The Court of Appeal has dismissed a local authority's appeal against a Family Court refusal to authorise adoption for a four-year-old girl who is in foster care under a care order.
Key facts
- Who: Local authorities, parents and foster carers involved in proceedings where the realistic choice is between long-term foster care and adoption
- From: 5 February 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: S (Foster Care or Placement for Adoption), Re [2026] EWCA Civ 47
Background
In Re S (Foster Care or Placement for Adoption) [2026] EWCA Civ 47, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) gave judgment on 5 February 2026 after a hearing on 22 January 2026. Lord Justice Cobb gave the reasons. The appeal was from the Family Court at Reading.
S is a girl aged 4 years 8 months and the only child of her mother and father. She is the subject of a care order under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 and is in foster care.
Proceedings began after concerns about the mother's parenting. The judge found that S had been neglected over a period. No finding was pursued about a bruise that prompted the proceedings, and it was not alleged at the final hearing that the mother had abused S in any material way.
In the sixteen months of proceedings, S spent only four months with her mother, in a closely supervised residential assessment. A placement with a maternal aunt and uncle ended, the maternal grandparents were assessed negatively, and an independent assessment of the mother was also negative. In early May 2025 S was placed in foster care.
The question
On 25 September 2025, HHJ Tolson KC made the care order. He refused the local authority's application for a placement order under section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The local authority appealed only that refusal. No party argued the care order was wrong, and neither parent sought for S to be placed in their care.
The question was whether the judge was wrong to refuse the placement order where the only realistic alternative was long-term foster care.
The decision
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The refusal of the placement order stands.
The reasoning
The judge concluded, with S's welfare throughout her life paramount, that she was better off where she was. He found she was happy and settled, and that a move would have a "catastrophic" effect on her ability to trust adults and transfer her affections. He noted that the social worker and Children's Guardian had both referred to an established relationship between S and her mother. He was concerned about the loss to S if contact were limited to one visit a year.
He doubted that adopters would be found who would tolerate face-to-face contact between S and her mother, particularly at the frequency envisaged. He also doubted the adoption agency's commitment to finding an open placement. He accepted that the unlikelihood of finding a placement is not a bar to a placement order, but said it was a relevant factor. He noted that the foster carers had expressed a settled desire to care for S during her minority.
When granting permission to appeal, Peter Jackson LJ directed the foster carers to tell the parties and the court in writing whether they had made a commitment to care for S throughout her childhood. They responded, and the Court of Appeal considered that evidence.
What this means for those involved in adoption and fostering proceedings
The Court of Appeal upheld one judge's refusal of a placement order for one child.
Under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, a local authority that is satisfied a child ought to be placed for adoption must apply for a placement order. The court decides the application by reference to the child's welfare throughout their life.
Anyone involved in care proceedings where adoption is proposed should get advice before a deadline passes.
Sources
- S (Foster Care or Placement for Adoption), Re [2026] EWCA Civ 47, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 5 February 2026