A family court judge has granted an adoption order for a nine-month-old baby after her parents were found unable to meet the child’s needs and welfare requirements. Both parents had also denied causing injuries to an older sibling despite a previous court finding the injuries were non-accidental.
Her Honour Judge Hesford handed down her judgment following a hearing at Chester and Crewe Family Court, agreeing with the application sought by the local authority and backed by the child’s current guardian for a final care order, a placement order and a care plan for her to be adopted.
The application was opposed by the child’s parents, who both sought rehabilitation of the baby to their respective care.
The baby was placed into foster care from birth following an interim care order made in late 2025.
Care proceedings arose following previous involvement between the parents and child services regarding the care of her two older siblings, O and C, who have both been adopted.
In care proceedings in 2019, the court found that O had suffered a “non-accidental shaking-type injury” whilst in the care of the parents, that each parent fell within the pool of perpetrators, and neither one provided a candid account of the circumstances surrounding the injury.
The court heard that following notification of the mother’s most recent pregnancy of this child, the local authority undertook pre-birth assessment work and concerns were identified.
These included the findings from the previous care proceedings, the parents’ continued failure to accept responsibility for O’s injuries, domestic abuse within the parents’ relationship, mental health difficulties, substance misuse concerns, and a lack of insight into safeguarding risks.
Care proceedings were issued on the day of the child’s birth.
During the latest proceedings the court considered psychological, cognitive and parenting assessments of the parents to determine if the local authority’s case that neither parent could safely care for the child should be upheld.
The assessments included a review of “extensive background material”, observed family time, home visits and a series of structured assessment sessions.
The subsequent report found that “although both parents possessed some theoretical knowledge of childcare and development, they struggled to retain and apply that knowledge consistently in practice”. The assessor recognised both parents’ love for the child but concluded they remained unable to meet the basic developmental and emotional needs without significant professional support and the baby could not safely be returned to their care.
Judge Hesford noted the assessment highlighted “longstanding safeguarding concerns”.
She said: “Neither parent had developed meaningful insight into the non-accidental injuries suffered by their son O, nor were they able to explain how similar harm could be prevented in the future.
“Concerns were also identified regarding domestic abuse within the relationship, emotional regulation, mental health difficulties, executive functioning, financial instability, and, in the father’s case, substance misuse.”
It was acknowledged that since care proceedings began, the parents have ended their relationship and now both acknowledged the other as to blame for the incident involving O.
During proceedings, the child’s mother opposed the final care plan, arguing that she had “made changes to enable her to safely parent the child now and challenged the conclusions reached about her parenting capability”.
The child’s father also opposed the application, requesting that his daughter remain in foster care whilst he underwent reassessment, stating that a “number of developments have occurred” since completion of the parenting assessment.
Judge Hesford considered the arguments for the father’s reassessment, however concluded that it was “neither necessary nor proportionate”.
Both parents had sought contact with the child at least four times a year if the application for adoption were to be approved.
Concluding the case, the judge said: “I have carefully considered whether the child’s welfare could be met through placement with either parent, kinship care or long-term foster care… I have concluded that rehabilitation to either parent is not compatible with her welfare within her timescale, that there are no viable family carers, and that long-term foster care does not provide the permanence, stability and lifelong security which she requires.
“Having undertaken a holistic evaluation of all realistic options, I am satisfied that adoption is necessary to meet her needs throughout her life.”
She added: “I am satisfied that this conclusion is both necessary and proportionate and that, in the circumstances of this case, nothing less will do.”
