W-M (Children)

Before approving care plans involving adoption and the separation of siblings, the court must have sufficient evidence to assess the available placement permutations and must address the relevant statutory and other welfare factors. A sound conclusion that parents cannot provide long-term care does not itself justify approval of proposed alternative placements. Where the second, welfare stage of the decision is inadequately informed or reasoned, the appropriate course may be to set aside final care orders, substitute interim care orders to preserve jurisdiction, and remit the matter for further evidence, care plans and directions.

The parents sought permission to appeal against final care orders made by Newport County Court on 10 July 2009 concerning three children. The approved care plans provided for the children to be separated: the eldest was to enter long-term foster care, while the two younger children were to be placed separately for adoption outside the family.

The appeal was limited. The parents did not challenge the judge’s careful factual findings or her exclusion of them as potential long-term carers. They challenged the approval of the proposed care plans, arguing that the judge lacked sufficient evidence to assess the possible placements and had not properly considered the relevant statutory and other factors. The local authority and guardian consented to permission and supported remittal for further evidence and amended care plans.

1. Permission and disposition. Permission to appeal was granted and the appeals were allowed in a limited way. The challenge was confined to final disposal and care plans outside the parents’ care.
2. First stage. The judge’s evaluation of the facts, history and evidence, including the conclusion that the parents were not potential long-term carers, was careful, full and unimpeachable. That conclusion was not in issue.
3. Second welfare stage. The judge’s consideration of the proposed placements was materially incomplete. She appeared not to have been fully equipped to decide between the various placement permutations, including the consequences of separating the children and placing the younger two for adoption separately. The evidence and analysis did not sufficiently address all relevant statutory and other factors before approval of the care plans.
4. Further procedure. The fairest and most sensible course was to remit the matter to the Newport County Court and the trial judge. Further evidence, amended care plans and directions were to be obtained so that the welfare assessment could be completed. The guardian was also to have time to investigate the placement options and provide informed recommendations.
5. Orders. The final care orders were set aside and replaced by interim care orders, solely to provide the necessary jurisdictional basis for completing the task. The placement applications were adjourned to the same judge.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): in [2009] EWCA Civ 1105, permission was granted and the appeals were allowed on the limited issue of final disposal and the proposed care plans.
• Newport County Court: final care orders had been made on 10 July 2009. The matter was remitted to the trial judge for further evidence, amended care plans and directions.