N (Children)

An agreed appeal remains for the court to determine. Where respondents accept that a placement order should be set aside for a procedural breach, and the appeal raises a substantive ground sufficiently strong to have secured permission, the court may adopt a pragmatic course and discharge the order without further argument, particularly where the children’s guardian supports that course. The court should avoid deciding the wider consequences of a regulatory breach where those consequences may require authoritative rulings in other cases. A disposal in unique circumstances does not determine the child’s future or establish implications for other cases.

This was the mother’s appeal against a placement order made by the Family Court at Taunton on 21 December 2020 concerning M, then aged six. An earlier care order had removed M from the mother’s care, and the mother’s application to revoke that care order had been dismissed.

Permission to appeal was granted on the ground that the judge had not demonstrated that adoption was the only option, in light of the mother’s changed circumstances and the fact that M’s older brother was no longer living at home. The local authority and M’s Children’s Guardian agreed that the placement order should be set aside after procedural breaches involving the medical adviser. The central question became how the appeal and placement order should be disposed of without determining the substantive adoption issue.

Disposition and reasoning

1. The appeal was allowed and the placement order was set aside. The local authority was permitted to withdraw its application for a placement order, on the basis that a fresh application was likely to be issued shortly.
2. Although an appeal remained a matter for the court even where the parties agreed its outcome, the court adopted a pragmatic course. The respondents’ agreement was based on a procedural defect, and the substantive ground of appeal had been sufficiently strong to justify permission. The support of M’s Children’s Guardian was a significant consideration.
3. There had been breaches of the Adoption Agency Regulations 2005. The Agency Decision Maker had neither the medical adviser’s health report nor advice that such a report was unnecessary, contrary to Regulation 15. The Child Permanence Report also lacked the medical summary required by Regulation 17.
4. The court noted, with reference to [2008] 2 FLR 1404, that not every regulatory breach necessarily justified upsetting an otherwise regular placement order. It declined to address the wider consequences of the breaches because that issue might require determination by the High Court in other cases.
5. The court did not decide the substantive question whether adoption was the only option for M. Any renewed adoption proposal was to receive fresh consideration, and any further proceedings were to be heard by another judge. The orders did not criticise the first-instance judge. The local authority was directed to explain the medical-adviser issue to the mother within seven days, and further proceedings were to be expedited.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): allowed the appeal, set aside the placement order and permitted withdrawal of the local authority’s application for a placement order.
• Family Court at Taunton: on 21 December 2020, dismissed the mother’s application to revoke the care order and made a placement order concerning M.