JL (Leave to Apply to Revoke Placement Order) (Rev 1)

Leave to apply to revoke a placement order requires a two-stage inquiry. The applicant must first show a post-order change of circumstances sufficient to open the door to the application. The court must then exercise its discretion by considering the child’s welfare and the prospects of the application succeeding.

A change from inadequate accommodation to a home in which a relative can offer care with the child’s siblings may meet the first stage. At the discretionary stage, delay remains important under Adoption and Children Act 2002, but it may be outweighed by the potential benefit of a family placement and lifelong sibling relationships. Adoption remains a measure of last resort.

The grandmother appealed against the Family Court’s refusal of permission to apply to revoke a placement order for her grandson and to apply for a special guardianship order, alternatively a child arrangements order.

At the care proceedings’ final hearing, the grandmother had not put herself forward as a carer because her two-bedroom flat could not accommodate the child in addition to his two older brothers, who were placed with her. After the placement order, she moved to a larger three-bedroom home and sought leave to pursue a family placement for the child.

The judge held that there had been no relevant change of circumstances and, alternatively, that welfare, delay and lack of prospects required refusal. The child’s guardian supported the grandmother’s application. The central issue was whether the move and the resulting prospect of a sibling placement justified leave to apply for revocation.

1. Appeal allowed. The court granted the grandmother leave to apply to revoke the placement order and for a special guardianship order.

2. The two-stage inquiry under section 24(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 required first a change of circumstances since the placement order, and then an exercise of discretion having regard to welfare and the prospects of success. The judge had correctly identified that framework, but wrongly concluded that no qualifying change had occurred.

3. The grandmother’s move from a small and unsuitable two-bedroom flat to substantially larger accommodation meant that she could now offer the child a home with his brothers. That was a change of sufficient degree to open the door to revocation. It created a real prospect of the child being brought up within his family, with close and lifelong relationships with his siblings, grandmother, mother and other relatives.

4. The court accepted that delay was a serious concern. Section 1(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 required it to bear in mind that delay was generally likely to prejudice welfare. On the facts, however, a likely further delay of no more than six months was manifestly outweighed by the potential advantage of a family placement. Adoption was a measure of last resort, and it was in the child’s interests at least to explore placement with a grandmother who was caring well for his brothers.

5. The guardian’s mistaken reference to leave to appeal did not invalidate her analysis. Its substance addressed the relevant change of circumstances and welfare issues, so the judge had been wrong to disregard it.

6. The matter was directed to be listed promptly before another judge for case-management directions. Baker LJ indicated that any further assessment would likely be short and focused on whether the grandmother could care for the child alongside his two brothers; its precise scope was left to the case-management judge.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — in [2020] EWCA Civ 1253, allowed the grandmother’s appeal and granted leave to apply to revoke the placement order and for a special guardianship order.

• Family Court at Bristol — His Honour Judge Bromilow refused permission to apply to revoke the placement order and refused the grandmother’s related applications. Reasons were handed down on 16 July 2020.