N (Children: Revocation of Placement Orders), Re

Once leave has been granted to apply to revoke a placement order, the court must make a welfare decision under the Adoption and Children Act 2002. It must decide whether revocation is in the child’s interests, applying the principles governing original care and placement orders. The applicant bears the civil burden, but the practical question is whether the order continues to meet the stringent conditions justifying it. Evidence may differ in quantity and focus from the original proceedings, but not in quality. The court must evaluate realistic options and confront delay, uncertainty, risk and emotional harm. Where children have progressed towards adoption, rehabilitation should be preferred only where success can be predicted with a high degree of confidence.

The mother appealed against the Family Court’s dismissal of her applications to revoke placement orders concerning her two children and to obtain a further independent social worker assessment. The children had been removed from her care in 2021 and placement orders were made in December 2021. Leave to apply for revocation was granted in May 2023 after significant changes in the mother’s circumstances.

Following a four-day hearing, Recorder Newport refused further assessment and concluded that revocation was not in the children’s interests. The mother challenged the quality and sufficiency of the evidence, the risk assessment and the refusal to adjourn. The central issues were whether the existing evidence permitted a fair welfare decision and whether the children’s return to parental care was sufficiently realistic to justify abandoning the adoption plan.

Lord Justice Peter Jackson gave the judgment of the court, with which Lord Justice Baker and Lady Justice Andrews agreed. The appeal was dismissed.

1. Under section 24 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, once leave to apply for revocation has been granted, the substantive application is a welfare decision governed by section 1. The question is whether revocation is in the child’s interests. The court applies the principles governing the original care and placement orders. The principles identified in In re C (Children) (Placement Order: Revocation) [2020] EWCA Civ 1598 were endorsed, subject to correcting the suggestion that mere realism of parental or family care could justify revocation.
2. The applicant bears the legal burden of showing, to the civil standard, that it is not in the child’s interests to maintain the placement order. In practice, the decision turns on an impartial review of what the child’s welfare now requires. Evidence at a revocation hearing may differ in quantity and focus from the original proceedings, because earlier findings remain established and the later evidence focuses on subsequent events and the future, but its quality must remain appropriate.
3. Revocation is as serious as making a placement order. The court must confront delay, uncertainty and the effects of disruption on children who have progressed towards adoption. The observations in Re H (Children: Placement Orders) [2023] EWCA Civ 1245 were applied: a plan for adoption should be sacrificed for rehabilitation only where success can be predicted with a high degree of confidence.
4. The court must evaluate and compare the realistic options. A further assessment need not be ordered where the existing evidence is thorough, material gaps have not been identified, and additional assessment would cause significant delay without a sufficiently clear benefit. The recorder was entitled to rely on the detailed oral and written evidence and to refuse an adjournment for an independent social worker assessment.
5. The recorder had properly assessed the mother’s capacity to meet the children’s emotional needs, the continuing risk from the father, the absence of effective mitigation, and the consequences of further delay and uncertainty. His conclusion that return to the mother remained only a possibility and that revocation would expose the children to unacceptable emotional risk was plainly open to him. There was no error of law or basis for appellate interference.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 17 November 2023, dismissed the mother’s appeal against the refusal to revoke the placement orders and the refusal of a further independent social worker assessment: [2023] EWCA Civ 1352.
• Family Court at Milton Keynes — Recorder Newport, judgment dated 1 September 2023, dismissed the applications after finding that revocation was not in the children’s interests and that further assessment was unnecessary.