A, B & C (Children) (Care and Placement), Re

Re A, B & C (Children) (Care and Placement) Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWFC 258 (B)

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT WEST LONDON Case No: ZW26C50004 West London Family Court Gloucester House, 4 Duke Green Avenue, Feltham, TW14 0LR Date: 28 August 2026 Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILLANS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between LONDON BOROUGH OF [X] Applicant - and – (1) A Mother (2) Father to A and B (3) Father to C (4) A, (5) B & (6) C (by their children’s guardian) Respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sharin Diegan (instructed by [X] Legal) for the Applicant Mercy Akman (instructed by Simson Millar LLP) for the First Respondent James Norman (instructed by Duncan Lewis Solicitors) for the Second Respondent Steven Evans (instructed by Reeds Solicitors LLP) for the Third Respondent Caitlin Ferris (instructed by Lovell Chohan Solicitors) for the Fourth-Sixth Respondents Hearing dates: 7, 17 & 28 August 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT His Honour Judge Willans: Introduction Page 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. Re A, B & C (Children) (Care and Placement) This judgment follows a 2-day final hearing during which I heard evidence from the allocated social worker, the children’s mother, and [father to C] (father of the youngest child) and the children’s guardian. Following this I heard submissions from all counsel. I have taken all of this into account in addition to the documents contained within the hearing bundle. The issues for determination have significantly narrowed. At the commencement of the hearing [the mother] and [father to A and B] conceded final care orders should be made with regard to A and B, and [the mother] and [father to C] conceded a final care order should be made with regard to C. [Father to A and B] had sought discrete orders relating to B but these were agreed and during the period between Day 1 and 2 of the hearing I made both a parental responsibility order and a declaration of parentage with respect to this child ([father to A and B] was already on A’s birth certificate). The remaining issues are as follows: i) ii) Should I make a placement order with respect to C? What should be the contact plan for contact (a) between A/B and [the mother] and (b) between C and his parents if (i) placed for adoption or (ii) if he remains subject to a final care order? Should I make a s26 contact order to have effect post-placement order (if made)? The applicant, supported

by the guardian, contends a placement order should be made with respect to C and that contact should be set face-to-face on an annual basis but not by an order. In respect of A/B both support a contact plan under which the two children see their mother every other month (6 times per annum). [The mother] opposes a placement order for C and seeks more regular contact with all three children. She would ask for her contact to remain weekly but would accept anything greater than that proposed. [Father to A and B] accepts the proposals of the applicant but would want the thinking contained within a recital to the order. [Father to C] opposes placement for C and contends all three children should be placed into long- term foster care together (this is not supported by [the mother]). Like [the mother] he seeks for the continuation of weekly contact but seeks monthly contact by way of a section 26 Adoption and Children Act 2002 Order if I make a placement order with respect to C. Background The children are A (aged 11), B (aged 8), and C (aged 4). The family are described as having had a long history of Children’s Social Care involvement dating back to 2016, due to concerns relating to the chronic neglect of the children, including the neglectful state of the home environment, not ensuring that the children attend school on a regular basis and not meeting the children’s health care needs. Furthermore, concerns existed in relation to parental substance misuse and [the mother]’ ability to work openly and honestly with professionals. A and B had been subject to two Child Protection Plans Page 2 7. 8. 9.

10. Re A, B & C (Children) (Care and Placement) between 2019 and 2023, and C was placed on a Child Protection Plan as an unborn baby. As a result proceedings were instituted in 2023 in respect of all three children together with a younger sibling/half sibling, [D] (aged 3). [The mother] made slow but consistent progress within those proceedings and the proceedings concluded on 14 November 2024 when I made a 12-month supervision order with respect to A, B and C and a care order with respect to [D]. Under these orders the children lived with their mother and the plan was for [D] to be rehabilitated into the care of [the mother] if she could make further progress over the lifetime of the supervision order. [Father to A and B] played no part in those proceedings and was on 18 January 2024 sentenced to 10-years imprisonment for serious criminal offending. [Father to C] was to have contact subject to engaging with hair strand testing. Unfortunately progress stalled with issues returning. As a result the applicant stopped the rehabilitation plan with respect to [D] and pursued a placement order. At the first hearing of that application the applicant indicated it was preparing to reissue care proceedings with respect to the three children placed at home under the supervision order. I attempted to link the two sets of proceedings as much as possible due to public funding restraints. On

