A, B and C (Children: Shortage of Adoptive Placements), Re

The decisions I make are about a little girl (A) who is 3 and a half years old. A has two older siblings, B aged 9 and C aged 8. Until September 2025 they had all lived at home with their parents, however on 17 September the court granted an interim care order and approved a plan for them to be placed in foster care. A, B and C are currently placed in separate placements. B and C are placed in different residential placements as their needs could not be met in foster care; A is in a foster care placement with K (foster carer).

The local authority seek approval of a plan of adoption for A; this plan is supported by the Children’s Guardian. The plan is opposed by the children’s parents. At the end of a 2 day final hearing I informed the parties that I could not approve a plan of adoption as being in A’s best interests and therefore the application for a Placement Order was refused. This judgment sets out my full reasons for reaching that decision.

During the 2 day final hearing I heard evidence from the social work manager, Ms Dumbleton and the Guardian, Ms Bishop. I also heard brief evidence from the manager of the local adoption agency (Adoption South East/ASE) Ms Archer.

In relation to C, his care plan was agreed by all parties at the Issues Resolution Hearing (IRH) on 6 March 2026. C has complex physical and emotional needs and is currently subject to a DOLs order which expires on 8 May. The parents accept that C has made progress in his residential placement and they are in agreement that he should remain there and continue to receive a high level of professional care and support. A Care Order was therefore made in respect of C at the IRH. However, C remains as a subject child in these proceedings as I deemed the parents to have made a s34 Children Act 1989 contact application, as they did not agree the care plan for family time with C. In addition, all parties were in agreement that in considering the adoption plan for A, I would need to consider whether orders pursuant to s26 Adoption and Children Act 2002 were necessary to preserve contact between A and her siblings.

In relation to B, the parents’ position at the IRH was that they wanted, and were able, to resume care of him (alongside A), however by the time of the final hearing the parents were accepting that they continue to struggle with their own issues and are not, at this time, able to meet B’s needs. The parents therefore do not oppose a final Care Order being made for B and the plan for him to remain in his current placement. The professionals consider that it may be in B’s best interests to move to a foster placement in the future, if a suitable placement can be located, and this will remain under review.

Turning to A, there is now agreement between the parties that the only realistic options for her future care are adoption or long-term foster care. Alongside their decision in relation to B, the parents were able to reflect and accept that they are not able to offer A the care she needs. As I said to the parents during the hearing, this decision on their part was not only realistic, but also showed that they have the capacity to think about what their children need and put their children’s needs above their own. This is immensely hard for any parent to do, but particularly when facing a potential plan of adoption. I have no doubt that this decision was driven by their love for all their children and their strong desire to help the children have brighter futures.

Threshold was resolved at the IRH on 6 March 2026 and I was satisfied the children had all suffered significant emotional harm and neglect because of the poor parenting provided to them. It is not necessary to set out the full details of threshold for the purpose of this judgment, however I can fairly the summarise the threshold findings as follows:

A has been in the care of her foster carer, K, since September 2025. A is described as thriving in her care. K has made clear that she is committed to caring for A throughout her childhood. K is a retired Teaching Assistant and has the skills and experience needed to provide A with excellent reparative care. K has kept a weekly log of A’s progress since being in her care which I have seen. This record is a testament to the care and commitment K has towards A. K is also committed to supporting A to transition to an adoptive placement were the court to determine this was in A’s best interests.

K is not currently matched and approved as a long-term foster care for A. The policy within this local authority is that no placement can be approved as long term, until a child has been there for 12 months. No evidence was presented to me that there any reasons or concerns that K would not be approved as a suitable long-term foster carer for A were she to remain in her care after 12 months.

The alternative placement would be an adoptive placement with, as of now, unidentified adopters. At my direction, information was filed from ASE as to the availability of adoptive placements for A, taking into consideration her age (3-4 years) and background (White British). The current figures are stark. There are no approved adopters in the local consortium waiting for a child with A’s profile. There are currently 6 single children with generally similar characteristics to A, subject to Placement Orders, waiting for family finding and 14 sibling groups. On Link Maker, which is a national database, there are 5 approved adoptive families who could be considered as carers for A. However, there are in the region of 250 children with generally similar characteristics to A, subject to Placement Orders, already waiting for family finding on Link Maker. There are some external adoptive agencies who may have additional suitable adopters who are not on Link Maker, but the details of these are not know to me. It was not suggested to me that these figures would be extensive.

