K (Adoption Order: Final Hearing), Re

This is an application for an adoption order in respect of one child: the much-loved C, a boy born on 7 May 2021. He is four years of age. C has been placed for adoption with the applicants since 3 September 2022. The applicants are referred to as “the prospective adopters”, although such is their excellent relationship with the parents that their names are known and have been used freely throughout the hearing. In this anonymised judgment, I will simply refer to them collectively as ‘FC’ and either ‘male FC’ or ‘female FC’ where specific to one or other. They seek an adoption order and support the suggestion of direct and indirect contact on two occasions each per year. They do not consider that a special guardianship order (“SGO”) would be appropriate.

The local authority (“LA”) is Central Bedfordshire Council, represented by Mr Noble. Despite the work undertaken by the parents, the LA supports the making of an adoption order and recommend two indirect and two direct contacts per year. They do not consider an order to be necessary. They do not support the making of an SGO.

The mother (“M”) is represented by Mr Evans. She opposes the application and instead seeks the revocation of the placement order. Her secondary position is that an SGO should be granted rather than an adoption order. If the court does grant an adoption order, M seeks an order for post-adoption contact on four occasions per year.

The father (“F”) is represented by Ms Cooke. His position is the same as M’s.

The Guardian is Simon Bullen, represented by Ms Howard. The Guardian supports the LA’s position. He too accepts the excellent work completed by the parents.

Those are the parties. There is another person of significance in this case. K is the younger and full sibling to C and lives at home with his parents. Separate proceedings in respect of K resulted in a supervision order. There is no doubt about the quality of care provided to K by his parents.

As I came into court to hand down judgment, counsel collectively through Mr Noble asked me to indicate my decision in advance of my full judgment. I am content to do so.

This has been an exceptionally difficult case for me to decide and a very difficult decision to reach. I have considered all the evidence carefully. I have reached the conclusion that there should be an adoption order granted in favour of the applicants. That is despite the excellent work undertaken by the parents and the very positive cases that they have each put forward through their respective counsel. I reach that conclusion, driven by the fact that C’s needs are such that an adoption order is in his best interests throughout his life. I do not consider that an SGO would meet those needs or the need for permanence. I do consider there should be post adoption contact. I am not minded to impose an order but I will set the template.

C was conceived when M was very young. C suffered unexplained injuries. M and C went to residential placements. The parents accept, as they did in the proceedings that followed, that they had not been honest about their relationship. Care and placement orders were granted on 17 March 2023.

C has lived with FC since 3 September 2022, and they applied for an adoption order on 12 August 2024. The matter was heard by Her Honour Judge Kushner on 14 November 2024 and again on 7 February 2025. Leave to oppose was granted and updating assessments granted. I considered directions on 18 August 2025.

This hearing has taken place over three days. I commend the parents for the manner in which they have conducted themselves and I am grateful to counsel for the concise and child-focused cases they have each presented.

The issues I have to decide are whether to grant an adoption order or whether to refuse the application and then revoke the placement order. If so, I must consider whether to grant an SGO or approve a careful transition of C to the parents’ care. If I grant an adoption order, I must consider post-adoption contact.

There is no dispute about the law that I must apply. S24 Adoption and Children Act 2002 is the statutory basis for the application. A court can only give leave if satisfied there has been a change in circumstances since the order was made. S24(4) allows a court to revoke a placement order when refusing an application for an adoption order.

The leading authority is Re C (Children) (Placement Order: Revocation) [2020] EWCA Civ 1598. Baker LJ considered the extended welfare checklist and principles in YC v UK, Re B, Re BS, Re F on proportionality and Article 8. Baker LJ expressly endorsed the trial judge’s summary of the law. Those principles are:

The question of revocation of placement order at final hearing came before the Court of Appeal again in Re N (Children: Revocation of Placement Orders) [2023] EWCA Civ 1352. Peter Jackson LJ endorsed the Re C test, adding that the test is best interests and not where the family’s case is realistic. His lordship referred to his previous decision in Re H (Children: Placement Orders) [2023] EWCA Civ 1245in which two children had said goodbye to their birth family and had been prepared for adoption. His lordship held that plan could only sensibly be sacrificed in favour of a plan for rehabilitation if the evidence showed that success could be predicted with a high degree of confidence, adding that “my remarks in Re H were intended to underline the fact that a decision to discharge a placement order is as serious as a decision to make one in the first place”.

The starting point is the extended welfare checklist, as found in s1 of the 2002 Act. The paramount consideration must be the child’s welfare throughout his life. The principles are delay likely being prejudicial, wishes and feelings, needs, likely effect throughout life of ceasing to be a member of the birth family and becoming an adopted person, age, sex, background and relevant characteristics, any harm suffered or at risk of suffering, the relationship the child has with relatives, prospective adopter and any other relevant person, the likelihood of that continuing and the value to the child, the ability and willingness to provide the child with a secure environment and the wishes and feelings of those persons.