11 February 2026 I made a placement order with respect to [D] at a hearing which was not attended by either parent. The applicant kept to its indication and issued these proceedings. For continuity purposes I was allocated as the case manager and have heard all case management hearings: 19 January 2026 (CMH/ICO); 12 June 2026 (IRH) and then this final hearing. At the first hearing I made an interim care order with respect to all three children. They have remained in interim care since that date with A/B placed together and C placed separately. The key case management decisions included a parenting assessment of both parents (these returned negative conclusions and are not challenged); a psychological assessment of [the mother] and hair strand testing of both [the mother] and [father to C]. Assessments of connected persons did not proceed to full assessment. A key feature of the previous history related to drug misuse. In the previous proceedings the results for [the mother] showed a gradual reduction of both cannabis and cocaine use during the proceedings and this was felt to give the necessary confidence to support the orders made. [Father to C] has also tested for cocaine at consistently medium levels of usage. The evidence prior to the commencement of these proceedings was of [the mother] struggling and neglect returning to the family home. Prior to proceedings [father to C]

had intervened to remove C from the home looking after his son for a period. Prior to issue hair strand testing showed both cannabis and cocaine once again at an elevated level. This situation has deteriorated over the course of the proceedings with the most recent sample for [the mother] showing both cannabis and cocaine (at a high level). [Father to C] has also provided a sample with a high level for cocaine and has not engaged with the most recent hair testing sample. Page 3 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

16. Re A, B & C (Children) (Care and Placement) To complete the picture [father to A and B] has played a part in these proceedings although his role has naturally been limited by his incarceration. He was keen to legally establish his relationship with B and for attempts to be made to establish a contact relationship with his children. He attended each day of the final hearing produced by the prison for which I am grateful. Legal Principles The children’s individual welfare is paramount. The older children’s welfare is assessed by reference to the Children Act 1989 checklist at s1(3) of the Act whereas for C the relevant checklist is as found in s1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The key distinction is that I am considering C’s welfare through his life. It is agreed the legal threshold is crossed in this case as per an agreed document which I approve. This properly confirms the key elements being the history found in the recent previous proceedings; substance misuse; neglect of education; neglect of health needs; poor home conditions and domestic abuse. The crossing of the threshold permits the care orders which all parties agree although it does not mandate the same. Given the agreement in this case and the existence of a single realistic option I will not labour the legal cases which underlay the making of care orders. I do though make clear the order must be

assessed as proportionate, reasonable, and necessary before it can be approved. The position with respect to C is very different and is not agreed. To make a placement order I will balance the positives and negatives of placement against the same for long- term foster care (the other prospective option) to ensure the appropriate lifelong conclusion is selected. Because the outcome of adoption is such a stark interference in family life it is necessary to approach this assessment with intense scrutiny and only to make a placement order where nothing else will do. This is another way of saying that there is no other option that would adequately meet the needs of the child and keep him safe whilst not severing him from biological family. If I agree with the applicant then I can only make the order proposed if I dispense with the consent of [the mother] and [father to C]. I will only do so if the C’s welfare requires me to do so. The evidence I will keep this focused only on those issues live before me. Both [the mother] and [father to C] gave evidence both me. This was obviously painful for each of them and it is clear to me they have found this process incredibly difficult, indeed at points I was told neither wished to give evidence. Nonetheless they both gave evidence and I consider it is important for all the children to know their parents did attend and give evidence. I do not

intend this to be a criticism of [father to A and B] whose role was very different. Page 4 Re A, B & C (Children) (Care and Placement) 17. My sense of both parents was that they had insight into the very difficult situation they faced and recognised that through their own failures to make change they had reached this challenging position. Their evidence was genuine and motivated out of a sense of what they felt best for their children. The fact this fitted with their own personal wishes does not alter my assessment. Both were frank in their account recognising that they were not placed at this time to take on care of any of the children. [the mother] was clear she had much to do and this would take time but that she was committed to making change. 18.