The point was made, and it is important to recognise, that matching a child to an adoptive family is not a case of waiting until the child gets to the front of the queue. Therefore, the fact there are vastly more children waiting to be adopted, than approved adopters, does not in and of itself render the prospect of finding a suitable placement for A so unlikely as to rule it out as a realistic option for the court to consider. In recognition of the challenges of finding a suitable placement for A the local authority plan is now to limit any search to 9 months, after which the plan would revert to one of long-term foster care.

A sibling assessment was undertaken by the local authority and filed in January 2026. The main conclusions are as follows:

The sibling assessment recommended joint therapeutic work to help the siblings process shared trauma and strengthen healthy relational patterns. However, this was not arranged following the report being filed in January and did not form part of any of the children’s final care plans. I asked Ms Dumbleton about this, as she had signed off both the sibling assessment and the care plans. She acknowledged that this work had not taken place and explained it may have been missed due to a change in social worker for the children.

I queried how this need, which had been identified by the local authority, and not yet addressed, was consistent with a plan of adoption for A. Ms Dumbleton accepted that whilst a referral could now be made for this work, engaging the three siblings in joint therapeutic work to strengthen their relationships, was not consistent with a plan for A to be removed from her family and adopted. Ms Dumbleton suggested that this recommendation should not have made its way into the final sibling assessment as the care plan was one of adoption. However, this was a need identified by the assessing social worker. In my judgment to remove this assessed need from a report because the plan was one of adoption, would have been the care plans informing the children’s needs rather than their needs informing the care plans.

At the start of the final hearing the local authority plan was to search for a suitable adoptive placement for A for a period of 12 months. By the end of the evidence the local authority had reflected and amended their plan to search for an adoptive placement for 9 months. This was in response to the evidence of Ms Archer, ASE team manager, which acknowledged that A turns 4 in early Autumn 2026. In 9 months time (January 2027) A, and her carers, will need to know where she will be attending school for Reception and therefore any search may be better to be time limited to ensure she knows this by Spring 2027. This would enable A, alongside her peers at nursery, to start introductory visits to her school and getting to know her teachers.

In relation to contact, A’s final care plan states: The Local Authority will be seeking adopters who are open to annual direct contact with parents and twice yearly letterbox contact alongside being committed to sibling contact. In relation to contact with A’s parents and siblings, Ms Dumbleton’s evidence was that the adoption team would be tasked with searching for adopters who are committed to maintaining face to face sibling contact twice each year and open to face to face contact between A and her parents once each year. The adopters would also be expected to be willing to provide yearly updates to A’s birth family about her progress and receive updates from the family in response. When asked about the purpose of ongoing sibling contact Ms Dumbleton’s evidence was that it was to support A to understand ‘where she comes from’. The local authority do not support a s26 order in respect of sibling or parental contact with A post any Placement Order.

Ms Archer gave evidence about the feasibility of finding a suitable adoptive family for A and the impact of a s26 order in respect of contact. Ms Archer confirmed the current shortage of approved adopters, both in ASE and nationally. She was clear that adopters are now trained to be ‘open’ to post adoption contact with birth families and any prospective adopters who are ‘closed’ to the idea of maintaining these links would be unlikely to be approved as adopters. Ms Archer confirmed that any adopters for A would be supported to meet the parents and the key-workers for B and C as part of the planning towards ongoing contact. In relation to a s26 order, Ms Archer’s view was that any legal orders would be a ‘hinderance’ and would ‘narrow the pool’ of prospective adopters for A and reduce the ability of the adoption team to find the best family for A.