If I conclude that an adoption order should be made, I must consider I must consider setting a template for post-adoption contact. There has been a recent “sea change” in the approach to be taken. Adoption must adapt to the modern world.

The court has both a court bundle and a respondent’s bundle. The latter consists of 1,082 pages. I have heard oral evidence from Dr Timberlake, Jamie Barton, Jade-Leigh Gerrard and the Guardian. The parents did not wish to give evidence, and no party had any questions for them.

Given the lack of factual dispute and appropriately limited oral evidence, I will need to set out some of this evidence in detail so that the rationale for my decision can be properly understood.

Dr Timberlake has filed two reports in these proceedings and one in previous proceedings. By the time of previous proceedings, Dr Timberlake had noted a significant improvement in M’s mood, strategies and ability to work with profs. She was engaging in parenting and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (“DDP”) work. F was making progress and developing his understanding of K’s needs.

Dr Timberlake’s substantive report in these proceedings is dated 31 March 2025. He described the parents’ changes as notable, resulting in increased professional confidence in their care of K. M showed a greater insight into separation on C and reflected on some of those difficulties. At paragraph 3.03 [379] he says this:

“However, significant concerns remain. The harm previously experienced by C in his mother's care is a serious consideration, and any return would involve reintroducing him to a relationship from which he was removed due to significant risk. The parents' capacity to manage both C and K simultaneously, particularly in light of C's complex emotional, behavioural, and developmental needs, is uncertain and may prove overwhelming. C has not been in the care of his birth parents for several years, and his understanding of his life story appears limited. He sees his foster carers as his family, and the prospect of leaving their care would likely trigger a profound sense of loss, confusion, and trauma”.

Dr Timberlake spoke to FC. They were concerned about the potential trauma of another transition. C sees them as his parents. C has delay in his speech and language, with a slight improvement since Christmas. Each contact session led to a period of dysregulation, particularly affecting sleep and behaviour. C would become aggressive to female FC but not anyone else. C was described as being inseparable from the older child ‘Z’. FC expressed concern that a return to parents would feel like an abandonment to C. He always receives attention as the youngest child with an older child in the home. FC noted the relationship C has with F in particular. FC described C as showing controlled avoidance, remaining calm when he can control a situation and becoming dysregulated when not. C prefers using nappies to the toilet.

Dr Timberlake described C as a child whose emotional, behavioural, cognitive and social development has been shaped by early experiences of adversity and disruption in care. He presents with clear speech and language difficulties, primarily in the area of expressive communication, although he shows the ability to understand verbal instructions and frequently finds creative ways to communicate when he cannot express himself verbally. He engages in imaginative play and uses toys, but this is often fragmented by hyperactivity. Socially, he appears to experience challenges, particularly when adult attention shifts away from him. He can become dysregulated when that happens. C has developed a strong attachment to his current carers, particularly his female carer. It was apparent to Dr Timberlake that C identifies with them both as his parental figures. He appears to have internalised these relationships as secure.

Dr Timberlake was concerned that C may be suffering from significant confusion due to the frequency of contact with his parents and the likely lack of developmentally appropriate explanations about being in care. In terms of his behaviour and emotions, C presents as a child who has experienced developmental trauma and has a disrupted attachment relationship with his mother. He was separated at age 16 months and is likely to have suffered trauma. That was compounded by having four placements before moving to his current carers. This appears to have influenced C’s internal working model of relationships. He presents with visible attachment needs, and his emotional world may be dominated by uncertainty and a lack of safety. His behaviour reflects an internal struggle with loss, fear of abandonment, and disrupted developmental experiences.

Dr Timberlake said that C is likely to require structured routines and consistency to continue building his sense of safety and trust in adults. He is likely to require much attention and one-to-one support in the home environment. He will also need sensitive parenting borderin on therapeutic. Dr Timberlake did not advise therapeutic support directly for C. He said that his caregivers undertaking a DDP course would be an example. Dr Timberlake explained the developmental trauma as a framework concept the experience of repeated chronic trauma that occurs within the child’s early caregiving relationships, particularly when those relationships are themselves the source of threat and fear, inconsistency or emotional neglect. C’s early life experiences appear to have resulted in C being quite cautious of adults and taking avoidant and controlling stances toward situations.

At p413, Dr Timberlake discusses concerns about C returning to his parents’ care. He noted positive indicators about the parents’ commitment and the work they have undertaken, including DDP. He said that it must be noted that the initial harm and neglect suffered by C occurred within his mother’s care and returning him would mean reintroducing him into a relationship that once posed significant risk to his well-being. He acknowledged the positive work undertaken by the parents said that the task of managing the complex and differing needs of both children simultaneously may prove overwhelming, particularly given the emotional, behavioural and developmental challenges that C will present with.

Discussing a potential plan for rehabilitation, Dr Timberlake said that if the plan is to be considered, it would need to be gradual, carefully supported and will likely extend over a prolonged period of time. Even with the most sensitive planning, the emotional impact to C will in all likelihood be considerable, involve further trauma, a sense of abandonment and deep confusion. These risks must be weighed heavily against the potential benefits of reunification.