19. She spoke about her attempt to engage in a therapeutic process which she understood would be geared towards addressing her mental health and drug usage. She has suffered early life trauma and it would not be at all surprising if her drug use were in part a response to this pain. It is clear that the combination of the two are a central cause of the neglectful home life experienced by the children. It is clear she needs to address her drug use and I am confident some form of therapy is required as part of her process of recovery. I have expert evidence which provides a 12-month timeline for the same but with full engagement and progress a shortened timeline. I was slightly surprised by her evidence the therapy is also structured to address her drug use. Experience tells me that many therapeutic processes first require a client to establish abstinence. This is so that the benefits of therapy in addressing deep seated difficulties is not lost by being soothed by drug use. However, for the purpose of this judgment I pass over that apparent contradiction without further comment. It is clear to me [the mother] is currently motivated to engage in this work. She spoke about not being addicted and knowing she has the strength to stop using drugs but also knew there was something deeper which needed to be addressed. She has some insight into her problems which is important but I

question whether she is underplaying the nature of her relationship with drugs. She has a long-standing history of use and my reading of the expert evidence was of a suggestion of dependence. It may not matter which label is applied but it is clear [the mother] has struggled in this regard not withstanding her clear understanding of the stakes associated with getting it right. In the last proceedings it was clear that [D]’s return home was associated with progress yet she was unable to make that progress. Within these proceedings one has seen a similar difficulty. This speaks volumes as to the deep-seated nature of the problem and indicates one must be cautious when considering the prospects of meaningful change. I am clear in this regard as whilst I am confident [the mother] wants to make the progress, loves her children, and wants all of them home yet faced by this challenge she has to date consistently fallen short.

20. I also heard her evidence as to contact and her wish for this to continue without revision. Again I understand this wish but one has to recognise that the conclusion of proceedings is a natural point at which contact is recalibrated. It would be a mistake to assume that the high level of contact fixed during the proceedings at a time at which outcomes are uncertain is best for the child into the longer-term post proceedings. Children need to Page 5 Re A, B & C (Children) (Care and Placement) establish stability in care and contact needs to reflect broad needs of the children. [the mother] was taken to various criticisms of her from contact. These included bringing sweet foods and drinks and making comments that would give the children an inappropriate belief in the likelihood of them returning home. For my part whilst recognising these criticisms I am nonetheless sympathetic to the position [the mother] finds herself in. She plainly values her time with her children and wants them to be happy. I am sure this explains her wish to bring items which will please them. She tells me the foster carers send the children with sweets and questions why she cannot provide the same. Sadly the children have suffered neglected medical needs and part of this relates to their teeth. As a result there are good reasons to attempt to modify their diet and [the mother] does need to come into

line with this thinking. As to what she says to the children it seems likely the children have variously expressed a wish to come home. It seems to me the applicant needs to be understanding of the emotional challenge this poses to [the mother] in the moment as it would to most parents separated from their children. I agree it is unhelpful to respond in a way that might create expectations that cannot be met and it will now be important for [the mother] to modify what she says and become part of a fair narrative as to why the children will be in care. [the mother] disagreed with contact set at 6 times per year and sought weekly contact. On her behalf and, realistically, a middle ground was considered. The balance is as to allowing the children to maintain their relationship with their mother which is emotionally important to them and allowing them to settle into their placements which is also crucial for them. 21. 22. 23. [The mother] was clear that she wanted A/B to remain in their current placement which has the potential to be a long-term placement but which cannot accommodate a third child. I thought this approach was insightful and child focused. As with [father to C] she noted the placement moves experienced by C and drew on this to support her opposition to adoption for him. [The mother] also told me about a parenting course she had undertaken and was open to more but