I asked Ms Archer about the process of widening the search for an adoptive family for A outside of ASE. Ms Archer explained that ASE would not just consider the current approved adopters who could be matched to A (which there are none), but also at those coming through the approval process. I had been previously been told that there are 14 potential adopters undergoing training in ASE, but these carers are at stage 1 in the process and there is no guarantee that they will progress to stage 2 or be a suitable match for A. I am unclear whether this figure equates to 14 separate adoptive placements, or 14 individuals, some are whom are presumably partners. Ms Archer explained that once satisfied there are no viable matches within ASE there would be ‘conversations’ at service manager level, to consider a wider search, but this may be impacted by the need to maintain sibling contact, given the location of A’s siblings in the South East.

Whilst both the social work team and the Guardian promote a plan of adoption as being in A’s best interests, there was a difference in the professional views of Ms Dumbleton and Ms Bishop as to how such a plan would be explained to A.

Ms Dumbleton’s evidence was that, were the court to approve a plan of adoption, A would be told about this plan in a child appropriate way. I queried the impact this would have on A, given the wealth of evidence that that she is disturbed by change and can become dysregulated when unsettled. A is also described as hypervigilant and watching K and needing a high level of reassurance about K’s presence and returning to K’s care (such as after nursery or contact time). Ms Dumbleton expressed the view that the social work team would seek advice as to how to work with A, to explain the search for a new adoptive family for her, and stressed the need to work honestly with children about their care plans. Ms Dumbleton acknowledged the emotional uncertainty this would cause A, but felt confident that the social work team would ‘make it work ok for A’.

It was clear to me that Ms Dumbleton was struggling to articulate how they would ‘make it ok’. This is not a criticism of Ms Dumbleton, who I accept is a highly experienced and child focused professional, and I accept that any plan to undertake life story or planning work with a child of A’s age must be flexible and is often dictated and led by the child’s responses. In A’s Child Permanence Report it states: If ADM approval for adoption is agreed for A, then she will be supported with a Transition Book, a narrative on the court process, and life story work. A further consultation will also be held with our Partners in Change team lead practitioners to advise on supporting A with understanding the court and adoption process whilst ascertaining her wishes, views, and feelings, in an age-appropriate way. However, A’s final care plan is entirely silent on this complex issue.

In my judgment the fundamental difficulty of supporting A to continue to make progress in her current placement, whilst informing her of a plan to move to a new family, was highlighted by the different stance taken by the Guardian, Ms Bishop, who is also a highly experienced professional, skilled at advising the court about the impact of actions and decisions on children. Whilst this issue had not been addressed in her final analysis, in her oral evidence Ms Bishop expressed a different view to Ms Dumbleton, which was that A should not be told of any proposed move from K’s care unless and until an adoptive match was made for her. Whilst Ms Bishop agreed that life story work should be done with A about not returning to her parents’ care, and not living with B and C, her view was that any work about a potential move from K, which might never happen, would cause her unnecessary uncertainty and impact on her emotional wellbeing. Ms Bishop described the potential impact on A as ‘damaging’ were she to be informed about a future move that did not come to fruition.

In contrast to Ms Dumbleton, Ms Bishop’s view was that A needed to be able to get on with her day to day life as a 3 year old, enjoying nursery and the care provided by K, rather than focusing on what her future might entail. When asked about B and C and the impact on them of the court’s decision in relation to A, Ms Bishop advised that the older siblings would be upset and unsettled were they informed about a plan for A to be adopted. Whilst both professionals acknowledged in their oral evidence that this would cause emotional uncertainty for all 3 children, this complex matter had not previously been grappled with in the children’s care plans or the Guardian’s analysis. Neither Ms Bishop nor Ms Dumbleton were able to assist me to understand the support that B and C will need, and receive, to help them understand a decision that A might move from K’s care in the future after which their relationship with her would be restricted and limited, other than a general reference to life story work and social work support.

The recent Supreme Court case of X and Y (Children: Adoption Order: Setting Aside)

In the case of Re D-D (A Child: Adoption or Fostering) [2024] EWCA Civ 948 Peter Jackson LJ confirmed the following relevant legal principles:

The Court of Appeal gave further guidance about the different considerations that apply to long term fostering and adoption in V (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 913:

In Re T (placement order) [2008] EWCA Civ 248, [2008] 1 FLR 1721 it was clarified that uncertainty about the prospects of finding a suitable adoptive placement does not in itself rule out the making of a placement order if adoption is needed to ensure the child’s welfare needs are met.