At p419, Dr Timberlake says that in essence the parents have the capacity to provide good enough parenting. That may be tested to their limit with the demands of both children but if managed is likely to be dependent upon professional input over a longer-term plan. He goes on to say that such a plan does not offer the avoidance of causing considerable harm to C emotionally as he sees his current caregivers as his parents and the source of safety.

Dr Timberlake filed an addendum report on 25 July 2025. He observed C in the carers home. He described him as being highly sensitive to the presence of unfamiliar individuals, becoming anxious withdrawn and tearful. He sought physical closeness from the carers and became emotionally distressed when attention is directed towards him. FC described C as becoming this regulated when faced with transitions or unexpected events. C needed more time and flexibility to engage with household expectations and transitions. His emotional expression is often heightened when he feels he is being observed. He can become emotionally unresponsive. Over time, C’s ability to engage in close and affectionate interactions has improved. Dr Timberlake noted C’s subtle but meaningful relational cues towards his carers. He continues to show fragility in the face of stress or emotional arousal. C has displaced controlling behaviour when he becomes dysregulated. He would only engage with SALT on his terms.

In his oral evidence, Dr Timberlake described C as having a strong bond with his carers. He will require sensitive parenting. That isn’t to say that interventions would not mitigate that. Ideally the carers will be part of that process. He said programmes such as DDP encourage a model of parenting and builds up parental capacity to respond to the needs of child. If C does not receive that, his needs are not likely to be understood. That could contribute to his dysregulation and act as a barrier to forming attachments. A therapeutic style of parenting would help him grow and address difficulties such as trauma. The quality of any transition is key. That does not mean that a good plan would remove all the impact upon C or the harm from losing an attachment. The transition could take place over 6 to 12 months. There is ample time to test out how the parents would manage the demands of another child during a transition plan. Dr Timberlake accepted that there would be considerable harm in both scenarios.

In response to Mr Evans, Dr Timberlake said that he had not seen anything that would suggest that the parents could not respond (with additional support) to address concerns about having an extra child in the home. He does not shy away from the fact that a gradual transition plan will have considerable impact. Contact has been positive but a more natural environment to test things out would be needed. Two years down the line, moving C could do significant harm given his attachment to his carers. C is not too sure about his parentage or long-term plan. Dr Timberlake addressed the parents when he said “this is not about doing what you have done before. It is about preparing to bring the child where he thinks is his home”. There is the sibling relationship to be addressed and issues around safety and routines. In response to Ms Cooke, Dr Timberlake said that the answer is regulation, in that the parents must be able to respond to difficulties in a regulated manner by being able to think about a child’s challenging behaviour and respond appropriately. They will have to have the insight to recognise that things are getting difficult before it is too late. Dr Timberlake said he did not see anything psychologically that would prevent C from forming attachments to the parents with the right support. He does not mean that his loss of attachment to his carers is not significant. Things could be mitigated by re-establishing his relationships with his birth parents. Neither choice is risk or harm free.

I found Dr Timberlake to be a helpful and professional witness, properly limiting himself to matters about which a psychologist could speak. I accept his written evidence and the majority of his oral evidence. Dr Timberlake properly acknowledged that neither option is risk free. He spoke of testing out during a transition in a manner more suited to care proceedings. I accept his evidence as a whole and did not form the view that his positive oral evidence detracts from the risks he identified in his reports.

Ms Barton is an independent social worker. She has provided an assessment of the parents, a sibling assessment and a short form report. She has used the ParentAssess model. She described the parents as having excelled in many aspects of basic care and parenting. The main focus of her report was exploring what C needs from them. Ms Barton begins her report by setting out that C has experienced more disruption and emotional upheaval than most adults would see during their lifetimes. She says that we do not fully understand the emotional impact of C’s removal, the two non-accidental injuries and his mother’s care and having at least 10 adults involved in his life by the age of 16 months.

Ms Barton noted how well the parents work together in parenting K. She describes mother as being more emotionally attuned and the father better at supervising thinking ahead about safety as well as being very caring. He says they have made huge progress in their parenting skills.

Ms Barton sets out four main headings or her concerns about reunification. They are the risk to C’s identity stability and lasting impact upon him emotionally, the increase in risk around these issues given C’s already complex developmental and emotional needs and behaviour, the impact on both siblings and the risk the stability in the parent’s relationship in their existing parenting of K.

Ms Barton noted C has lived with FC for nearly three years. He sees them as his parents and Z as his older brother. Moving him now risks damaging his sense of identity and stability. This is his primary sense of family. C already struggles with behaviour, emotions and development even in a stable placement. Moving him will worsen these issues which already include sleep difficulties relationship and behaviour regulation and hitting out. C is not developmentally matched with his biological age. He is not yet ready to process big changes or complicated feelings. He is already a child who has faced significant loss from his caregiving relationships. Another move would shatter his fragile sense of who he is and who he can trust. The risk of emotional and possibly physical harm to both children is high. C’s needs are complex and are a risk to other children he lives with. Existing behaviours are likely to continue, and K is a pre-verbal child. The children would have to share their parents time and attention, likely resulting in feelings of insecurity and jealousy and confusion. The parents have made great progress with K but have limited experience in caring for a complex child. They work well as a team but adding C’s complex needs to the equation is likely to overwhelm them. They offer practical solutions that struggle to anticipate deeper long-term emotional and relational challenges that will arise when parenting two high need children at once.