wanted to focus on her therapy first. I consider this is the priority and my sense is [the mother] has the ability and motivation to engage but I am sure her progress will be greater and sustained if she can conquer her drug issues. [Father to C] changed his mind at the last moment and gave evidence. He was obviously very nervous but gave a clear account of what was important to him. He also recognised his need to address his drug usage. He explained why he had missed the most recent testing and told me he had not used for some 4-weeks. I am wary about accepting this account at face value but in any event sustained abstinence will be more important than abstinence in the weeks building up to a final hearing. [Father to C] was optimistic about his future progress and pointed to employment and accommodation stability. He also referenced family support.

24. He argued for C to be placed with the other two children and drew on their strong bond. I do not dispute this to be the case and I have a Together and Apart Assessment which Page 6 25. 26. 27.

28. Re A, B & C (Children) (Care and Placement) makes this very point. I understand very much why he would want this. However, it has to be recognised that were I to refuse a placement decision then to place the children together would cause the older children to lose a very stable placement which is working for them. Further it is not at all clear a stable alternative for all three could be readily found. Understandably his key focus was in opposing the plan for adoption. He had family experience of sibling severance and the impact this had caused for a brother of his. His key argument was that C had a family already with whom he is bonded and that there are insufficient benefits of removing from this in the search for an adoptive family. He argued for contact to remain at a weekly level but if a placement order were made then I should make an order for monthly contact. He was questioned about his drug usage and gave the evidence as to having stopped following a party about 4-weeks ago. He accepted he had failed to engage with a drugs group following social work referral. He said he had attended and waited for a long time but no-one came to speak to him and he left. As with [the mother] his drugs use is long-standing since childhood and in recent times would appear to be at a higher level than for [the mother] (cocaine). [Father to C] gave warm evidence as to his

relationship with C. He told me about how they interact and the things they do together. It was clear to me that C means the world to him. I had heard from the social worker on day one of the hearing. [The SW] is a relatively new social worker but she gave clear and helpful evidence. She was professional in her approach and answered all points put to her. Overall I was impressed with her save that she got herself slightly tied up as to her position as to contact post-placement, albeit this was subsequently corrected. This point did not undermine the value of her evidence. [The SW] explained why the applicant took the view it was appropriate for C to be placed for adoption. She focused on his need for permanence and a central role within a family he could call his own. She described him as a ‘lovely happy boy’ and felt there was no reason an adoptive family would not be found. In this regard I have Family Finding evidence which supports this plan within 12 months. She went on to explain the applicant’s thinking about contact (1) for A/B at 6 times per year and (2) for C annually with his parents (plus letterbox contact) and twice annually with his siblings (plus two times video). The levels of contact for the older children were to enable them to settle and commit to their long-term placements. She was clear there was room for the contact with A/B to be reviewed as progress was made and in the light of the surrounding circumstances. 29. [The SW] separately dealt with contact with [father to A and B]. Given this is now agreed I will not detail this evidence but simply record a plan for video contact was suspended on the wishes of the children and is to be replaced with letters with a review Page 7 30. 31. 32. 33.

34. Re A, B & C (Children) (Care and Placement) as to future development. [father to A and B] has shown a child focused approach in accepting this evidence and not pursuing the contact order he first sought. [The SW] gave me detail as to the difficulties C has experienced in foster care with placement moves. He is currently in his fifth placement. It is clear these moves are in no way a function of challenges he poses but due to extraneous circumstances. Oddly, this was relied upon by the parents as a foundation to oppose adoption on the basis that this would carry over into an adoptive search. On my assessment this issue pointed against long-term foster care for C as it reinforced the instability of such placements. [The SW] was cautious as to the prospects of parental change having regard to this being the second set of proceedings and in the light of the current evidence of limited change. She agreed the relationships in place were a factor in the balance being undertaken but was clear that long-term stability and permanence counted for more. She was questioned on behalf of [father to C] as to whether the prospective pool for C might be limited but did not think there were particular reasons to take this view. She fully acknowledged the existing relationships C has with his parents and the distress he exhibited on an occasion when contact was cancelled. She accepted

