England and Wales Case Law

London Borough of Havering v R & Ors

The court finds that threshold criteria are met due to the parents' vulnerabilities, substance misuse, lack of engagement, and inability to provide safe and consistent care for Q. Further residential assessment of R is not justified as it would cause delay, is unlikely to be positive, and is not in Q's welfare interests. There are no realistic family or friend placement options. Adoption is the only option that meets Q's immediate and long-term welfare needs. Parental consent to placement order is dispensed with as Q's welfare requires it.

Source excerpt

• Care orders
• Placement orders
• Parental responsibility
• Threshold criteria
• Welfare checklist
• Residential assessment

Read case analysis

A Local Authority v The Mother & Ors

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

• Care orders
• Placement orders
• Adoption
• Long-term foster care
• Sibling contact
• Parental consent

Read case analysis

L (A Child: Placement and Contact Orders), Re

The Court of Appeal allowed a local authority appeal, substituting a placement order for a care order and directing sibling contact to preserve family ties.

• Placement orders
• Adoption
• Care orders
• Sibling contact
• Welfare principle
• Placement-orders

Read case analysis

L (A Child: Placement and Contact Orders), Re

L (A Child: Placement and Contact Orders), Re [2026] EWCA Civ 639 (20 May 2026)

The Court of Appeal held that a placement order, not long-term foster care, best met A’s lifelong welfare needs and made a sibling contact order.

• Placement orders
• Adoption
• Care orders
• Contact orders
• Welfare of the child
• Sibling contact

Read case analysis

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.

Source excerpt

• Care orders
• Placement orders
• Adoption
• Long-term foster care
• Parental consent
• Child welfare

Read case analysis

The London Borough of Barking & Dagenham v TK & Ors

The court found that, despite some progress, the parents were unable to provide consistent, safe, and adequate care for V due to ongoing deficits in insight, acceptance of past harm, and inability to work with or accept support. The threshold for care and placement orders was met, and adoption was necessary and proportionate to secure V's welfare. Further assessment was not justified given the extensive history and lack of meaningful change. The parents' consent to adoption was dispensed with as required by V's welfare.

Source excerpt

• Care orders
• Placement orders
• Adoption
• Parents with learning disabilities
• Threshold criteria
• Welfare analysis

Read case analysis

B-A, Re (Placement Order and Contact Order)

B-A, Re (Placement Order and Contact Order) [2026] EWCA Civ 356 (25 March 2026)

The Court of Appeal upheld a section 26 ACA 2002 order for annual face-to-face contact between adopted children and their father, despite family-finding concerns.

• Placement orders
• Contact orders
• Post-adoption contact
• Children's welfare
• Section 26 aca 2002
• Section 1 aca 2002

Read case analysis

B-A (Placement Order and Contact Order), Re

The Court of Appeal upheld a section 26 Adoption and Children Act 2002 order requiring annual face-to-face contact between two boys and their father after placement for adoption.

• Placement orders
• Contact orders
• Post-placement contact
• Adoption and children act 2002
• Children act 1989
• Sibling contact

Read case analysis

Leicestershire County Council v FF & Ors

Leicestershire County Council v FF & Ors [2026] EWFC 78 (B) (23 March 2026)

Family Court decision on child welfare, where CC was ordered to live with her father, but claims for care and placement orders for AA and BB were refused.

• Care orders
• Placement orders
• Child arrangements orders
• Parental responsibility
• Threshold criteria
• Sexual risk assessments

Read case analysis

Birmingham City Council v V & Anor

The Family Court made final care and placement orders for a child, finding the threshold met and concluding adoption was the only realistic option.

• Care orders
• Placement orders
• Adoption
• Parental responsibility
• Threshold criteria
• Welfare of the child

Read case analysis