Ms Barton concludes that there are significant risks in trying to reunify C. There are indicators but his limited stability would decline, and he will be emotionally harmed by a move back to his parents, that would trigger a huge sense of confusion and loss which Ms Barton does not feel C is equipped to manage or understand even with specialist support.

In her oral evidence, Ms Barton confirmed her reports and her recommendation. Her preference in the event that an adoption order is granted is two direct contacts and two indirect contacts. She described the amount of work completed by the parents as incredible. She said that the difference for C as compared to another child is the significant disruption that he has already had. That is in part due to his experiences with his parents and since his removal. She said that all changes and moves come with consequences for C and we cannot escape that. She described C as having two worlds. He is not reaching his milestones and could be likened in his emotions to K. C already has difficulty with emotions and sleep. Move home is more likely to impact on him and long-term separation.

Ms Barton said that re-parenting a child such as C isn’t as simple as simply adding him into the family. She acknowledged that the parents understand that. It is far more likely that C will have struggles with his behaviour as he already has them. She is worried about K, who has had a stable upbringing. C already struggles with sibling relationships and sharing adult attention. He may display rejecting behaviours and hurt K. C likes to retaliate physically. If C returns and that breaks down, it will be catastrophic to C. The only stability he has now is with his current carers.

In response to Mr Evans, Ms Barton said that the parents have done the work and that they are capable and ready. She said that the final piece of the puzzle is whether it is right for the children. She agreed that children have better outcomes if they are at home with their family. She described C’s understanding is very basic. He calls both sets of adults “mummy and daddy”. He is not yet ready for life story work to understand why. He mentions them all in one sentence and differentiates them with reference to the baby. Ms Barton said she is sensitive to the fact K and C are full siblings. The age of 16 months is a crucial stage for children. Her recommendation is driven by the likely impact on C. He already has so many difficulties that need support and it will tip into something more difficult. The parents have shown so much commitment to learning that Ms Barton would not preclude them from caring for C. He does not need specialist services but does need therapeutically minded parents. The parents in this case can do that. C is the baby of the household and requires a lot of extra support. Ms Barton said that we’d be banking on C’s tricky behaviours staying at the same level if he moves home. She then said that she knows there will be an impact on him if his behaviour is escalating or going backwards. That means it isn’t like for like. C would suffer distress and then the services offered to him would need to change. Ms Barton is concerned about the extended family.

In response to Ms Cooke, Ms Barton said that C’s lack of understanding and lack of memory have been protective in the short term. He will have questions in the medium term, and it is difficult to say what the outcome is likely to be in the long-term. There is likely to be one. Adoptive children can feel a part of their life is messy and they don’t know who they are. What they are told in life story work and whether a child sees their parents are very important. Such was the relationship that the carers have with Z, Ms Barton thought he was a biological relative.

Ms Barton has considered M and F’s proposal and queried the reality of caring on a daily basis if C has been this dysregulated day after day and time after time. She described the parents as being a good team and being stable. She said C needs to be able to see them both as a source of safety. There are more risks to C in disrupting the fragile balance of his behaviour. This is a really significant point in C’s life. He is four years of age, and he has been with FC since he was 16 months old.

I found Ms Barton to be a helpful and balanced witness. She had approached this case from C’s perspective and from the position what is likely to be the day-to-day reality of caring for him and alongside K. She was clear what she sees the risks as being over the short medium and long-term.

Ms Gerrard is the social worker. She has filed two statements and exhibited recent updates about C’s health. She too takes the view that a transition is likely to be too unsettling and damaging to C and the likely cause deterioration in the progress he has made over the years. She sets out that C will go to a mainstream school and have access to universal services.

In her oral evidence, Ms Gerrard relies upon Miss Barton’s report, and also her own experiences. She said that C has waited a long time for permanence and to extend that by 6 to 12 months again, without a guarantee it would work, is risky. She has no doubt that the parents would try extremely hard to make the transition work. She is worried the parents had not seen C’s behaviour in its entirety. Ms Gerrard contrasted the identity and attachment issues C has compared to K she does not favour an SGO and explained why contact should be at the level recommended. She told the court that C still takes Melatonin but that she was not aware that he had been re-referred to the sleep clinic. She said that FC will not say that they have slept on his floor every time because they are so used to it and it is the norm for them. It is only in the past two or three visits that C has gone into the room with her or played with toys. He usually hides under a blanket.

Ms Gerrard’s evidence was brief but helpful. She added her own experience and observations to the detailed analysis of Ms Barton.