There has been a succession of judgments in the last few years highlighting the changing nature of adoption and the move towards more open adoptions with ongoing links between an adopted child and their birth family. In the case of R and C (Adoption or Fostering) [2024] EWCA Civ 1302, Baker LJ in the Court of Appeal summarised this as follows: Unlike newborn infants, older children placed for adoption have experiences, memories and relationships arising out of living within their birth families. They need the security and permanency which adoption provides. But in many cases they also need to sustain their relationships with some members of their birth families. All adopted children need to develop an understanding of their background and identity. For infants, that can often be achieved through life story work and letter box contact. But for older children, sustaining their sense of identity will in many cases be best achieved by continuing direct contact with members of their birth family.

In relation to the sibling relationship in the context of a plan of adoption, the Court of Appeal in Re S (Placement Order Contact) [2025] EWCA Civ 823, stressed that the welfare provisions in ACA 2002, s 1 apply in full to any decision concerning contact made under ACA 2002, ss 26 and 27. Thus, although the period of time covered by a s 26 contact order is limited to that between the making of a placement for adoption order and the child’s subsequent adoption, the lens through which issue of contact is to be determined is the life-long welfare of the child, including the impact on the child of ceasing to be a member of their birth family and the relationship that the child has with relatives [ACA 2002, s 1(4)(c) and (f)].

In this judgment the President of the Family Division identified the three key authorities on contact at the placement order stage and highlighted what is to be taken from them for application to future cases. These cases are Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535, Re D-S (A Child: Adoption or Fostering) [2024] EWCA Civ 948 and Re R (Children) [2024] EWCA Civ 1302. The President emphasised that each case will fall to be determined on its own facts and there is a distinction to be drawn between those cases where continuing direct sibling contact is considered to be necessary for the child’s future welfare, and cases where the achievement of an adoptive home is the overarching goal, with future sibling contact being desirable as opposed to a pre requisite. In the former circumstances (as in Re P and Re R) the court has ‘a responsibility’ to make a s 26 contact order.

My analysis of the relevant matters in the welfare checklists in The Children Act 1989 and The Adoption and Children Act 2002, in light of the realistic placement options for A is as follows.

Wishes and Feelings

In light of her age, A has not been asked her wishes about her future placement. In my judgment it is likely, at her young age, that A would care less about the legal nature of her placement and more about whether she feels loved, wanted and safe in the care of her primary carer and supported to have relationships with the people who are important to her. I acknowledge, however, that this may change as she matures, and like many young people, she may find a childhood ‘in care’ to be burdensome and stigmatising.

I am satisfied that A feels a sense of belonging to her family. She knows her parents as her mummy and daddy and know B and C as her siblings. Both Ms Dumbleton and Ms Bishop acknowledged in their oral evidence that A has an identity as part of her family; this is to be expected given her life experience of living within her family until she was 3 years old and maintaining regular contact with them since she has been in foster care. In my judgment A is likely to feel confused about being asked to become part of a new family, when she already has an identity in her family. Were A to be adopted she would be the only child of this family who does not remain legally, emotionally and psychologically part of their family.

Reference was made in the written and oral evidence to A having a ‘secure attachment’ to K. There has been no formal assessment of A’s attachments and, as I said during the hearing, I would find it unlikely that A has developed a secure attachment to K, having been in her care for only 7 months and coming from a background of emotional neglect. I do however accept that A has been highly responsive to the care provided by K and am satisfied that A currently feels safe and loved in the care of K; she is described as thriving in her care. These are positive indicators that A will be able to form a secure attachment to her long term carer, if they are able to provide her with the consistency and stability she needs.

I consider it likely that A will feel upset, scared and confused were she to be told that she might have to leave K’s care and move to a new family. Any period between A being told of a potential move, and the move to such carers, would leave A in a period of emotional limbo, which in my judgment is likely to leave her highly anxious and potentially see a regression in the progress A has made in K’s care and being able to settle and learn at nursery. As set out above there is professional disagreement and a high level of uncertainty as to what A would be told and how she would be supported in this time of emotional confusion for A and her siblings.

