R (A Child : whether to revoke Placement Order)

Under section 24 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, an application by a parent to revoke a placement order requires a two-stage approach. The court must first decide whether there has been a change in circumstances since the order was made. If so, it must then decide whether leave should be granted, including by considering the prospects of the revocation application succeeding.

The change must be relevant to the circumstances of the case as a whole and assessed proportionately against the basis of the original order. A possible alternative placement does not necessarily amount to a change in circumstances. Where the evidence already before the court adequately addresses the proposed alternative, further investigation is unnecessary.

Following a previous five-day hearing, the court made a placement order in respect of R, a young child, on the basis that adoption was the only practical alternative. The mother’s application for permission to appeal was refused by McFarlane LJ.

The mother then sought leave under section 24 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to apply to revoke the placement order. She relied principally on the possibility that R might remain with his foster carer under a special guardianship order, and argued that this option had not been available when the placement order was made. The central issues were whether this amounted to a change in circumstances and whether further evidence or investigation was required.

1. The application for leave to apply to revoke the placement order was refused. The court was satisfied that none of the matters relied upon amounted to a change in circumstances within section 24(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

2. The first stage under section 24 is to determine whether there has been a change in circumstances since the placement order was made. Applying the approach identified in T (Children) [2014] EWCA Civ 1369, the change must be relevant to the circumstances of the case as a whole. Its relevance must be assessed against the findings and threshold underlying the original order, and the test must remain proportionate to the facts of the case.

3. The second stage is whether leave should be granted if a change of circumstances is established. That assessment includes consideration of the prospects of the revocation application succeeding.

4. The suggested possibility of a special guardianship order with the foster carer did not constitute a qualifying change. The evidence showed that the issue of a long-term commitment by the foster carer had already been considered. The permanence report did not disclose a materially different evidential position. The court considered the guidance in Re SF [2017] EWCA Civ 964 concerning the importance of permanence reports and the analysis of realistic care options, but found that the relevant information had been before the court through the social worker’s evidence.

5. The proposed application was also likely to place counterproductive pressure on the foster carer. Whatever decision she made required respect, but the child’s welfare required a stable, secure and permanent placement.

• Court of Appeal: On 13 June 2017, McFarlane LJ refused the mother permission to appeal from the earlier placement-order decision. The citation of that earlier decision is not stated separately in the judgment.
• High Court (Family Division): The present application for leave to apply to revoke the placement order was refused.