No contact order?

[Skippy]

Our nephew is with us under an SGO. The judge, at the hearing, declined to issue a contact order, as he was concerned that it might tie us in to contact, even if birth parents were proving difficult. He was right. We had one contact early in the placement, and for the last six months, nephew has vehemently said that he never wants to see his birth parents again, he doesn't want contact to happen, and he doesn't want people asking him about them. "When I am older, I'll fight them" he says. He is now nearly 7 years old and knows his mind.

Social Services have a supervision order, at our request as we wanted them to manage contact, and have supported nephew's decision. However, given that he is unlikely to change his mind on contact, we were wondering:
- should we ask them not to renew the supervision order as it serves little purpose?
- can we get an order that states, categorically, that there is to be no contact in the future? We don't want to leave the safety of the supervision order only to be hassled by birth parents demanding to see their child (who still isn't interested)?

We have also considered that, if there is to be no contact, we'd like to adopt him. He wants to be a 'full' part of the family, and yet keeping his birth surname is raising questions at school, where my wife works.

[Skippy]

Thanks, Irene. Birth father told the court he'd rather the boy went into long term foster care or was adopted than come live with us on any basis, and has been obstructive at every turn during these proceedings, so I doubt they'll agree to anything. Interesting to hear about the courts not being keen on relatives adopting - I wasn't aware of that.

[David Roth]

Hi Skippy

You have raised three particular points in your original post:

- should we ask them not to renew the supervision order as it serves little purpose?
- can we get an order that states, categorically, that there is to be no contact in the future? We don't want to leave the safety of the supervision order only to be hassled by birth parents demanding to see their child (who still isn't interested)?

We have also considered that, if there is to be no contact, we'd like to adopt him. He wants to be a 'full' part of the family, and yet keeping his birth surname is raising questions at school, where my wife works.

I doubt that the local authority will be in any great rush to renew the supervision order, unless they feel there is a crying need for them to continue to be involved. When it is made at the same time as a SGO, it is usually because the court recognises that the special guardians will have some need for support, particularly at the start of the placement, but they don't have confidence that the local authority will provide the support needed. The SO puts a legal order in place, although the local authority's duties under a SO are pretty vague, "to advise, assist and befriend the supervised child".

The order to prevent contact would be a Prohibited Steps Order, but the court is going to be reluctant to make it without good reason. They are subject to the No Order Principle, which under the Children Act means that the court will not make an order unless it can be shown that making it is better than not making it. To give some examples of what that might mean: if the parents accept that their contact is not happening at the moment, there would be no need to make an order. If the parents are phoning you to find out whether their son has changed his mind yet, that would probably not be grounds for an order. However, if they were turning up unannounced at his school or trying to see him without making arrangements, then the court might well consider making an order. It depends on the circumstances.

Irene is right that courts usually prefer SGO to adoption for family members. There is no automatic presumption, and it is legally possible for family members to adopt. However, the courts have expressed concern about the possible 'distortion of family relationships' that Irene mentioned. As adopters, you become parents to a child in exactly the same way as if that child had been born to you. In your case, your nephew's legal relationship with his mother and father would be that they now became his aunt and uncle. Potentially it could be confusing for him.

Legally in order to change his name to yours, you would need the agreement of everyone who now has parental responsibility, or you would need the leave of the court.

[Skippy]

Thank you, that is helpful.

Would we need a solicitor to apply for leave of the court for the name change, or is that an application we could do ourselves? Are there any particular hurdles to jump to prove that the name change would be in our nephew's best interests?

[David Roth]

Hi Skippy - you don't need a solicitor to make this application, you can make it yourself.

The application would be for a Specific Issues Order, under section 8 of the 1989 Children Act. The parents, who still have parental responsibility, would then become respondents, and would be able to raise any objections they had. The court's decision will be based on what best serves the welfare of the child. Changing a child's name is a matter that they take seriously, as they do see it as an important part of the child's identity.

If everybody with parental responsiblity agrees, you can avoid the court process by making a deedpoll application. It might be as well to sound out with the parents now, as if it goes to court they will become involved anyway, and going to court can end up by entrenching people's disagreements and differences.

It is posible for a child to have a 'known as' name, although they must register for school and hold passports in the name that is legally theirs.