A judge has ruled “with a heavy heart” that a three-year-old child must be adopted following a series of delays in proceedings, which had lasted 73 weeks at the time of the January hearing.
His Honour Judge Willans, sitting at West London Family Court, said he would make care and placement orders without parental consent as the child’s welfare required him to do so, and “nothing other than adoption will do”.
The application for a final care and placement order with a plan of adoption was made by the London Borough of Ealing, supported by the child’s guardian but opposed by his parents, who sought further adjournment so their child – N – could be placed into the care of the father’s brother ad partner in India as special guardians. No contact had taken place with N and either parent for over a year.
However, Judge Willans – who had presided over seven of the nine previous hearings, which began in August 2024 – said the time for final orders had been reached, adding,
“Sadly, with hindsight I consider the time for reaching this decision was crossed some time ago.”
N’s parents are both Indian nationals. The father’s right to remain in the country had lapsed, and the mother was attempting to regularise her status after the family visa on which she entered the country had expired.
N had been placed into the interim care of the local authority following his parents’ arrest in February 2024, when police expressed concern that he appeared malnourished and his home environment appeared unkempt. An imitation firearm had been found hidden in his pram at the time of the arrest on suspicion of theft.
During a series of subsequent hearings, it was noted the parents had failed to engage with proceedings and on occasions when contact had occurred, N had demonstrated “a high level of distress”, crying, pulling away and vomiting.
Following the first hearing before Judge Willans in April 2025, multiple attempts had been made to place N with special guardians in India. The judge’s orders had set out a detailed timetable and expected chronological steps to be taken, including registering N’s birth with the Indian High Commission, renewing the mother’s expired passport, and issuing visas to the special guardians.
At each subsequent hearing, despite each order setting out detailed steps to be taken, none of the procedures had been completed. The special guardians had been refused visas with no right of appeal, despite their application being supported by the local authority and the terms of the court orders, and the mother had made no progress in renewing her passport, despite her social worker’s “exceptional” work that had “gone far beyond the expectation on social workers”.
“N is suffering real and significant emotional harm with the delay of these proceedings,” Judge Willans noted.
“The Court has permitted extensive opportunity for these issues to be resolved. Sadly, the efforts have failed.”
Referring to the extended welfare checklist, Judge Willans said it was clear the heart of any assessment should focus on the need for permanence for N in a natural family setting, noting that the “clear evidence” was that N was “actually suffering evidenced harm” due to the delays.
“It is easy to understand why such an effort has been made to secure a family placement for N,” he acknowledged.
“This would underpin his culture and identity and would be a basis for him travelling through life fully understanding of his background and embedded within culture and family. Alternative adoptive placement might be support these cultural features but is most unlikely to do so at the same level as a family placement.”
However, he said the time for final orders had been reached.
“I remain troubled I have allowed this to go on too long. I am not willing to permit it to be delayed any further. I will make care and placement orders. I dispense with parental consent as N’s welfare requires me to do so. Nothing other than adoption will do.
“It is a stark interference in N’s family life, but his welfare demands it, and this makes it a decision which is proportionate, reasonable, and necessary.”
Acknowledging he could not rule out the possibility that the log jams he had identified would be removed, Judge Willans said the local authority would need to reflect on whether its plans for adoption remained viable and obtainable.
He concluded:
“They would need to be mindful of the extent to which their decision making might later upset adoption planning. If this arises and the parents do not accept the decision made then the route of revocation will remain open to the parents.
“These are my conclusions. They are made with a heavy heart, but I am sure this is the right decision in January 2026.”
