L (A Child: Placement and Contact Orders), Re

Where applications for care and placement orders are before the court, the welfare analysis is governed by section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The court must not decide the care application separately under the Children Act 1989. It must assess the full range of options, including adoption and long-term foster care, giving proper weight to an infant’s need for lifelong legal and relational permanence. Adoption and family relationships are not mutually exclusive. The court must address contact arrangements and use its statutory powers to preserve important relationships where appropriate. If it takes a different view of the local authority’s care plan, it should invite reconsideration. An appellate court may remake the decision where the evidence is sufficient and delay would prejudice the child.

The local authority appealed against Recorder Calway’s decision in the Family Court at Gloucester on 20 January 2026. The recorder made care orders for five children but dismissed the application for a placement order concerning A, aged about 18 months. A’s four brothers were to remain in long-term foster care. No party had proposed long-term foster care for A at trial. The recorder concluded that A’s bonds with her parents and siblings outweighed the benefits of adoption and that contact could not be guaranteed. The appeal concerned the statutory welfare analysis, the comparison between adoption and long-term fostering, the treatment of contact, the adequacy of the care plan, and whether the Court of Appeal should remit or remake the decision.

Lord Justice Peter Jackson delivered the judgment of the court. Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Bean agreed. The appeal was allowed, the refusal of a placement order was set aside, and the Court of Appeal made a placement order.

1. Statutory framework. Where care and placement orders are both sought, the placement application is the primary application and the welfare analysis is governed by section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. It was an error to determine the care application under the Children Act 1989 before considering placement. This approach was supported by Re C (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1257, Re B (A Child) (Adequacy of Reasons) [2022] EWCA Civ 40 and Re J (Care Plan for Adoption) [2024] EWCA Civ 265.
2. Welfare assessment. A’s need for a permanent home and family throughout childhood was a particular need, not merely an advantage of adoption. The recorder did not robustly assess how long-term fostering could meet that need. The analysis wrongly created an either-or choice between adoption and family relationships. The evidence supported a combined approach providing both adoption and continuing safe family contact.
3. Contact. Before making a placement order, the court must address existing or proposed contact arrangements. The court had power to secure sibling contact under section 26 of the 2002 Act. The approach in Re R and C (Adoption or Fostering) [2024] EWCA Civ 1302 and Re S (Placement Order Contact) [2025] EWCA Civ 823 supported making a sibling contact order.
4. Care plan and appellate remedy. The court should invite a local authority to reconsider a care plan where it takes a different view, consistently with Re T (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 650. The recorder had made a care order without a workable plan. Under FPR rule 52.20, the Court of Appeal had all the powers of the lower court. Remittal was unnecessary because the findings and evidence permitted only one outcome consistent with A’s lifelong welfare. The placement order was necessary and proportionate notwithstanding the family’s Article 8 rights. The approach was consistent with the appellate remedy in Re D-S (A Child: Adoption or Fostering) [2024] EWCA Civ 948.
5. The local authority was required to facilitate supported sibling contact monthly until placement and four times yearly thereafter until adoption. The parental contact plan was approved, but no parental contact order was made. Arrangements could be varied or revoked under section 27(1)(b), and post-adoption contact could later be considered under section 51A.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) allowed the appeal on 20 May 2026, set aside the refusal of a placement order, made a placement order and made a sibling contact order: [2026] EWCA Civ 639.
2. Family Court at Gloucester, Recorder Calway, made care orders for the children but dismissed the placement-order application concerning A on 20 January 2026.