A’s future needs are driven by the trauma and neglect she experienced in the care of her parents. As set out in the sibling assessment A is a highly attachment-driven child, whose presentation strongly reflects early neglect, inconsistent caregiving, and exposure to chaotic environments. Since entering foster care, her learning and progress have rapidly developed, but there have also been ongoing vulnerabilities around attachment seeking, emotional regulation, boundary pushing, and some struggles with socialising with new children her age.

As she cannot live with her parents, A needs stability and security from her primary carers. Given a consensus has been reached that A cannot return to the care of her family, A needs to know who will be her primary carer as soon as possible. In my judgment delay to meeting that need will be harmful to A and impact on her ability to settle with her carer and in nursery and relax and enjoy the time she spends with her family. She needs carers who understand her experience of being neglected and feelings of being unsafe and insecure about what response she would receive from her parents. K has been able to provide A with consistent, nurturing and emotionally available care [Ref: Sibling Assessment] which has assisted A to feel safe to enjoy her time at nursery and contact, in the knowledge that K will collect her and she will return to K’s home which she now views to be her home.

A has a need to maintain a relationship with her siblings and parents and her primary carer must be able to support this need as she grows up. The sibling assessment recognises an important sibling bond which is emotionally important to all three children and forms part of their shared identity and recommends regular and meaningful sibling contact. In my judgment this identified need is not addressed in the plan for sibling contact twice per year, together with some additional letter contact. I agree with Ms Dumbleton that contact at this level, may ensure A, B and C hold each other ‘in mind’ and maintain a link as they grow up, but that is wholly different to contact that maintains emotional continuity, which the sibling assessment concluded was necessary.

As identified earlier in this judgment the sibling assessment identified a need for therapeutic work between the three siblings to address their shared trauma and support their sibling relationships. This need has not been addressed by the local authority. Were I to approve a plan of adoption for A, this therapeutic work would not take place for A. Were all three children to remain in the care of the local authority this identified need could be sourced and I would expect this to form part of all three children’s care plans.

Whatever her future placement, A will likely need therapeutic support to understand her past experiences and the reasons she could not remain with her parents and siblings. A has a family history of neurodivergent conditions, including ADHD, Autism, learning needs and mental health challenges. A’s carers will need to be aware of the possibility that A may have a disposition to these challenges and be willing to take professional support to assist A as she grows up.

To remove A from her birth family and place her with an adoptive family would turn her life upside down. Such a placement would involve the following changes: loss of current relationship with K and K’s family, loss of current nursery, loss of current home A see as ‘her home’, loss of legal and psychological relationship with B and C and their parents (in the sense of belonging to the same family), loss of regular and meaningful sibling contact, loss of regular contact with her parents.

In my judgment these are significant losses for A who has already experienced trauma and neglect. I do accept, as the local authority and Guardian submit, that adoption can provide a positive psychological sense of permanency and security to children, who like A, crave certainty and stability. I also acknowledge the considerable benefit of adoption in terms of being a lifelong commitment, which does not end with childhood. However, in my judgment this must be set against all the losses and uncertainty A would experience were I to approve a plan to search for an adoptive placement.

A’s relationships with B and C are key to my decision as to which plan is in her best interests. No party sought to challenge the conclusions of the sibling assessment; it was open to the Guardian to do so in the knowledge that she supports the plan of adoption and therefore the legal and psychological separation of A from B and C. The conclusion of that assessment is clear that whilst the siblings cannot live together due to their competing needs, their relationship and the bonds between them are important to each of them and should be nourished and maintained.

A’s relationship with her parents is, in my judgment, less important to her as a 3 year old. A is a child who has suffered neglect and trauma, she is likely to view her parents with uncertainty and anxiety. A currently views K as her primary carer and whilst she enjoys time playing with her parents, and knows them as her mummy and daddy, their role in her current and future life is less significant. I am also conscious that whilst the parents have been able to be child focused in their decision making, they remain vulnerable to the instability that flows from their addictions and the mother’s poor mental health. Whilst I accept they are currently committed to regular contact with all three children, their ability to sustain that and maintain relationships with the children as they grow up will likely depend on their ability to seek appropriate support for their vulnerabilities.