Simon Bullen is the guardian from these proceedings, as he was previously for both children. He has provided two analyses. He concludes that despite all the positive work undertaken by the parents, the risks of rehabilitation are too great. He reaches that view that it is likely that C’s needs are such that the parents will find caring for both children too great. It is likely that the situation for the family will deteriorate and that could undo all the excellent work they have done.

In his oral evidence, the Guardian’s view remained unchanged. He is confident that FC will support and maintain contact and therefore he agreed with the LA. He thinks that C needs a period of stability. He described the parents as having done phenomenally well with K. He has been in their care since birth and does not have significant needs. C is very different. He has been through a difficult period of life in multiple placements. That occurred because of what he went through at that time in his life. The Guardian thinks that is why we are seeing difficulties now. If there was to be rehabilitation, the Guardian said that C’s behaviour and his dysregulation would probably escalate. He is worried that would destabilise both children and could result in family breakdown. The risks are too great.

The Guardian said that C’s dysregulation is not limited to times after contact. It is ever present with an increase after contact sessions. He has “not got a sense from FC that they are emotionally motivated to “play a situation up”. He said children will often demonstrate more extreme behaviours with their primary carers. C is due to undertake a trauma assessment later this month. The Guardian agrees with Ms Barton about the risk of impact the return to the parents and said it is unlikely we will “get through the short term”. C has had a lot of placement moves and that is why “we look for stability for children”. He disagreed with Dr Timberlake and said the breakdown would be a catastrophe.

The Guardian told Ms Cooke that if there was to be a return and when C does become dysregulated, it would escalate. He does not think that the parents have enough of the required tools to manage at this time. He said they are better equipped than where they were two years ago. Whether they are as well-equipped as professional carers is difficult to say. He described C as being desperate for a period of significant stability. The Guardian is worried about a lengthy transition. He said that would amount to “a 180 in the care plan”. He said that a change of school is very different to a change of placement. He has considered sibling relationships.

I found the Guardian to be a balanced and direct witness. He was not shifted despite robust cross-examination. I accept his evidence.

Each counsel made focused and helpful submissions.

Mr Noble submitted that C is not suspended in time. As his parents have undertaken work, he has moved on in his life. They have done a fantastic job with K. Dr Timberlake confirmed his reports in oral evidence and did not step away from them. He has perhaps misunderstood the situation on the ground for C. These are not care proceedings. C sees FC as his emotional parents. A transition plan will involve significant delay. This is not a stage where we should be testing. Permanence is required so that C will grow up knowing who he is and that he is safe.

Mr Evans did not invite an adjournment for further assessment. Rather, he sought the implementation of a transition plan. He described Re N cases as vanishingly rare and reminded the court that the authorities are fact specific. The long-term benefits of rehabilitation outweigh the short-term consequences. It is not enough to say that C should remain with FC as he lives with them now. Nobody is saying that C does not have complex needs. Those needs and an EHCP will follow him. Meeting them is not beyond the capacity of the parents given their work and training. C has been dysregulated throughout placement. The question is whether the parents can parent C as FC have done. Dr Timberlake’s timescales are realistic. C requires only a modest medley of support services. Dr Timberlake did not consider that the parents would be overwhelmed. What additional benefit is there to C of becoming a permanent member of an adopted family?

Ms Cooke adopted the submissions made by Mr Evans. She submitted that the parents’ position is not fanciful and is founded upon actions taken that have resulted in K remaining in their care. The transition plan is a robust one with checks and balances. These are sensitive parents who are attuned to both children’s needs. Dr Timberlake does not consider that C’s needs preclude the parents from caring for him. They can care with appropriate support. The effect upon C of ceasing to be a member of the birth family cannot be underestimated.

Ms Howard fell in line with the LA’s submissions. She described Ms Barton’s evidence as powerful and balanced. C’s needs are a magnetic factor. The context of this case is the harm he suffered in the past. Dr Timberlake did not step away from his written evidence. C struggles with new environments. The Guardian, ISW and social worker all, separately and independently, present analyses as to whether the parents can meet C’s needs, not the needs of any child. Because of those needs, they cannot meet them. An SGO lasts only until a child’s 18^th birthday. The proposed quantum of post-adoption contact is the correct one. Flexibility is welcomed.

Although it is written in linear form through necessity, it is intended to be read as a whole. I may not refer to all the evidence, but I have read and considered it.

I echo what has been said by the professional witnesses about the work that the parents have done and the progress that they have made. In fact, when I read the earlier witness statements in previous proceedings they read as if from a different case. The parents must be commended not only for the work they have done but how they have applied such work to be able to provide such a good level of care for K that he is no longer subject to any intervention. They have even completed courses that FC have not yet undertaken. There seems to be little, if any, doubt that if C was any other child the outcome would be obvious. But he is not any other child. That is why this decision is so difficult and has required such a level and variety of professional evidence.