placement would be distressing for him but felt it was best. She discussed how contact might work and initially indicated contact would continue monthly post-placement before revising this in line with the long-term proposals were an adoption order made. As with the guardian it was suggested that the Together and Apart assessment which post-dated the final evidence cast doubt on the validity of the conclusions reached. She disagreed with this suggestion and whilst agreeing there would be positives to a group placement noted the implications for a placement of the same and also noted the children did have different needs. The guardian gave evidence last. She was the guardian in the previous proceedings and I have the benefit of her experience and knowledge of the case. I thought she was fair and balanced in her approach. She was sensitive to the parents but nonetheless was clear as to what she felt was best for each child. I found her a helpful witness. Having heard the evidence her recommendations were unchanged. The parents were not placed to care for any child at this time and change was outside the timescales of the children. They each needed final orders now and the orders proposed by the applicant were the best for each child. In regard to C she particularly noted his age and the length of time he would remain in care were placement refused. She highlighted the inherent

instability of foster-care and the features associated with such care that would inevitably impact on C. She drew on the level of support previously given and the need to return to proceedings. She was clear the Court could not delay a decision (‘kick it into the long grass’) but now needed to make a final decision that worked best for each child. As to contact she felt it crucial that this supported rather than destabilised the placement for each child. That is why she supported the care plan advanced by the applicant. It was important each child knew these placements were long term so that Page 8 Re A, B & C (Children) (Care and Placement) they could emotionally commit to them and it was also important that they should not receive mixed messages as to their future. Through the questioning on her behalf [the mother] was asked to consider subscribing to a shared and true narrative of the plan to assist A/B.

35. She was asked about the Together and Apart assessment but was clear that having regard to his personal circumstances she would in any event have considered placement to be right for C. She noted what was said about C’s wider paternal family but commented as to their non-involvement in contact during the proceedings. Analysis 36. I start by confirming I approve the threshold document as drafted. This permits me to make the care orders which are agreed. A & B 37. 38.

39. In the case of A and B I will make final care orders for each child. A care order is the only realistic order available and is the right order on the evidence before me. It is an order which is consistent with their welfare needs as whilst it will not match their ascertainable wish to return home such wish needs to be seen in the light of their age and understanding, in the light of [the mother]’ concession and in the light of the risks that would ensure on a premature return home. I consider it is consistent with their need for a stable and consistent home setting in which they receive good enough parenting and avoid neglect. Their needs were being unmet under the care of [the mother] due to her own struggles and this has had and will continue to have significant implications for their emotional, physical, and educational needs were it to continue. The risks of return home can be found in the threshold document. I cannot lose sight of the reality which is that this situation has now been under review for a considerable period without sustained change and the time has come for the Court to ensure each child has their needs met on a continuing basis. I of course wish [the mother] the best in her attempt to make change. I accept she wants to do so but I am cautious as to the prospects of success and I am confident the timeline for the same falls outside of the

children’s current timelines and rules out either an adjournment of the application or a route-map for return at this stage. It is important [the mother] is honest with the children as to her ownership of the situation as this will best enable the children to settle and will be a much fairer basis on which to approach the question of rehabilitation over time. At this time [the mother] does not have the capacity to provide the children with consistent and sustained good enough care. I will therefore make a final care order for each child. This is a proportionate order and is required. In the case of contact I endorse the plan for contact with [father to A and B]. This will need to proceed at the speed of the children. I am conscious there is in the public domain Page 9 40. 41.