At 3 years old, A is described as a sociable, bright, and active little girl, with a helpful and cheeky personality. She presents as a curious child, vigilant about the world and the people around her. I have read that A loves to make people laugh and to be a source of entertainment, but she can also present as strong willed and can try to push the boundaries to see what she can achieve.

As well as her sibling relationships with B and C, A also has older adult half siblings. A lived with her older half sister for some years; although she has not seen her for the last year. As far as I am aware A had no relationship with her other half sibling. In my judgment it is unlikely that A has any meaningful relationship with these adult siblings at this time in her life, however she may want to develop these links as she gets older.

The threshold findings set out the harm A, B and C experienced in the care of their parents. The Guardian asserted that A will suffer further harm if her current stability is impacted by being told about a plan for her to move from K’s care. B and C will also suffer emotional harm and instability upon being told that A will be move to new carer and become part of a new family. In my judgment this loss will be most keenly and immediately felt by B who has a close and loving relationship with A and, it strikes me, a greater capacity to understand the impact on himself and A of such a move. However, as all 3 siblings grow up they will likely feel a real sense of sadness and loss if their sibling relationships are severed and reduced to contact taking place a few times each year. In my judgment the loss of these relationships, which have been assessed to be important to each of A, B and C, will cause each of the children emotional harm and loss throughout their lives.

The local authority and Guardian rely on the lack of permanence that comes with a placement in long term foster care as causing potential emotional harm to A from future placement changes, as well as the stigma of growing up as a child in care and the ongoing social work visits and meetings impacting on A’s childhood.

The parents accept that they are not in a position to meet A’s needs. It is however important to stress that they support A’s placement with K. They have met K and consider her to be an excellent carer for A. They are similarly supportive of B and C’s current placements. Despite the challenges and vulnerabilities the parents have, their ability to recognise the high level of care their children are currently receiving and provide emotional support to the children to feel safe and settled in those placements will, in my judgment, enhance the children’s ability to accept the decisions that they are not returning home to their parents’ care.

I consider it likely that the parents’ positive of view of K will likely continue, were A to remain in her care long-term. In my judgment this acceptance and support will provide A with psychological permission to accept K as her primary carer and deepen her sense of security and belonging with K and K’s family.

K has expressed a wish to care for A long term as her foster carer; she is not willing to be assessed as K’s Special Guardian. I do not know the reasons for this and will not speculate. However, the local authority accept that K is committed to A and has the skills need to provide her with reparative care. K herself has expressed to the Guardian that she is ‘just a grandmother on a council estate’ and understands that A may have more advantages if she were placed with an adoptive family. I have taken this comment in the spirit I am sure it was intended: K wanting the best for A as a child she loves and cares deeply about. However, I want to stress that being a on a council estate is what makes K ideally equipped to understand A’s background, and her experience as a TA and as an experienced mother and grandmother have given her the patience and child focused parenting skills that A needs.

There is of course, the possibility that K will not be approved as a long-term carer for A. However, on the current evidence I am satisfied that this is unlikely. I stress that age is not a factor, as despite being a grandmother K is in her early 50s and therefore able to foster A throughout her childhood. Were the approved plan to be one of long-term foster care, I am confident that the social work team would focus on securing placement with K as a long-term match for A.

In relation to placement breakdown in foster care, Ms Dumbleton and Ms Bishop rightly highlighted the harm A would suffer if she had to move placements in the future. I accept this would be harmful to A and no foster care placement comes with guarantees of long-term security. All those working in the Family Court are aware of the shortage of foster care placements, which can impact on the stability of long-term placements as children are sometimes shuffled around to find space for others or to enable foster carers to retire or take on other roles. However, there are no current indicators that A’s placement with K is vulnerable to breakdown. As I have set out above the fact that A’s family positively support and endorse K’s care of A, removes the fear of family interference and undermining which can lead to placement breakdown. Moreover, it is not just K, but also her wider family who have been accepting and supportive of A and expressed a commitment to her remaining in their family long term.

