LC (A Child - Placement Order)

When deciding whether to make a placement order, the court must consider all relevant factors in the welfare checklist in section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. It need not slavishly rehearse every factor or assign express weight to each, provided that critical factors are identified and analysed in a judgment read as a whole. Adoption remains a last resort. Before severing birth-family relationships, the court must examine their quality, likelihood of continuation and value to the child. A failure to follow the recommended structured format does not automatically justify appellate intervention. The appeal court intervenes only where the decision is wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity. Appeal dismissed.

A local authority appealed against Recorder Thain’s refusal, on 7 February 2020, to make a placement order for LC after care proceedings concerning LC and her two brothers. The recorder made care orders for all three children and found that rehabilitation to the parents was unrealistic. The boys were to remain together in long-term foster care. The local authority sought adoption for LC, while the parents and children’s guardian supported long-term foster care, preferably with her brothers.

The appeal alleged that the recorder had failed to conduct an adequate comparative welfare analysis and had given disproportionate weight to sibling relationships, cultural identity, adoption difficulties and the risks of placement breakdown. The central issue was whether the recorder had properly applied section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and whether her decision was wrong.

Appeal dismissed. Baker LJ gave the leading judgment, with Carr LJ and Sir Stephen Richards agreeing.

1. The court accepted that section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 requires consideration of all checklist factors. However, a judge need not state expressly the weight given to every factor or slavishly rehearse the checklist. The critical question is whether important, critical or decisive factors have been identified and adequately analysed in the judgment as a whole: Re FL (A Child) [2020] EWCA Civ 20 and Re M (A Child: Care Proceedings) [2018] EWCA Civ 240.
2. Non-consensual adoption is a last resort. Since it severs birth-family relationships, it is permissible only in exceptional circumstances driven by overriding welfare requirements, where nothing else will do: Re B (Care Proceedings: Appeal) [2013] UKSC 13. A judge must examine the quality of family relationships, the likelihood of their continuation and their value to the child.
3. The court must conduct a global and holistic evaluation of all realistic options. The recommended structured format remains important, but failure to adopt it does not automatically invalidate the decision if the judgment shows a full and effective evaluation and is not linear in the relevant sense: Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 and Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965.
4. Reading the recorder’s two judgments together, she had considered the benefits of adoption, including LC’s age, permanence and the prospect of a family meeting her needs. She had also carefully evaluated the lifelong value of LC’s relationships with her parents and brothers, her cultural identity, attachment difficulties and the risks associated with both foster care and adoption. Those factors were plainly capable of outweighing adoption’s advantages on the evidence. The recorder was best placed to assess their weight, and her conclusion was open to her.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 23 June 2020, dismissed the local authority’s appeal.
• West London Family Court: Recorder Thain made care orders for all three children on 7 February 2020 and refused the application for a placement order in respect of LC.