The Family Court heard a mother's application for a court order setting her level of contact with her daughter, who is in long-term foster care, and the local authority and children's guardian opposed it.
Key facts
- Who: Parents seeking contact orders for a child in care; local authorities managing contact under a care plan
- From: 3 March 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: M v LBB (No 3) [2026] EWFC 76 (B)
Her Honour Judge Lazarus gave an ex tempore judgment, meaning one delivered orally at the end of the hearing, in the Family Court at Bromley, sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, on 3 March 2026. The case is anonymised. The judge refers to the mother as M and the child as A. The anonymity of the child and her family must be strictly preserved.
Background
The case follows long-running care proceedings, in which the court gave two earlier judgments ([2021] EWFC 131 (B) and [2022] EWFC 220 (B)). A final care order was made in January 2022 and A has remained in long-term foster care since. After the proceedings ended, M had fortnightly contact with A for about two and a half years, until August 2024. A risk-assessment contact took place in December 2025.
The question
M asked the court for a comprehensive section 34 order under the Children Act returning to regular contact, fortnightly if possible or monthly as a compromise. The local authority proposed an amended care plan with a minimum of four contacts a year, kept under regular review, and no court order. The children's guardian agreed with the local authority in opposing M's application.
The legal approach
The judge said A's welfare is her paramount concern, not M's interests. She said she had to bear in mind the welfare checklist and the factors in section 1 of the Children Act, and whether any interference with Article 8 rights to respect for private and family life was proportionate and necessary.
The local authority argued that section 34 orders for a specific level of contact are rare where a child in long-term care has no realistic prospect of returning to a parent. The judge said that was a general proposition not underpinned by authority, and that she had come across such orders made for a variety of reasons.
She also referred to Re S (A minor) (Care: Contact Order) [1994] 2 FLR 222, where the Court of Appeal held that where the nature and extent of contact was an integral part of the local authority's care plan, it was not for the court to decide precisely what contact was reasonable. She said she had seen many cases where courts decided the appropriate contact, but took on board the principle that it is rare for a court to have the insight social work professionals bring through regular reviews.
The reasoning
The judge looked at what the long gap in contact has meant for A. According to her foster carers, social worker, independent reviewing officer and the children's guardian, A has shown significant development and settling, with a reduction in more challenging behaviour. The judge said it would be a mistake to treat that period simply as a disruption to be mended by resuming contact.
On A's wishes and feelings, she found no specific evidence that A misses her mother, calls out for her or asks about her. The December 2025 contact appeared to go well and A showed no aversion or reluctance, but the judge found it hard to read A's affectionate behaviour as specific to her relationship with M. She was sure A would want her relationships with other family members and her foster carers to continue as undisrupted as possible. The evidence on fortnightly contact with M was harder to interpret, and the judge noted comments that it had been too much for A.
What this means for parents and carers in care proceedings
- In this case the judge treated A's welfare as paramount, not her mother's interests.
- She considered what a long period without contact had meant for the child.
- The local authority's care plan and review process were central to the arguments.
Sources
- M v LBB (No 3) [2026] EWFC 76 (B), Family Court at Bromley, 3 March 2026