MF v LA

An application to revoke a placement order involves two stages. The court must first decide whether there has been a change in circumstances sufficient to reopen consideration of the order. The change need not be significant. If that threshold is met, the court has a discretion whether to grant leave. The children’s welfare is relevant at that stage but is not paramount. The court must consider all the circumstances, including the applicant’s prospects of successfully securing revocation and the children’s interests. The possibility of placement within the birth family must be weighed carefully, but it does not require the court to permit an assessment where the necessary process would cause unacceptable delay, undermine settled attachments and offer only very limited prospects of success.

The applicant, the children’s paternal uncle, sought leave under section 24 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to apply to revoke placement orders concerning two young children. The orders had been made after earlier care and placement proceedings, and a previous application by the mother to revoke them had been refused. The uncle relied on newly identified or previously unassessed paternal family members, changed views within the family concerning the father’s responsibility for a sibling’s death, the passage of time and delay in implementing the care plan.

The central issues were whether there had been a sufficient change in circumstances and, if so, whether leave should be granted without first undertaking extensive family assessments and further fact-finding.

1. Application refused. The court accepted that the first stage under section 24 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 was probably satisfied. The detailed position of some paternal family members was new information, there was some evidence of changed understanding of the father’s culpability, and the children had not yet been placed for adoption or made the subject of adoption orders.
2. The second stage required the exercise of discretion as to whether leave should be given. The children’s welfare was relevant but not paramount. The court had to consider all the circumstances, including the prospects that the proposed applicants would secure revocation and the children’s interests.
3. Granting leave would require a substantial forensic process. The court would have to investigate disputed evidence about the paternal family’s role, assess their understanding of the risks posed by the father and his responsibility for the sibling’s death, and undertake detailed assessments of any proposed carers. That process was likely to take at least six to 12 months.
4. The children had lived with their foster carers for most of their lives and had formed secure attachments there. Further uncertainty risked undermining the stability of their placement. Against that, the court took into account the important consideration of securing, if possible, placement within the birth family, as emphasised in Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 813. That consideration could not be isolated from the children’s existing attachments, the likely delay and the limited prospects of success.
5. In the circumstances, allowing the application to proceed would amount to a wholesale reversal of plans previously endorsed in the children’s interests. Leave to apply to revoke the placement orders was refused. The local authority was directed to provide a report concerning the delays and the sending of confidential information to the wrong address.