42. Re A, B & C (Children) (Care and Placement) information relating to his criminality which will be unsettling for the children. I accept he is showing a child focused approach and this is to his credit. I hope with time a relationship can be built. In the first instance letter writing supported by professionals is the best starting position. I agree this needs to be kept under active review and that the changing views of the children need to be considered dynamically rather than simply by reference to fixed review points. In the case of [the mother] and A/B I consider the continuation of contact at a weekly level is inconsistent with the need for the children to buy-in to their new long-term placement. The fact they are now familiar with this placement does not change the fact that they will need to understand this is where they are staying. There is a high premium on this placement continuing and remaining stable. Whilst contact has a valuable part to play in assisting with stability it can be undermining if it is excessive and creates confusion for the children. I do agree there needs to be a marked reduction in contact although this is plainly not a case in which there are the counter-demands of arranging contact for two parents. I have considered whether the right level of contact is at 6 times per year or whether a higher rate would best meet the needs of the two

children. I of course give appropriate weight to the skills and knowledge of the professionals involved in the case. In this regard the welfare checklist factors relate to the wishes of the children for a continuing relationship and their emotional need for the same against their strong emotional need for a settled lived environment without disruption. Given I consider there is limited evidence to suggest this will not be their long-term home I place particular weight on ensuring this placement is robustly fortified so that it can endure. This has led me to reject contact set at a weekly or fortnightly level but to ponder whether the balance falls above contact every two months, which has to be recognised as being towards the lower end of a relationship where the essential bond is strong and has positive components. Below that one would be looking at identity contact. I have considered the possibility of monthly contact and reached the conclusion that contact should be set between the two on an approximate 6-weekly cycle or eight times per year. This is a pattern which has some familiarity in care proceedings and benefits from being linked to school breaks and in this case could be linked to both child/mother birthdays (in March, July and August). It does not need to be fixed exactly each six weeks but could be around the following events:  February half-term  Easter holiday

and linked to B’s birthday  Late May Half Term  Early Summer – linked to A’s birthday  Late Summer Holiday – linked to [the mother] birthday Page 10 Re A, B & C (Children) (Care and Placement)  October Half Term  Christmas Holiday 43. One of the benefits of the above scheme is that it permits the children to emotionally recover after contact without this impacting on their schooling. I hope the applicant (and guardian) see the sense in this plan and that the care plan is modified accordingly.

44. These are my principled conclusions with regards to A and B although I will return to their relationship with C below. C 45. 46. 47.

48. Turning to C I would first wish to address the debate around the potential for finding a placement for C. Whilst I entirely accept there will be challenges which arise from the existing quality of relationship C has with his parents I do not consider this is such as to effectively rule out the potential for finding an adoptive placement. I also do not consider the disrupted history in care is such as to rule out a search. Indeed as noted above it highlights the comparative instability of foster care and promotes the search for a placement offering permanency. Finally, case law makes clear the key issue for the Court is to determine which outcome is in the welfare interests of the child rather than to attempt to speculate as to the prospects of finding a placement, save in more unusual circumstances. I consider it is inappropriate to search for a placement for C with the other two children. This would inevitably mean the settled placement A/B have would be lost, and I would be concerned as to the stability of any replacement found for all three. This is aside from the question as to whether such a placement could be found. One implication of this is that a long-term foster placement for C does mean a childhood separated from family at a meaningful level. I have been asked to reflect on C’s wishes and feelings. Whilst I recognise his bond to his parents I am cautious about

placing too much weight on this feature given his still early age and relative lack of understanding as to the issues under consideration. I have reflected on his characteristics. This includes his age which is important. I am considering his lifelong welfare and contemplating a weighing exercise between a potential childhood in care or placement in a permanent family home. I also have regard to his family relationships and particularly with his siblings. In previous proceedings [D] was separated from his siblings and C placed with the older children. This reflected the respective bonds and needs of each child. I am mindful that the arguments have now shifted with C’s relationship with the older children being under fresh consideration.

49. I am obliged to consider the impact on C of his being severed from his biological family and becoming an adopted child. The parents place particular weight on this feature Page 11 50.

