LA v FM & MA & others (Application to revoke placement order)

An application for leave to revoke a placement order requires a two-stage decision. The applicant must first establish a change in circumstances of a nature and degree sufficient to reopen consideration of the case. If that threshold is met, the court must decide whether to grant leave, considering all the circumstances, including the applicant’s prospects of success and the children’s interests. Children’s welfare is relevant but not paramount at this stage. The court must also consider the consequences of delay, the stability of any existing placement, and the extent of assessment and protective planning required. A change in circumstances does not itself justify leave where the proposed application has no real prospect of success or granting leave would not serve the children’s welfare.

The mother applied for leave under section 24 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to revoke placement orders made in November 2013 concerning her two young children. She also sought discharge of the final care orders.

The orders had followed findings concerning the father’s responsibility for the death of an older child and domestic violence within the family. The mother had subsequently left accommodation associated with the father’s family, contacted the police, entered a refuge and undertaken some domestic-violence work. She argued that these developments justified reopening the case. The local authority and children’s guardian opposed the applications. The central questions were whether there had been a sufficient change in circumstances and, if so, whether leave should be granted.

1. Threshold. The mother had established a change in circumstances of a nature and degree sufficient to reopen consideration of the placement order. Her departure from the previous home, contact with the police, entry into a refuge and engagement with support services were material developments.
2. Discretion. Meeting the threshold did not determine the application. The court had to consider all the circumstances, including the mother’s prospects of successfully obtaining revocation and the children’s interests. Their welfare was relevant but not paramount.
3. Relevant considerations. The court considered the proposed assessment, the likely delay of at least six to twelve months, the children’s ages and need for stability, the risk that the prospective adopters might withdraw or that the placement might be jeopardised, and the need for a forensic assessment of the mother’s acceptance of domestic violence, her previous living arrangements, honesty, reliability and ability to provide a secure safety plan.
4. The evidence showed some increased confidence and understanding, but continuing uncertainty about the mother’s account, her ability to connect domestic violence with her own circumstances and the risks to the children, and the extent of protection required from the father and his family. A further report from Dr R was unnecessary because it would not add materially to the existing evidence.
5. The proposed revocation application had no real prospect of success and granting leave would not serve the children’s welfare. Leave to revoke the placement orders was refused. The application to discharge the care orders was also refused.