P-J (A Girl), Re

Applications for leave to apply to revoke a placement order under section 24 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 require a two-stage approach. The court must first decide whether there has been a relevant and sufficient change in circumstances. If so, it must then exercise its discretion, having regard to the circumstances generally and, in particular, to the prospects of success of the substantive application.

A real prospect of success means more than a fanciful or very low prospect, but need not amount to a probability or a prospect exceeding 50 per cent. The child’s welfare is relevant but is not the paramount consideration at the leave stage.

The parents applied for leave to apply to revoke a placement order made in 2016 in respect of their 18-month-old daughter, P-J. The child had lived continuously with prospective adopters since February 2017.

The parents relied on claimed changes in lifestyle, attitudes and their relationship. The local authority and Children’s Guardian opposed the application. The central questions were whether there had been a relevant change in circumstances and, if so, whether leave should be granted in light of the prospects of a substantive revocation application and the child’s circumstances.

1. Application granted. The parents had demonstrated sufficient relevant change for the purposes of section 24(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. Whether that change was sufficient and sustainable required fuller investigation at a substantive hearing.
2. The court adopted the two-stage approach explained in M v Warwickshire County Council [2007] EWCA Civ 1084; [2008] 1 FLR 1093. First, the court considers whether there has been a relevant and sufficient change in circumstances. Secondly, it exercises its discretion, having regard to the circumstances generally and especially the prospects of success of the proposed substantive application.
3. The expression real prospect of success was not a statutory test or a rule prescribed by the procedural rules. It required more than a fanciful or very low prospect, but did not require the court to conclude that success was probable or likely. A prospect below 50 per cent could therefore suffice.
4. The parents’ continuing lack of insight, their campaign against the previous judge and their unrealistic plans concerning the return of several children caused serious concern. Those matters did not, however, eliminate the possibility that the claimed changes required proper assessment.
5. The child’s welfare was relevant but was not paramount at the leave stage. Her settled placement and bond with the prospective adopters were important considerations, but her young age also meant that a move could occur without necessarily causing significant emotional or psychological damage.
6. Leave was granted so that the proposed revocation application could proceed to a full hearing. Expert psychological assessments of both parents and their functioning as a couple, together with an independent social-work assessment, were required. The substantive hearing was directed to be heard by another judge.