51. Re A, B & C (Children) (Care and Placement) referencing the existing bonds had with both parents and siblings and the resultant impact the loss of the same will have at an emotional level to the extent that it may undermine any search or worst of all may lead to a placement breaking down. Their argument is that the foster care and the maintenance of family bonds is a strong feature in any balancing exercise. I am not unrealistic as to the challenges deriving from adoption. For all children, and particularly those who carry with them knowledge of their family, the adoption process will come with challenges. Whilst continuing contact may assist with emotional loss this is bound to be set closer to an identity level than that currently in place. This emotional loss has the potential to cause the child to be resistant to a placement based on an emotional unwillingness to accept replacement carers. One must also be mindful of the potential for such impact to arise in an unpredictable manner placing strains on the placement. Adoptions do break down and the Court is reminded that adoption is not a panacea. These risks require skilled carers and a level of preparation for the inevitable point at which an emotional response comes out. I must have some regard when considering this issue to the fact any prospective carers will not come to the situation blind to the risks and it is

reasonable to infer they will be provided with a level of training to equip them to deal with the issues when appropriate. I consider a central feature of this analysis relates to C’s emotional needs. I accept part of his needs relate to his continuing relationship with his family members. This has importance to him and will be lost or significantly diminished on adoption. I should bear in mind there will in any event be a very substantial change in arrangements even were he to remain in care. Against this is an important need for permanency and the opportunity to be placed in the centre of family life. The professionals are entitled to place weight on this feature which encompasses a range of key features. These include the need for a stable and consistent care and a central care giver or givers who are emotionally available and see C as being central to their family and lives. This level of love and commitment is fundamentally different to that which can be expected under a foster care placement in which the applicant remains a statutory parent. This permanency provides a natural lived environment and is expected to be lifelong and stable in contrast to the potential for instability that flows from a foster placement. As the guardian observed foster carers may terminate a placement for a whole host of legitimate reasons arising out of their own personal circumstances and may do so at short notice. When this happens the impact on the child is significant and may have far reaching consequences touching on education among other matters. This contrasts significantly with adoptive placements which may of course be impacted by life issues but do not normally result in the child being rejected as a result.

52. I also have regard to the relationship C has with others, the value of this relationship and the likelihood of it continuing. I have regard to the wishes for C held by such individuals and their ability to provide a secure environment in which he can have his welfare needs met. Plainly this includes his parents and I have summarised their views Page 12 53. 54. 55.

56. Re A, B & C (Children) (Care and Placement) throughout this judgment. Their relationship with C has value to him and will continue if a care order only is made at a level much higher than that proposed under a placement order. However at this time and for the foreseeable future they cannot provide an environment in which his needs are met. I have been asked to reflect on wider paternal family but this carries limited weight as these relationships are not currently continuing and there is no-one within this pool who could feasibly provide a settled environment for C. I continue to have regard to the risk of harm arising in this case. The threshold conveys the level of concern in this case and my assessment of the evidence indicates these risks are not yet addressed and remain present into the future. This is why the C cannot return home now or within his timescales. Balancing There are many cases that highlight the marked distinction between foster care and adoption. I have regard to D-S (A Child: Adoption or Fostering) ([2024] EWCA Civ 948 which recently summarised the existing caselaw in this regard. Whilst each case turns on its facts there are common positives and negatives which arise in all cases. The obvious positives of foster care in this case relate to the potential for ongoing family contact for C. It is clear he values his contact and has shown real distress when

