Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Adoption is the only option that meets both the children’s need for permanence and ongoing sibling contact; long-term foster care cannot provide the same degree of security and belonging. The welfare of D and E requires dispensing with parental consent and making care and placement orders, with sibling contact prioritized in the care plan.
Source excerpt
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.
Source excerpt
The Family Court granted a care order and placement order for EL, dispensed with the mother’s consent, and directed reconsideration of sibling and post-adoption contact.
Care orders for all four children and a placement order for J are necessary and proportionate due to intolerable risk of physical and emotional harm, lack of parental insight and capacity, and need for lifelong welfare protection; parental consent to placement order for J is dispensed with as her welfare requires it.
Source excerpt
N (A Child), Re [2026] EWFC 11 (15 January 2026)
The court made final care and placement orders for a child after rejecting further delay for an attempted family placement in India and ordering adoption.
The court made final care and placement orders for a child aged nearly 3, rejecting further delay for a proposed family placement in India.
Adoption is both necessary and proportionate for the children's welfare throughout their lives; nothing else will do. The birth mother has made significant progress but her ability to meet the children's complex needs is untested, and the risks of breakdown, instability, and harm outweigh the benefits of reunification. The prospective adopters provide permanence, stability, and therapeutic parenting. Dispensing with the birth mother's consent is justified.
Source excerpt
The threshold criteria under section 31(2) Children Act 1989 are met. U's welfare requires a care and placement order for adoption, with sibling contact order under section 26 Adoption and Children Act 2002. Parental consent is dispensed with as nothing else will do to secure U's welfare.
Source excerpt
The court found that the threshold criteria for a care and placement order were met due to significant harm from parental substance misuse, mental health issues, and lack of engagement. Q had not achieved the required 12-24 months abstinence from cocaine, nor engaged with therapy or domestic abuse work. No family member was assessed as able to care for R. Adoption was determined to be necessary and proportionate as nothing else would meet R's immediate and long-term welfare needs. Parental consent to placement order was dispensed with as required by R's welfare.
Source excerpt
Care and placement orders are necessary and proportionate for A's welfare as neither parent has accepted responsibility for A's injuries, lacks insight, and cannot safely care for A; adoption is the only realistic option to secure permanence and protect A from further harm.
Source excerpt
Explore more