Much has been made in this case of C’s needs. Understandably so. I am assisted in that regard by the evidence of the witnesses from whom I have heard and the documentary evidence. The nursery report in February 2025 charts the progress that C has made since 2023 in a number of specific areas. By the spring of this year, he has shown remarkable advancement in his language development, personal development and physical development. There is a noticeable difference in C’s behaviour at nursery and with FC.

As of 27 February 2025, C was suffering from nightmares and distress at night. He was prescribed Melatonin. He remains involved with SALT. On the same date, Guy’s and St Thomas’s Hospital filed their letter. C’s disturbed sleep was noted to be suspected night terrors and nightmares, as well as sleep onset and maintenance difficulties likely to have stemmed from traumatic experiences during infancy. He was prescribed Melatonin and EMDR therapy was suggested to be adapted, and to be conducted alongside a close attachment figure (in this case FC). Improvements were noted in his sleep including the involvement of FC at night. What is clear from this report is the importance of the work that FC’s family have put in place. Dr Williams says that individuals who have experienced trauma typically “wax and wane”. They may be particularly sensitive to the impact of daily stressors such as illness or significant disturbance to routine. This has already been observed in C. He is likely to require support from his caregivers and medication going forward. A review would be needed to consider whether EMDR is necessary. C was discharged from the paediatric sleep medicine psychology service in July of this year. A review was kept open until October 2025. I am told that he will re-engage.

There is some dispute in this case about the extent of C’s needs, needs which follow from his behaviour. I am assisted by the notes of FC and Children’s Services. I shall mention only a sample. A supervision visit took place on 21 May 2025. The note records C’s distress at the end of contact in March when he bit female FC’s neck so hard he left a bruise. The earlier visit in March 2025 records C’s vulnerability due to his limited speech and learning delay, as well as the concern for him having to cope with the emotional impact of multiple losses should there be a change in plan for him. He will no longer be the youngest in the family and that his parents would have to mollify him when he dysregulates alongside meeting K’s needs.

FC’s logs date from 10 February 2025 and show some of the difficulties that they have had with C, particularly at night. Even when he goes to sleep relatively quickly, he can wake several times and then have a bad day the following day. The notes also show how the responsiveness of FC to C’s wish for them to be present has helped soothe his distress. There is little documented mention of what we know from other sources is happening, that FC sleep on the floor of C’s room. The notes also show C’s meltdowns following events that would otherwise be inconsequential. Changing his nappy is one such example, standing in contrast how the nursery has noted him being changed.

On 21 February 2025, C was very distressed despite there being no mention of any nocturnal disturbance. He would hit female FC and cry. He wanted cuddles. Even with a fun day out, he had a meltdown and hit female FC. After being cuddled tightly, he told her that he loved her. On 3 March, he had a meltdown after female FC confirmed that he will be going to school. A note from April 2025 sets out some of the difficulties following family time (contact). C wanted lots of cuddles or to be wrapped in a blanket. He lost his appetite. Bedtime was described as a nightmare with C needing to be settled throughout the night and having bad dreams, one of which was FC leaving him and “bad guys taking him”. These matters post-date the positive report from nursery.

I keep in mind that these notes are written by FC. The Guardian did not have a sense that they were in any way “played up”. Ms Gerrard’s view was that FC are likely not to have mentioned every issue with sleep, as an example, because that is their everyday reality. Counsel have quite understandably not put their cases on the basis any of these notes are exaggerated. I consider that they set out the daily and practical reality of parenting C.

C’s welfare throughout his life is my paramount consideration, and I must apply the extended welfare checklist. In summary, the principles are delay likely being prejudicial, ascertainable wishes and feelings, needs, likely effect throughout life of ceasing to be a member of the birth family and becoming an adopted person, age, sex, background and relevant characteristics, any harm suffered or at risk of suffering, the relationship the child has with relatives, prospective adopters and any other relevant person, the likelihood of that continuing and the value to the child, the ability and willingness to provide the child with a secure environment and the wishes and feelings of those persons.

A child’s welfare is best met by maintaining the connection to birth family in the fullest way possible and in this case, I have the option of doing that in the fullest way actually possible. The least interventionalist principle, Article 8 and proportionality must feature strongly in any decision I make. I can only reach the conclusion that a return to parents is unrealistic if it is not available as an option or because it would not meet C’s welfare needs. Such an option should not be rejected if identified defects could be remedied through appropriate and proportionate support, even in the long term. What is essentially a Re BS analysis of the options is required, and having done so, I must consider whether that outcome is proportionate. As Peter Jackson LJ has held, the test is best interests and not where the family’s case is realistic. A decision to discharge a placement order is as serious as a decision to make one in the first place.

Cases are fact specific. There are factual distinctions to be drawn between the few authorities on this issue including the case that faced me at first instance in the case that became Re N on appeal. That relates to the issue of delay. Nobody is suggesting any delay for further assessment or that the possibility of the parents caring for C is no more than a possibility. We are a step or perhaps several steps further on from that.