it was cancelled. A second benefit is as to the potential for such an order to be discharged and for family life to fully resume. However I must take care not to elevate a false sense of optimism where the same is not justified on the current evidence. In contrast the negatives are significant. C would have no same of permanency and any foster placement would be subject to unacceptable disruption. In placement his sense of centrality to the home would be quite different to that in a natural home environment and there would be daily reminders for C as to the instability and different quality of the placement. A further negative is the length over which this would endure. C is still only four and would face the next 14 years in care before potentially then leaving to return to family life with a family with whom he has not lived within living memory. It is easy to see how this might have lifelong negative implications for him. The key contrast is with the expected emotional connection and commitment existing within both a biological or adoptive home. The contrast with adoption is reversed. It bears the negative of limiting family time and leaving the potential for delayed emotional harm. It is final and cannot permit a revocation should one of the parents demonstrate a basis for having C return to their care. It is less well placed to meet C’s identity needs as any adopters would

not share a common history with C and would be poorly placed to answer the key questions he has as to his background. The positives are centrally linked with permanence and the opportunity for a main place in a stable and loving home which can endure not only for the short term but for life. In such a setting C would have carers who are responsible for him, want him and will hold onto him no matter what happens. This commitment is Page 13 Re A, B & C (Children) (Care and Placement) central to C establishing a sense of worth and personal value and will assist him as he moves through life. As with any child he deserves an enduring relationship with a carer or carers to whom he can turn to share his worries and make sense of the world around him. Conclusions C is only four and on the current evidence will spend a childhood in foster care if only a care order is made. I consider it highly likely he will face further disruptions to placement and I am concerned as to the impact this will have upon him and his ability to properly build and establish relationships. Whilst I do not seek to make any criticism of committed foster carers the relationship he would have would be fundamentally different to the central loving relationship one would hope for him with his any primary carer. At the same time, the artificial nature of this relationship would be in plain sight as would the

consistent involvement and role of social workers in his life. Whilst there would be some balancing benefit from contact with his parents this would not change the day-to-day reality of life for C. I simply cannot see how this is an appropriate option for C if an option exists under which he has the chance to benefit from permanency and placement within a natural home environment in which his needs are the central concern of any care giver. Whilst such an option may come with challenges and will impact on family time the benefits of such an outcome are significant and lifelong. For reasons given I do not share the doubts as to the availability of such a placement. Having regard to his welfare needs and having conducted the holistic balancing exercise I have reached the clear conclusion his interests are only consistent with the making of a placement order with a plan for adoption. In my assessment nothing else will do. Anything less than this will have a significant, negative, and lifelong impact on C. I judge this stark interference is proportionate when having regard to the alternative outcome for C. It is as such both reasonable and necessary. C’s welfare requires this outcome and I consequently dispense with his parents consent to the making of a placement order. Turning to contact I approve the essential planning of the applicant and in doing so agree with the guardian.

The applicant is clear in its planning and is supporting direct identity contact post adoption alongside letterbox contact. I cannot agree with the suggestion of monthly contact proposed by [father to C]. I consider setting a contact expectation at this level would diminish the pool of prospective adopters to an unacceptable level. Whilst I accept the benefit of direct contact this must not be allowed to undermine the establishment of a new lifelong relationship with adopters. I do not intend to make an s26 order as I am satisfied the applicant is committed to this plan. I also agree with the sibling proposals which I consider appropriately meet C’s needs. 57. 58. 59.

60. Page 14 Re A, B & C (Children) (Care and Placement) 61.

62. I would support consideration of a meeting between any prospective adopters and the parents if they are willing to meet. This may have emotional challenges but it has many important positives including giving the parents some sense of confidence as to C’s future care as well as providing both life history knowledge for adopters and a better sense of the parents. My experience tells me these meetings can have real value for the adults and thus for the child. I consider any adopters should have a fair and balanced profile of the parents. I have seen nothing of note within the evidence to suggest they would act to destabilise any placement. I would expect this judgment to be shared with such adopters to inform them in their decision making. I will send this to counsel for sharing with their professional and lay clients. The judgment is not embargoed. The judgment will be handed down at 10am on 28 August 2026. I would request (i) any corrections (in a single tracked document); (ii) requests for clarification, and; (iii) proposed redactions for the purpose of publication by 4pm on 26 August 2026. I have attached a provisional redacted version for consideration. HHJ Willans Page 15