Were I to make a Placement Order for A, the process of matching would ensure that the adopter(s) were assessed as being able to provide A with the therapeutic parenting she needs and willing to promote ongoing relationships between A and her birth family. However, adoptive placements also experience disruption and breakdown, particularly when a child finds it difficult to adjust to being part of a new family and retains a sense of loss and longing for their birth family and also for their carers from whose care they transitioned to an adoptive placement.

Within the local authority planning for ongoing contact post adoption, there is no recognition of the complex situation of B and C remaining in their placements and having regular contact with their parents. The current plan is for their contact to take place once each month and to be kept under review to see if a reduction to alternate months is in B and C’s best interests.

In my experience adopters are often willing and able to support post adoption sibling contact between siblings in separate adoptive placements or, less often, when siblings remain in long term foster care. Adopters are often cautious about direct contact with siblings who remain in regular direct contact with their parents; particularly when the adopted child has no or limited contact with their birth parents. This is understandable given the disruption and confusion this could cause to an adoptive child. If post adoption contact were to take place between A, B and C it would be natural for them to discuss their parents as they grow up. In my judgment it will be emotionally difficult for A to comprehend why B and C see their parents regularly (up to 12 times per year) and she has a very limited relationship with them. This has the potential to destabilise any adoptive placement and/or the feasibility of direct contact post adoption. There is a considerable risk that these difficulties will render post adoption contact either too difficult or deemed not to be in A’s interests as she grows up, despite what I accept may be the good intentions of any adopters and the Adoption Agency when A is placed.

All parties are agreed that I should make Care Orders for A, however I can only do so if satisfied the care plan is in her best interests throughout her life. It is now agreed that B’s interests are best met by the making of a Care Order and him remaining in his residential placement unless and until he can transition to a suitable foster carer.

Were I to approve the plan of adoption, I need to consider making orders pursuant to s.26 Adoption and Children Act 2002 to regulate contact between A and B and C and her parents until such time as an Adoption Order is made. Such an order would place an obligation on the local authority to ensure contact take places as such frequency as I deem to be in A’s best interests. The Guardian supports the making of a s26 order providing for face-to-face contact between A and B and C to take place twice each year and once each year with her parents.

Despite the guidance from the Court of Appeal that a court should make such an order if satisfied the child’s need for ongoing contact requires the security of an order, I am conscious of the views and experience of Ms Archer, as set out at para 17 above, that such an order would be a ‘hinderance’ to finding a suitable placement for A, in what is an already a minimal pool of adopters.

Having considered all aspects of the Welfare Checklists and reminding myself that A’s individual welfare is my paramount concern for the orders that relate to her, and any orders I make must be both necessary and proportionate, I have drawn the following conclusions.

A plan of adoption would offer A significant advantages in terms of stability and security, if it could be achieved. A is likely to benefit from the sense of belonging that comes from being a child loved and wanted by her adoptive family. However, in light of the current paucity of suitable adopters for A, there remains a significant likelihood that adoption is not achievable within the next 9 months; the time the local authority now deem to be a reasonable search period. Given it is accepted that adoption remains a realistic option for A, I have carefully considered the relevance of the shortage of adoptive placements.

In my judgment it is relevant in two main respects. The first relates to the emotional impact on A of approving a plan of adoption which might never come to fruition. I have no power to dictate to the local authority how A’s social worker should explain the court’s decision to her and when this should take place. Ms Dumbleton, who manages the team, was clear that it is best for A to be told of the search for a new family and for her to be emotionally supported to manage this uncertainty. To be clear I am not endorsing the Guardian’s alternative view, of not telling A, as being in A’s best interests. Both professional views are reasonable, but neither provides A with the certainty she needs. This divergence of views, from two experienced professionals, emphasises how complex this issue is. I agree with submission of Mr Stringer, that approval of a plan of adoption, in the knowledge as to the lack of available placements for A, requires A to carry all that uncertainty and thereby causes further harm to her emotional stability and development, with limited likelihood of achieving permanence through adoption.