That said, there are principles and practical factors that still apply. Although the parents are as ready in themselves as they can be, a rehabilitation plan still involves an element of delay and of analysis (rather than assessment). It is different in that it essentially starts from the positive and considers how it is going rather than assessing whether the parents are capable of starting. C has been kept waiting for all the time he has been with FC. He has been prepared for adoption and had a goodbye contact. I must still consider the principle in Re H that says that a plan for remaining could only sensibly be sacrificed in favour of a plan for rehabilitation if the evidence showed that success could be predicted with a high degree of confidence. There is no “status quo” argument in this type of case. The fact that C has lived with FC for three years is plainly relevant, but it is not determinative.

I remind myself of some key and undisputed facts. The parents have completed excellent work and are far removed from where they were only two years ago. They continue to parent K to a high standard. C is placed for adoption. He has been with FC for nearly three years. He has not stood still in time.

All parties and witnesses agree that if rehabilitation is to be attempted then it must be a slow and steady process. I accept Dr Timberlake’s reasoning behind his view, which in my words, if you are going to do it don’t rush it. What that means is that it is likely to be somewhere between 6 and 12 months before we will know whether or not rehabilitation has worked or is working well enough to continue. Although it is not subject to further assessment, the very fact that it is a rehabilitation plan will mean that it is subject to LA oversight. Implicit within that is the ability, if not requirement, to keep things under review. As with any rehabilitation plan, there is the prospect that it may not succeed. There is therefore an element of delay in such a plan but not of the kind where courts are asked to consider further assessment before a plan can be formulated.

It is common ground that C does not require anything greater than universal support services. That is not to suggest that his difficulties are minor or that they should be underestimated. Whilst he does not require therapeutic input, he does require better than good enough parenting from therapeutically minded parents. It is also common ground that the parents have undertaken the requisite course to be able to do so. Perhaps unusually, birth parents have the advantage over prospective adopters in this regard. However, FC are professional carers who have been trained and approved by the LA. Their care of their older foster child Z is such that Ms Barton thought he was a blood relative. C has yet to have a trauma assessment.

In my judgment, C’s practical and day-to-day difficulties are significant and plain to see from the evidence before the court. What is also telling is the variety of those difficulties, how quickly they may arise and the level of input from those closest to him that C requires before he can be soothed or calmed. It is clear from the notes and from the assessments just how difficult parenting C actually is. That level of difficulty and challenge form the day-to-day reality facing experienced and professional carers to whom C is very attached and with whom C has neither a negative or traumatic history with or removal from. Z is significantly older than C, which means that he is the baby of FC’s family and that the type of care that an older child requires is likely to be very different to the type of care that a child younger than C would require.

Dr Timberlake’s written evidence remains insightful in this case. He set out significant concerns that remain at page p379. Many remain unaffected by his oral evidence. C has not lived in his birth family for several years, his understanding of his life story is limited, and he sees FC as his family. The prospect of leaving their care remains likely to trigger a profound sense of loss, confusion and trauma. Where Dr Timberlake’s oral evidence moves forward is in respect of the parents’ capacity to manage both children simultaneously. He said he had not seen evidence to suggest that with proper support they could not do so. He spoke, quite properly, from a psychological perspective. He has some confidence, considering his evidence in total, that C’s emotional and behavioural difficulties could improve and be meaningfully addressed with the right support. He says that the most promising mechanism for positive change is C’s capacity to deepen secure attachment relationships.

I accept the main part of Mr Noble’s submission in respect of Dr Timberlake’s evidence. He confirmed his reports and did not depart from them in his oral evidence. His addendum report was filed following his observations of C at the end of July 2025. Like the Guardian and Ms Barton, I disagree with Dr Timberlake’s view that a breakdown of rehabilitation would not be disastrous for C.

C is too young to express his wishes and feelings, perhaps more so than a typical four-year-old given his difficulties with speech and language. I accept that if he was able to be asked, C is likely to want to grow up within his birth family. At this moment in time, C’s primary attachment is to FC, and it is to them he turns to throughout the day and night. C is a boy and of the same gender as his full sibling K. His background is one of trauma, harm, separation and loss. He was removed from his birth family at a very crucial stage in any child’s development. The consequences of that are apparent from the evidence. C has lived with FC for nearly three years, where he has benefited from the care provided to him.

The likely effect on C of ceasing to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person is likely to be profound. Despite his difficulties, C said to have a basic understanding of having two families. He distinguishes them by reference to baby, in other words K. He would grow up not living with his birth parents but as important, if not more important, with his full sibling K. On any plan before the court, C would have direct contact with his birth family. He is likely to question his identity and role within the family. He may wonder why K is at home and he isn’t. He would also have to deal with separation of loss of carers who he thinks are his family. The second part of this aspect of the checklist looks at the likely effect on the child become an adopted person. For C that would mean remaining where he is and with carers with whom he is very familiar and strongly attached. He would remain the baby in the family and become formally and legally part of that family. FC would be able to draw upon support provided to adoptive families as well as their own professional training as foster carers.

