A (A Child), Re

A placement order is a last-resort welfare decision. The court must compare all realistic placement options and weigh the benefits and risks of each, including the harm caused by removing a settled child from family. It may decide that adoption is neither necessary nor proportionate before fixing the precise legal form of a family placement, provided at least one lawful option remains available. A possible future risk need not be certain, and uncertainty about support services does not require the court to adjourn a final welfare decision. The court need not require a support package to guarantee safety. On appeal, factual and evaluative findings attract restraint; intervention is justified only if the judge was wrong or failed to conduct the required balancing exercise.

P had lived with her maternal grandmother since birth, initially under an interim care order. At the final hearing, the Local Authority sought care and placement orders, while the family proposed that P remain with the grandmother under an appropriate legal order and support package. The Family Court at Manchester dismissed the placement-order application on 18 October 2024, finding that P was thriving and that the evidence of future risk was insufficiently reliable. On 14 November it adjourned to obtain a support plan and determine the final legal framework. The Local Authority appealed, arguing that adoption had been ruled out prematurely, that a final order should have been made, and that future risk had been inadequately assessed. The central issues were whether the welfare analysis had to keep adoption open until the precise support and legal framework were known, and whether further evidence was required before deciding the placement question.

1. Appeal dismissed. Moylan LJ, with Nugee LJ and Falk LJ agreeing, held that the appellate court must respect the first-instance judge’s assessment of evidence, weight and inferences. It should intervene only where the judge is wrong or has failed to undertake the required necessity and proportionality exercise. The approach described in Re H-W (Children) [2022] 1 WLR 3243 did not require intervention here.
2. Comparative evaluation. The judge had not adopted a linear approach. She compared adoption with P remaining with the maternal grandmother, considering the benefits and risks of each option. It was unnecessary to decide immediately whether the family placement would be secured by a care order, child arrangements order with supervision, or special guardianship order. The judge was entitled to decide the substantive issue first: at least one family-placement option was available, so adoption was neither necessary nor proportionate.
3. Necessity, proportionality and risk. Under section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the judge considered the relevant welfare factors. The expression nothing else will do is a distillation of the overall welfare and proportionality assessment, not a free-standing shortcut, as explained in In re W (A Child) (Adoption: Grandparents’ Competing Claim) [2017] 1 WLR 889. The judge accepted a possible future risk that the grandmother might not safeguard P from harm by others, but was entitled to reject the professional assessments that this risk could not be mitigated. She was also entitled to weigh that risk against the profound harm likely to result from removal and adoption. The decision did not require proof that the family placement would guarantee P’s safety.
4. Further evidence and adjournment. Uncertainty about the grandmother’s capacity for change or the availability and effectiveness of support did not prevent a final welfare decision. The judge was not required to adjourn to observe the effect of proposed services. Her later request for a supervision-order support plan concerned the form and implementation of the final order, not the merits of the placement decision. Ground 2 therefore added nothing of substance.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The Local Authority’s appeal against the Family Court’s orders was dismissed: [2025] EWCA Civ 424.
• Family Court at Manchester: Recorder Howard dismissed the placement-order application on 18 October 2024 and adjourned the proceedings on 14 November 2024 to obtain further information about support and the final order.