B-A (Placement Order and Contact Order), Re

When children are to be placed for adoption and future direct contact with a parent is accepted to benefit their welfare, the court must make a child-specific assessment of whether a statutory contact order is required. Under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the court, rather than the local authority or prospective adopters, decides at placement stage whether contact should be ordered. The risk that an order may narrow the pool of adopters is relevant, but cannot determine every case. Where contact is necessary to protect welfare, an order may be made even though family finding becomes more difficult. The no-order principle requires comparison with the practical consequences of leaving contact to informal intentions. An appellate court must not rebalance the case afresh and may intervene only for an identifiable flaw undermining the decision.

The local authority appealed from final orders made by the Family Court sitting at Bromley, HHJ Lazarus, on 18 December 2025. Care and placement orders concerning the younger children, C and D, were not challenged. The appeal concerned only an order under section 26 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 requiring at least annual face-to-face contact between C and D and their father after placement for adoption.

The local authority supported contact in principle but sought a non-binding recital instead. It argued that the judge had failed properly to balance welfare and family-finding considerations, had misapplied the no-order principle, and had inadequately explained her departure from professional recommendations. The central issue was when a binding section 26 order should be made instead of recording general intentions in a recital.

The appeal was dismissed unanimously. The Court of Appeal upheld the order requiring at least one annual face-to-face contact between C and D and their father.

1. Applicable approach. The choice between a binding section 26 order and a non-binding recital is a binary one requiring a bespoke assessment of the individual children and family. The approach in the sibling-contact authorities applied without material adaptation to future parental contact. The court, not the local authority or prospective adopters, has responsibility for deciding whether ongoing contact is required and for setting the future template for contact. This followed the approach in Re P (Placement Order: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535, Re R and C (Adoption or Fostering) [2024] EWCA Civ 1302 and Re S (Placement Order Contact) [2025] EWCA Civ 823.
2. Welfare and family finding. The judge was entitled to find an established need for meaningful direct contact. The father had a warm and loving relationship with the boys, was cooperative, posed no comparable emotional risk to the mother, and was their sole connection to their paternal identity. His cognitive impairment and illiteracy made informal arrangements difficult to navigate, while indirect contact would be inadequate. Those practical considerations meant that the compulsion of an order could be better for the children than leaving contact to informal intentions under section 1(6) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
3. The possible effect of a contact order on the pool of prospective adopters was a relevant factor, but it was not determinative. The evidence did not establish that the reduction in the pool would follow only from a binding order rather than from advising adopters of the local authority’s commitment to support contact. Where contact is necessary for welfare, it may properly be ordered even though family finding becomes more difficult.
4. Appellate review. The appellate court was not conducting a fresh balancing exercise. In an evaluative family decision it could intervene only if the decision was wrong because of an identifiable flaw, such as a gap in logic, inconsistency or failure to take account of a material factor. The judge’s superior advantage in assessing the evidence and circumstances was significant. No such flaw was identified.
5. Professional recommendations and practical guidance. The judge was not required to accept the social worker’s or Guardian’s recommendations about the form of order. It might have been courteous to explain the departure, but the omission did not vitiate the decision. The court also noted that section 27 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 provides a route to variation or revocation if an order impedes a suitable placement, although that route may be cumbersome.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2026] EWCA Civ 356, the appeal against the section 26 contact order was dismissed unanimously.
2. Family Court sitting at Bromley — On 18 December 2025, HHJ Lazarus made care and placement orders and ordered, under section 26 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, at least annual face-to-face contact between C and D and their father after placement for adoption.