A previous court has made care and placement orders. C has undoubtedly suffered significant harm and that harm continues to manifest itself even after three years with FC. The risk of harm now is very different. The parents have excelled in the work they have undertaken which means that the circumstances that led to care proceedings no longer exist. The risk to C now is emotional harm, whichever way this court decides. If I remove C from FC, it is likely to cause significant emotional harm in the short term if not longer. He would be removed from the family he identifies his own and in the circumstances of his ongoing difficulties with behaviour, emotions and attachment. Those difficulties are likely to exacerbate in the short term. The parents would have an older child prone to sleep problems, meltdowns and emotional difficulties. All this would be taking place alongside the parents having to care for K. As Ms Barton said, we would be banking on the difficulties remaining the same rather than getting worse. The latter is likely in her view.

If I approve a transition plan, it will be gradual and still have significant involvement from FC. C would be provided with an opportunity to reattach to his parents and develop a sibling bond with K. If I leave C in his current placement, he is less likely to suffer emotional harm in the short-term but is likely to suffer emotional harm in the longer term from being separated from his birth parents and full sibling. Careful and sensitive life story work can mitigate that, especially in circumstances where C would remain with carers to whom he has his attachment. C has an ongoing relationship with his parents and with K. Those are set out by Ms Barton in her assessment. Positively, whatever I decide, those relationships will continue. The decision is the extent to which they will continue. The value to C, either way, is considerable. He will either have ongoing contact which will contribute to his sense of identity and self or be returned to his birth family over a lengthy transition period and then permanently. If that happens, he will have contact with FC.

The willingness of the parents to care for C is beyond question, as is their ability to meet the majority of his needs. Sadly, considering C’s needs to be of the level, frequency and extent that they are, I am not satisfied that the parents will be able to meet them to such an extent that I can have the high level of confidence required to direct his return. As Ms Barton said, C already struggles with behaviour emotions and development even in a stable placement. Dr Williams says that sleep issues wax and wane. The Guardian described C’s dysregulation as “ever present but increasing after contact”. The notes show the reality of C’s daily life. Moving him will worsen these issues which already include sleep difficulties, relationship and behaviour regulation and hitting out. C has faced significant loss in caregiving relationships. Ms Barton and Dr Timberlake’s written evidence refer to C as having a fragile sense of who he is and who he can trust. C’s needs are complex. His existing behaviours are likely to continue. I must also consider the impact on K as part of the welfare checklist and the impact on the parents and their care of C at the same time as K. He has had a stable upbringing at home with the parents.

I must also consider whether appropriate and proportionate support could remedy the difficulties, even in the long term. I cannot see from the evidence that I have heard and read, even taking Dr Timberlake’s evidence at his highest, what support could alleviate the issues that the FC have faced for the last three years and still face today. I have no doubt that the parents will ask for support and use and learn from what they receive. History says so. What they will have to face is what the FC describe, and care for K as the baby in the family. I accept Ms Barton’s and the Guardian’s evidence.

I must balance the short term upset against the medium- and long-term benefits to C of being returned to his parents. C suffered loss and trauma in the early and crucial stages of his life and the effects of that are still present and effective on a daily basis. It is likely that further loss and separation will impact upon C beyond the short term. Life story work will undoubtedly assist but even the most careful plan for rehabilitation depends upon not only how C responds to further trauma, how the parents cope but upon everything going well.

Parliament purposefully allowed parents an opportunity to challenge the making of an adoption order after the making of a placement order, and one might ask, if not in this case, then when? But that is not the test.

I am left with a decision that I want to make and one that the evidence tells me I must make. Very much on balance, I am satisfied that it is in C’s best interests throughout his life to remain in the care of FC. That of itself does not mean that an adoption order must be granted. In the alternative, an SGO is suggested. That has the advantages of leaving C in a placement that I am satisfied is best for him. Legal ties with the birth family would not be severed. He would have contact with them within the protective factor of overarching parental responsibility being held by the FC. But an SGO is not lifelong, and C’s welfare is. It could be set aside in future. The FC do not want it. C is crying out for permanence and stability. He deserves nothing less.

I must step back and consider proportionality. Having reached the conclusion that C’s best interests throughout his life mean he should remain with FC, is an adoption order proportionate? I am satisfied that it is. No lesser order will suffice for C.

I must now consider post adoption contact. I have read what the FC say and the positive relationship the adults have. I am not satisfied that an order is necessary, but I must also consider setting the template. That there will be direct contact is not in dispute. I agree. The question is whether there should be two direct contacts with two (two-way) video contacts or four direct contacts. I consider that the LA’s position is the starting point for the template. After that, it must be left to FC and the parents to be flexible. The blunt instrument of an order, or further prescribed amount, will not assist FC in caring for C or the parents in caring for K. I am mindful of C’s current reaction after contact. Hopefully that will change as his sense of permanence grows. Therefore, contact should start with two direct contacts and two indirect contacts per year. The indirect contact will be instrumental in building C’s relationship with the parents in the post adoption context. All involved should have a mind to seeing if, or when, such contact could become direct. It may be that two/two becomes three/one.

That concludes my judgment.