N (Children: Revocation of Placement Orders), Re
[2023] EWCA Civ 1352
H (Children: Placement Orders), Re
25 October 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1245
Court of Appeal
A judge let a baby stay with a mom with a troubled past, but the Court of Appeal said two older brothers needed to be adopted because waiting for their mom to get better was too risky and would cause too much delay.
Key Facts
- •Appeal by Children's Guardian concerning placement orders for three young children (two boys and a girl).
- •Older boys (aged 4 and 3) in foster care since 2021, placement orders revoked.
- •Girl (aged 1 year) lived with mother, supervision order instead of care order.
- •Mother's history of shoplifting, drug use, domestic violence, and association with risky individuals.
- •Mother made some progress in addressing issues but concerns remained about honesty and risk management.
- •Judge revoked placement orders for boys, allowing for potential return to mother's care in six months.
- •Judge upheld supervision order for the girl.
- •Guardian appealed the decision regarding both the boys and the girl.
Legal Principles
Welfare checklist under the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
Adoption and Children Act 2002
Proportionality test in considering risks of placement with birth family vs. adoption.
Re F (A Child) (Placement Order: Proportionality) [2018] EWCA Civ 2761
Test for admitting fresh evidence on appeal (Ladd v Marshall).
Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489
Importance of avoiding delay in determining child upbringing matters.
Adoption and Children Act 2002, subsection 1(3)
In revocation of placement orders, there must be a reasonable evidence-based expectation that rehabilitation will succeed within an acceptable timeframe.
Re C (Children: Revocation of Placement Orders) [2020] EWCA Civ 1598
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed in relation to the girl (G).
Judge's decision to uphold supervision order was within the range of reasonable conclusions given the evidence of improved care and reduced risk from fathers, despite ongoing concerns.
Appeal allowed in relation to the boys.
Judge's decision to revoke placement orders was flawed due to insufficient consideration of the significant risks of delay and uncertainty in a rehabilitation plan, particularly given the boys' urgent need for permanent care and the time elapsed since their removal.