Rotherham MBC v M & Ors

This judgment was handed down by circulation to the relevant parties by email on 19 August 2025 at 16:57.

On 25 September 2020, C, along with his brother AR, was made the subject of Care and Placement Orders. Despite proper efforts, an adoptive placement could not be found for C and his brother together. A placement was found for AR, and he was placed with his adoptive family in November 2021.

In January 2022, the Independent Reviewing officer (IRO) recommended that the Local Authority (LA) should seek revocation of the Placement Order so that C’s plan can be one of long term foster care and he could remain with his foster carers where he was settled and had been for over 2 years.

In May 2022 C’s case was considered by the SOPBA Panel which concluded that adoption was no longer in his best interests, that the Placement Order should be revoked, and a plan of long term foster care should be in place. Since that time, regular reviews were conducted by the IRO which repeatedly recommended that the revocation application needed to be made but no action was taken to progress this.

Ultimately this application was made on 18 March 2025, 3 years after the IRO had first recommended that an application to revoke the Placement Order should be made.

At the first hearing of this application on 4 April 2025 I was unwilling to finalise the case as requested by the LA as:

No notice had been given to C’s father, who has parental responsibility and is an automatic party. The LA invited the Court to dispense with the requirement of notice on him but had made no application in this respect. I accepted the oral application and directed a statement in support of the same and a skeleton argument addressing the legal issues so this application could be determined properly on evidence and with reference to the correct legal principles.

It appears the IRO may have been entitled to bring this case to Court in circumstances where the LA was failing to ensure C’s welfare was being promoted but has failed to do so, the Court required an explanation from the IRO to better understand this issue.

It appeared that C had suffered emotionally in two respects including whether or not he was told that he could remain in his current foster placement and whether access to therapy via CAHMS was unavailable to C pending conformation of his long term placement. This meant that the current Care Plan had to take this into account.

If C had suffered a detriment, then he may be entitled to compensation from the LA. The Court wished to consider releasing the papers to the Official Solicitor to evaluate the appropriateness and prospects of bringing proceedings on C’s behalf. I invited the parties to address this in their evidence.

The Children’s Guardian had requested responses to a number of queries which had been provided in a brief email, but a full detailed response was required. The Court did not have any analysis from the Children’s Guardian, in particular about the suitability of the Care Plan.

At this Final Hearing the above considerations had been addressed.

The Court directs that the need to serve F with notice and papers in this case is dispensed with. The Court carried out a careful balancing exercise of F and C’s Article 6/8 rights and found that C’s rights are dominant and that any interference with F’s rights is therefore justified with the same being necessary and proportionate. The key reasons for this are:

F’s Article 8 rights are limited to being C’s biological parent. He stopped exercising any parental rights in 2021 after C disclosed, he had been sexually abused by his father. F did not exercise contact and made it clear he did not want to have updates about C.

In light of the nature of the application, any interference with F’s Article 6 rights is very limited.

In [YEAR REDACTED], F was convicted after trial and sentenced to [many] years imprisonment for sexually abusing C. C is clear he does not wish his father to know anything about him. I find that if F was notified and served with all the papers it would cause C significant emotional harm. I find C’s wish must be respected and his right to a private life prioritised.

I thus find that F’s limited Article 6/8 rights are considerably outweighed by C’s rights.

M was personally served with notice of these proceedings and the initial evidence but failed to attend the first hearing on 4 April 2025. In light of M not exercising contact for some years now and not engaging with the LA, her non-attendance came as no surprise. The Court found it fair and proportionate to proceed in her absence. M has failed to provide any evidence, in breach of the Court’s directions, and has failed to attend this final hearing. In the circumstances the Court finds it is fair and proportionate to proceed in M’s absence as:

The absence is a continuing pattern of disengagement with the LA and C.

There is a total lack of engagement with the court proceedings, M has not attended either of the hearings and has not complied with the requirement to provide evidence.

The absence is deliberate and voluntary.

It is unlikely that M would attend if the case was adjourned.

The Court grants the application for the Placement Order, made on 25 September 2020, to be revoked. There has been a material change in C’s circumstances that means that adoption is now unlikely. This includes C’s adverse childhood experiences which now includes proven sexual abuse by his father, his behaviour and mental health. Extensive efforts were made to find an adoptive placement without success and the plan changed from adoption to long term foster care in January/May 2022.

Consequently, the Care Order is revived. I have considered the updated Care Plan and find it confirms the plan of long term foster care, that C’s current foster placement will be approved, and he will remain in his current placement where he has been since 2019. This serves C’s welfare interests and is the right plan for him. I also note that C will receive appropriate therapy funded by the LA. In all the circumstances the Placement Order has to be revoked.

The application for revocation was made nearly 3 years late. The IRO had recommended a change of Care Plan in January 2022, but this was not progressed. The SOPBA Panel decided that the Placement Order should be revoked but no action was taken to progress this.

Whilst the delay is unacceptable, and the LA has rightly not tried to excuse the failure to make this application in a timely fashion, I accept that the impact on C is limited to the issue of him not knowing that he can remain with his current foster carers, but this is significant. I accept that C has not questioned his placement, there has been no disruption to his plan for permanence, stability of care, support or other services, or the level of those services and his care needs have been met to a high standard. It is compelling that the plan remains for C to continue to be cared for by his current foster carers. However, for C not to know this was going to be the case for so many years is unacceptable, particularly when he was facing such significant challenges including the need to give evidence in respect of the abuse he had suffered, and his therapy being delayed pending this.

I invited the IRO to provide a statement and to attend this hearing to explain why independently of the LA, the IRO did not take steps to refer this case to the Court when the LA failed to do so in accordance with the IRO’s clear and repeated recommendations. IROs have access to legal advice and can take steps to escalate matters and ultimately, albeit exceptionally, consider referring a case back to Court.

The IRO in this case has accepted that there were steps that could have been taken. I find the safeguard built into the care/adoption regime did not operate effectively in this case and the IRO could and should have done more to ensure C’s Care Plan was amended with the Placement Order being revoked.

The LA opposes this on the basis that whilst the delay in bringing this application is inexcusable it has not caused C any real detriment. The LA also contends there has been no breach of C’s Article 8 rights from the delay. The LA has ensured that C’s key relationship, with his brother who has been adopted, has been maintained through contact. Both of C’s parents have been clear they did not wish to see him or have any updates. C has not sought contact with them. I agree, that in respect of these points, it appears there has been no detriment to C. However, I find the failure to provide confirmation to C that he will remain in long term foster care, and with his current carers, is a significant issue and one that has caused him uncertainty at such a delicate time in his life. This needs to be further explored in case he is entitled to damages.

The LA opposes this judgment being published. I accept the LA submission that there is no novel point of law but that is not the test. I do not agree that there has been no impact on C, and I find there is a wider public interest in this judgment being published.

The CG invites the Court to publish the judgment to highlight the issue. I accordingly find that this judgment should be published. No issue has been raised as to jig saw identification. There is no criteria to be met for a judgment to be published, transparency requires more judgments to be published to aid the public’s understanding of the family justice system.