”. His foster mother said he is a “lovely, bright, friendly boy” who “has become an integral part of our family”.
Master D himself was not considered to be in a position to express his own views on being adopted but refers to his foster parents as “Mom” and “Dad” and enjoys access to his siblings, the judge noted.
