P (A Child) (Application to Revoke Placement Order), Re

On an application to revoke a placement order, the child’s welfare throughout life is paramount. The court must conduct a full evaluation of all relevant circumstances, including the benefits of family life, delay, attachment to current carers, the prospects of reunification and the risks of a failed return.

The phrase “nothing else will do” summarises the necessity and proportionality requirement for adoption. It is not a freestanding shortcut replacing the statutory welfare evaluation. A parent’s refusal to accept earlier findings is not an absolute bar to reunification, but may be highly significant where it prevents recognition and treatment of continuing risks. Expert evidence is not invariably required to establish the emotional harm caused by disrupting a settled attachment.

The parents applied to revoke a placement order made in respect of P after earlier care proceedings concerning P and her half-siblings. They had been given permission under section 24(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to make the revocation application.

The local authority accepted that it had failed to comply with procedural requirements before placing P with prospective adopters. By the hearing, P had lived with those carers for approximately 16 months and was settled and securely attached. The parents relied on the mother’s sustained abstinence from alcohol and improvements in their circumstances. The local authority and guardian relied on the parents’ continuing denial of serious findings of domestic and sexual violence, their lack of insight and the risks of disrupting P’s placement.

The central issue was whether revocation, followed by a staged return to the parents, would better serve P’s welfare throughout her life than remaining with her current carers under an adoption plan.

1. Application dismissed. The placement order remained in force because adoption continued to be the only arrangement capable of meeting P’s welfare needs throughout her life.
2. Applications to revoke a placement order are decisions relating to adoption. The court’s paramount consideration is the child’s welfare throughout life. It must consider the whole range of available powers and must not make an order unless it would be better for the child than making no order. Revocation does not itself discharge the care order or require immediate return to the parents.
3. Applying MA v Camden London Borough Council [2012] EWCA Civ 1340, the court had to balance all relevant advantages and disadvantages. Past facts found in earlier proceedings remained established. Future possibilities had to be assessed by reference to risks, uncertainties and probabilities, which remained relevant to the overall welfare evaluation.
4. The mother’s recovery from alcohol misuse was a significant positive development. It did not remove the separate risks arising from the parents’ history of violence, the father’s sexual violence, their continuing denial of the findings and their failure to address the underlying problems. The refusal to accept every finding was not a legal condition precedent to reunification, but in this case it was a substantial factor because it left the risks unacknowledged and untreated.
5. The phrase “nothing else will do”, derived from Re B [2013] UKSC 33 and explained in Re W [2016] EWCA Civ 793, required a proportionality and necessity assessment after, not instead of, a comprehensive welfare analysis.
6. P had developed a secure attachment to her carers. Removing her would cause certain short-term emotional harm and might cause longer-term harm. Following the approach in Re W, expert evidence was not invariably necessary where some emotional harm from disrupting an established placement was undisputed. Its significance depended on the circumstances and the balance of the other factors.
7. The advantages of family life and sibling relationships were substantial, but were outweighed by the continuing risk of emotional harm from violence, the parents’ lack of insight, their difficult relationship with professionals and the likely harm of a failed return. The adoption plan therefore remained proportionate and necessary.