S (Placement Order Contact), Re

When considering contact at the placement-for-adoption stage, the court must apply the child’s lifelong welfare interests and consider the proposed arrangements in every placement-order application. The possibility that a contact order may deter adopters is relevant, but cannot determine every case.

Where direct sibling contact is necessary for the child’s welfare, the court is responsible for making an appropriate order despite possible difficulties in family finding. Where contact is desirable but secondary to securing adoption, an order may be refused under the no-order principle. Both the need for an order and its terms require a bespoke assessment. Any provision should reflect the child’s individual needs and may incorporate phases, minimum requirements or flexibility.

Care proceedings concerned two brothers. Both became subject to care orders, while the younger child was also made subject to a placement order. The local authority planned continuing direct sibling contact, initially fortnightly and subsequently twice yearly, but considered contact desirable rather than essential to the adoption plan.

HHJ Hayes KC declined to make a contact order under section 26 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. He accepted professional evidence that an order might deter prospective adopters, particularly because the child had an uncertain neurological prognosis. The mother appealed, arguing principally that the judge had given insufficient weight to the sibling relationship and too much weight to family-finding difficulties.

The central issue was how the court should balance lifelong sibling relationships, the no-order principle and the possible effect of an order on securing an adoptive placement.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge was entitled to refuse a section 26 contact order. All parties and professionals agreed upon the value and proposed form of continuing sibling contact. The only live issue was whether that arrangement should be embodied in an order. In those circumstances, the judge could properly focus upon the potential detriment of an order rather than reconsidering the agreed benefits of contact.

2. The duty under section 27(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 requires the court to consider contact arrangements in every placement-order application, whether or not anyone has applied for a contact order. Section 1 applies in full. The court must assess contact through the lens of the child’s lifelong welfare, including the effect of adoption upon birth-family membership and the value and likely continuation of relationships with relatives.

3. The risk that an order may deter prospective adopters is a relevant welfare consideration, but it must not become determinative in every case. Where continuing direct sibling contact is necessary for the child’s welfare, the court is responsible for making an appropriate order notwithstanding possible family-finding difficulties. Where contact is desirable rather than essential and adoption is the overriding welfare priority, section 1(6) permits the court to refuse an order unless making it would be better for the child.

4. Both the decision whether to order contact and the frequency and form of contact must be bespoke. The six annual visits ordered in Re R (Children) [2024] EWCA Civ 1302 reflected that case’s agreed arrangements and established no standard frequency. Courts may distinguish between contact before and after identification of adopters, provide for later variation or revocation, set a minimum level, or employ flexible terms. Where a precise order is unsuitable, the court may record its welfare conclusions and endorsement of the contact plan in a recital.

5. On the evidence, an adoptive placement would already be harder to secure because of the child’s uncertain prognosis. The judge accepted unanimous professional evidence that an order might further restrict the pool, while also finding that the social-work team genuinely intended to promote contact without an order. Applying section 1(6), his conclusion that an order was not better for the child was within his discretion.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The mother’s appeal was dismissed unanimously in S (Placement Order Contact), Re [2025] EWCA Civ 823.
2. Family Court at Leeds: HHJ Hayes KC made care orders for both brothers and a placement-for-adoption order for the younger child, but declined to make an order for direct sibling contact under section 26 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.