In my judgment the plan of adoption presented by the local authority and Guardian as being in A’s best interests, is not consistent with her need to achieve stability, to know where she will be living and adjust to changes in her relationship with her parents and B and C as soon as possible. In contrast, approval of a plan for A to remain in long term foster care would enable A to be told that she will not be returning to live with her parents and will stay with K. Whilst I accept that A cannot be told that this will be ‘forever’ unless and until K is approved as her long-term carer; in my judgment knowing that she will continue to live with K, attend her nursery and see her family and K’s family will provide A with a greater sense of the stability she urgently needs.

The second matter which, in my judgment, flows from the limited pool of suitable adopters for A, relates to maintaining her relationship with B and C. Ms Archer’s experience is that a s26 order would further limit the pool of available adopters for A. This is despite the clear guidance from the President and the Court of Appeal about the ‘New Approach’ to post adoption relationships, the training given to adopters and the expectation that meaningful relationships will be maintained throughout a child’s life. It is an obvious point, but one worth making, that if the adoption team are already searching for adopters for A within a very limited pool, reducing that even further by dictating a level of contact which I deem to be in A’s best interests, may render adoption unachievable for A.

Further, the proposed plan of adoption, with face to face sibling contact twice each year, is not consistent with A’s assessed need to maintain a relationship with B and C. I agree with Ms Dumbleton that contact at this level will maintain a link between the siblings, but in my judgment this is vastly different from the meaningful relationship assessed as necessary for all of the sibling group. I am conscious that I have the power to set contact at a higher level, were I to determine that this would achieve the right balance between A’s need for permanence through adoption and her need to maintain a relationship with B and C. However, in my judgment this would further impact on the achievability of a plan of adoption for A, for all the reasons I have set out above. I have found it impossible to find a level of post adoption contact that would meet A’s needs to maintain a true meaningful relationship with B and C, whilst not rendering a plan of adoption unachievable for A. Ultimately that has led me to the conclusion, that faced with the evidence before me, these two needs are not reconcilable.

As submitted by all parties, this is a complex and difficult analysis; my decision is very finely balanced. However, taking A’s welfare throughout her life, as my primary concern, I am not satisfied that adoption is the plan that best promotes her needs. In contrast a plan of long-term foster care meets her need for an ongoing and meaningful relationship with B and C and avoids the uncertainty, delay and additional harm that stems from approving a plan of adoption.

In my judgment a plan of adoption creates too much uncertainty and instability for A, who has already experienced trauma and needs stability and security. To expect her to potentially wait in limbo for many months, and then move, settle and thrive in adoptive placement, ignores the reality of her life as a 3 and half year old child who is embedded in her family and has clearly expressed through her response that she feels loved and safe with K.

Whilst growing up as child in foster care has significant disadvantages for A, as articulated above, it will enable A to have a blended life; a life of being loved, safe and cared for by her carers, but grow up knowing and seeing her birth family, particularly B and C with whom she is emotionally entwined. Whilst I am clear that remaining with K is the best plan for A, my decision that A should not be placed for adoption, is not dependent on K being approved as her long-term carer, as I acknowledge this cannot be guaranteed at this point. In the unfortunate event that A does need to move from K’s care at some point in the future, it is my judgment that maintaining proper relationships with her siblings and having the ongoing love and support from her parents, will support her to make this transition and settle in the care of any future foster care placement.

In light of my decision, I invite the local authority to amend their care plan for A to one of long-term foster care and I would make a Care Order for A on that basis. I confirm the Care Order for B, subject to my observations below in relation to B’s care plan.

I invite the local authority to amend all the children’s final care plans to include a commitment to the therapeutic sibling work identified as necessary in the sibling assessment. I am satisfied that the care plans for sibling contact to take place every 6 weeks supported by workers from B and C’s placements and K is appropriate and child focused.

In relation to parental contact with A, B and C I understand there is now agreement that this will reduce to monthly and be reviewed after 3 months to consider whether this level is appropriate or further reduction is required in the children’s interests. I am content to approve this plan and therefore an order under s34 Children Act is not necessary.

Following the distribution of this judgment, the local authority have filed updated final care plans providing for A to remain in long term foster care with K and included a commitment to the therapeutic sibling work in all the children’s updated care plans.

I have therefore made final care orders for A and B on those updated care plans.