T and F (Placement Orders: Child's Permanence Reports)

A serious procedural irregularity justifies allowing an appeal against an otherwise correct placement-order decision only where the irregularity caused injustice. Failure to serve child’s permanence reports in breach of repeated court directions was serious, but caused no injustice where all information material to the decision was disclosed to the parties and before the court in other documents. The parents’ representatives’ failure to complain did not excuse non-compliance. Placement-order proceedings require comprehensive evidence addressing all realistic care options and a holistic judicial evaluation of their advantages and disadvantages. Where other filed documents contain all relevant evidence, the permanence reports need not be included in the court bundle. A direction requiring their service must nevertheless be obeyed.

A local authority sought care orders concerning two young children, T and F, following concerns about domestic abuse, parental substance misuse and the mother’s mental health. Assessments concluded that neither parent nor the proposed alternative carers could meet the children’s needs. The authority subsequently applied for placement orders following approval of adoption plans by its adoption agency decision maker.

The Family Court repeatedly directed the authority to serve the children’s permanence reports on the parties. The reports were uploaded to a confidential court file but were not served on the parents’ solicitors. They were omitted from the hearing bundle under a direction permitting their inclusion on request. Neither parent’s representatives raised the omission.

Following a two-day hearing, the judge made care and placement orders, finding adoption necessary and proportionate and dispensing with parental consent. Both parents sought permission to appeal. They were granted extensions of time and permission solely on the ground that failure to serve the reports was a serious procedural irregularity. The central issue was whether that failure rendered the placement-order decision unjust despite the availability of other evidence.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Baker LJ, with whom Falk and Miles LJJ agreed, held that the failure to serve the permanence reports was a serious procedural irregularity. An appeal against an otherwise correct decision could succeed under CPR rule 52.21(3) only if the irregularity made the decision unjust. That requirement was not satisfied (paras 33–40).

2. The permanence reports and the adoption agency decision maker’s record contained important original analysis supporting the placement applications. The local authority’s failure was compounded by its disregard of directions made on three occasions. The parents’ representatives’ failure to identify or complain about the omission did not excuse it. Directions requiring service must be followed: Re S-F (A Child) [2017] EWCA Civ 964 considered (paras 32–33, 38, 40).

3. All information in the reports material to the placement decisions was also contained in statements and other reports available to the parties and the judge. The parents had an opportunity to challenge that evidence. Unlike Re S-F, the court’s evidential foundation was comprehensive. The significance of adoption did not make non-service automatically unjust: Re D (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 749 and Re S (Vulnerable Party: Fairness of Proceedings) [2022] EWCA Civ 8 applied (paras 31, 34–39).

4. The evidence must address all realistically possible care options and analyse the arguments for and against each. The judge must undertake a global, holistic evaluation, weighing each option’s internal advantages and disadvantages and comparing competing options side by side. Relevant evidence and comprehensive analyses from the local authority and guardian must therefore be available: Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 and Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965 considered. Where other filed documents contain all relevant evidence, the bundle need not include the permanence reports; the direction requiring service remained effective (paras 36–38).

5. If the placement decision had relied on material information confined to the unserved reports, the decision would have been unjust. That was a hypothetical observation rather than the position established on the evidence (para 35).

6. Obiter, regulation 17(1)(d) of the Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005 required the reports to include parental wishes and feelings. It was appropriate to gather those views separately in the standard-form appendix as well as incorporating them into the main report, particularly for future readers. Whether leaving the appendix blank invalidated an order did not require determination (para 41).

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2026] EWCA Civ 902 , the parents were granted extensions of time and permission to appeal solely concerning non-service of the permanence reports. The appeal was dismissed because the serious procedural irregularity caused no injustice.
• Family Court at Portsmouth: Following a hearing on 11 and 12 December 2025, HH Judge Magee found the care-order threshold established, approved adoption plans, dispensed with parental consent and made care and placement orders concerning both children.