S (Foster Care or Placement for Adoption), Re

A placement order should be made only where dispensing with parental consent is required by the child’s welfare, importing an imperative standard of necessity and proportionality. Adoption’s greater legal security must be weighed against the actual stability, relationships, contact arrangements and risks of disruption associated with the proposed foster placement. A side-by-side balance sheet is prudent but not mandatory. The court must assess the judgment as a whole. Uncertainty about finding an adoptive placement is not ordinarily a bar to a placement order, but may be relevant in marginal cases, especially for an older child or where substantial direct contact is required. An appeal should not succeed merely because another care plan might appear preferable.

S was the subject of a care order made in favour of the local authority and was living with short-term foster carers. The Family Court sitting at Reading, HHJ Tolson KC, refused the local authority’s subsequent application for a placement order under the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The judge preferred long-term fostering with S’s current carers, principally because S was settled there, had experienced several earlier moves, and had a strong relationship with her mother which would be better maintained by regular direct contact. The local authority appealed on grounds concerning comparative welfare analysis, the availability of the foster placement, open adoption, family finding, and the weight given to professional recommendations. The central issue was whether the judge had erred in preferring long-term fostering to adoption.

Appeal dismissed. The refusal of the placement order was upheld unanimously.

1. Under section 52(1)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, parental consent may be dispensed with only where the child’s welfare requires it. That requirement has an imperative character and reflects necessity and proportionality, as explained in Re P [2008] EWCA Civ 535 and Re B [2013] UKSC 33.
2. The court must compare adoption and long-term fostering by reference to the child’s particular circumstances and welfare throughout life. Adoption offers stronger legal security and permanence, but the court must also consider the actual stability of the proposed foster placement, the risk and consequences of further moves, the child’s relationships, and the practical contact arrangements. The analysis cannot be confined to an abstract comparison of adoption and fostering.
3. A side-by-side balance sheet is a valuable discipline, but it is an aide-memoire rather than a mandatory format. The appellate court must read the judgment as a whole and ask whether the judge actually balanced the relevant factors and gave adequate reasons. The judge’s reasoning was sufficiently identifiable despite the absence of a formal balance sheet.
4. The possibility that no suitable adoptive placement will be found is not itself a bar to a placement order. It may be a relevant welfare factor, particularly in a marginal case involving an older child or a demanding contact plan. The judge was entitled to doubt whether an adoptive placement would accept the level of direct maternal contact required for S.
5. The court must consider contact arrangements at the placement-order stage. Where continuing contact is required for the child’s welfare, the court has responsibility to set an appropriate contact template. The existing quality and frequency of S’s contact with her mother were relevant to the choice between adoption and fostering.
6. The judge’s conclusion was fact-sensitive and workable. The recent evidence confirmed that the current foster carers were willing to offer a long-term home, subject to approval. The appellate court would not substitute another care plan merely because it might have preferred it.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On appeal from the Family Court sitting at Reading, the court dismissed the local authority’s appeal and upheld the refusal of a placement order. The judgment was given in [2026] EWCA Civ 47.
• Family Court sitting at Reading: HHJ Tolson KC made a care order but refused the local authority’s application for a placement order, preferring long-term fostering with S’s current carers.