S (Foster Care or Placement for Adoption), Re

S (Foster Care or Placement for Adoption), Re

The judge did not err in refusing the placement order for adoption because, despite not setting out a formal balance sheet, he adequately considered and weighed the relevant factors, including the child’s settled status with current foster carers, the realistic prospects of adoption with meaningful contact, and the best interests of the child. The evidence supported the conclusion that long-term foster care with the current carers was in S’s welfare interests and that her welfare did not require dispensing with parental consent for adoption.

Parties
Appellant: Local Authority; First Respondent: Mother; Second Respondent: Father; Third Respondent: Child (S, by her Children’s Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family) / Judgment on Appeal From Refusal of Placement Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Placement Orders, Adoption, Long Term Foster Care, Parental Consent, Child Welfare, Contact Arrangements
Family Law Child Law Care Orders Placement Orders Adoption Long Term Foster Care Parental Consent Child Welfare +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Local Authority

Appellant

Mother

First Respondent

Father

Second Respondent

Child (S, by her Children’s Guardian)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family) / Judgment on Appeal From Refusal of Placement Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing a placement order for adoption under section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to undertake an adequate comparative analysis of adoption versus long-term foster care
  3. 3 Whether the judge mischaracterised the availability and suitability of the current foster placement as a long-term option

Ratio Decidendi

The judge did not err in refusing the placement order for adoption because, despite not setting out a formal balance sheet, he adequately considered and weighed the relevant factors, including the child’s settled status with current foster carers, the realistic prospects of adoption with meaningful contact, and the best interests of the child. The evidence supported the conclusion that long-term foster care with the current carers was in S’s welfare interests and that her welfare did not require dispensing with parental consent for adoption.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal of placement order for adoption is upheld
  • S to remain in long-term foster care, preferably with current carers, subject to local authority approval