J (Children), Re

An application under section 24 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 has two stages. The applicant must first show a change in circumstances which, although not necessarily significant, is of a nature and degree sufficient to open the gateway to discretionary consideration of leave. The change must address the risks which founded the placement order.

At the second stage, welfare is relevant but not paramount. The court considers all the circumstances, including prospects of revoking the placement order and the child’s interests. Approval of existing foster carers as adopters does not alter an approved adoption care plan or itself justify reopening the placement order. Contact can be addressed under the statutory adoption-contact provisions.

The mother appealed against the Family Court at Cardiff’s refusal of leave to apply to revoke placement orders for her two-year-old twin daughters. The placement orders had followed findings of serious and longstanding deficiencies in her care, including unsafe handling, neglect and emotional dysregulation. The children had lived with foster carers since infancy; those carers had subsequently been approved as prospective adopters.

The mother relied on abstinence from cannabis, improved home conditions, courses, counselling, supervised contact and a proposed support network. She also contended that approval of the foster carers as adopters was a material change, requiring renewed consideration of a Special Guardianship Order. The central questions were whether there had been a sufficient change in circumstances and, if so, whether leave to seek revocation should be granted.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder applied the correct first-stage test under section 24 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. A change need not be significant, but it must be sufficiently material in its nature and degree to open the gateway to leave. The Recorder was entitled to find that the mother’s progress did not address the central risk: her limited insight into, and inability to identify the triggers for, emotional dysregulation which had caused physical and emotional harm to her children.

2. The Court of Appeal would not re-perform the evaluation. Applying Prescott v Potamianos [2019] EWCA Civ 932 and Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12, it asked whether an identifiable flaw undermined the Recorder’s conclusion. There was none. The Recorder had considered the updating evidence and was entitled to distinguish progress already under way when the placement orders were made from a later change addressing the underlying parenting risks.

3. The approval of the foster carers as adopters was not a change from adoption to a different care plan. The plan remained adoption outside the family. Under section 21(1) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the local authority chooses prospective adopters; the court has no jurisdiction to select them after making a placement order. Any increased prospect of post-adoption direct contact could be addressed under sections 26 and 51 and was not a sufficient change in circumstances.

4. Although unnecessary to the result, the Court agreed that leave would also have failed at the second stage. The relevant question was the prospect of revoking the placement order, not merely of rehabilitating the children to their mother. In light of the children’s secure attachment to carers approved to adopt them, a proposed Special Guardianship Order was speculative and would reduce permanence by leaving scope for later rehabilitation applications. The observations in Re H (Children: Placement Orders) [2023] EWCA Civ 1245 supported the need for a high degree of confidence before abandoning an adoption plan once a child has been prepared for adoption.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the mother’s appeal: [2026] EWCA Civ 989 .
• Family Court at Cardiff: Recorder Davies refused the mother leave under section 24(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to apply to revoke the placement orders on 19 March 2026.