Re B-A (Placement Order and Contact Order)

Hearing date: 4 March 2026

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 25 March 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Introduction

It is, regrettably, now over two years since the Appellant local authority (‘the Local Authority’) applied for care orders in the Family Court at Bromley under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 (‘CA 1989’) in respect of the four children of the family with whom we are concerned in this appeal.

The final hearing of those applications was conducted by HHJ Lazarus (‘the Judge’) in two phases: for fourteen days in June 2025 (leading to the first judgment – hereafter ‘[J1]’), and then for a further nine days in December 2025 (leading to the second judgment, ‘[J2]’). By the time of the final hearing, applications for placement orders in respect of the younger two children of the family had additionally been issued under Part 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (‘ACA 2002’). The consolidated applications concluded with a number of final orders being made relating to placement and contact on 18 December 2025; this marked the 94 ^th week of the proceedings.

It is against only one of the final orders, providing for limited face-to-face parental contact under section 26 ACA 2002 (a ‘section 26 order’) after placement for adoption, that the Local Authority, represented before us by Damian Woodward-Carlton KC and Sarah Barber, now appeal. Permission to appeal was granted by King LJ on 10 February 2026.

The subject children of the proceedings under the CA 1989 are: A (girl, aged 13), B (boy, aged 10 at the final hearing, now rising 11), C (boy, aged 3 at the final hearing, but now aged 4), and D (boy, aged 2, now rising 3). The appeal in fact directly concerns only the younger two children, C and D.

The children's mother is the First Respondent to this appeal (‘the mother’), but she is neither present on this appeal, nor is she represented. The father of A and B is the Second Respondent to this appeal, and is likewise neither present nor represented. The father of C and D is the Third Respondent to this appeal (for convenience, I shall refer to him as ‘the father’ in this judgment); he is the only respondent directly affected by the appeal and is represented on the appeal by Polly Allison and Nathan Baylis. They, together with their instructing solicitor, have given their legal services on this appeal pro bono, and we are particularly grateful to them for their assistance. The four children were represented in the proceedings in the Family Court by their Children's Guardian (‘the Guardian’); she is neither present nor represented before us having encountered difficulties in obtaining public funding for participation in this appeal.

The Local Authority urges us to conclude that the Judge erred in making a section 26 order in this case. It argues that we should discharge that order, and replace it with a recital (reflecting intentions to arrange post-placement contact) on the face of the order; Mr Woodward-Carlton has proposed a form of words for that recital which I have reproduced in full in the Schedule at the conclusion of these judgments. The father opposes the appeal. Of the unrepresented parties, we were informed in writing by the solicitor for the children that the Guardian supports the Local Authority's appeal, having opposed the making of a section 26 order for direct contact in the court below. None of the other respondents have communicated their positions to the Court. For the purposes of this appeal, we have been provided with a small number of the key documents filed for the final hearing.

For the reasons set out below, I would dismiss this appeal.

Background

It is unnecessary for me to rehearse the background history in any detail.

The care proceedings were launched on the back of increasing Local Authority concern about the mother's serious and complex mental ill-health, her neglect of the children, her emotional abuse of the children, and her generally chaotic life. The mother, “an intelligent and capable woman” ([J1][15]), suffers from complex post traumatic stress disorder – a legacy of multiple abusive experiences in her own childhood. She has also been diagnosed with ADHD and a borderline and/or emotionally unstable personality disorder; she has been depressed and suicidal, making an attempt on her life as recently as October 2024. Her relationship with the father of A and B was difficult and conflictual; private law proceedings between them concerning A and B were said to be “acrimonious”. The Local Authority had been involved in supporting the family for four years prior to the launch of the care proceedings.

The mother and father commenced their relationship in or about 2021. Their relationship was also volatile. The mother made a number of serious allegations of abuse against the father, although these were not pursued within the proceedings and no findings have been made.

The father, now aged 62, is a great deal older than the mother; he has a significant learning disability, functioning in the extremely low range of adult intellectual ability with some underlying developmental disorder. He is said to be a “very vulnerable” man, who cannot read or write. The Judge commented ([J1][108]) that “he comes across as extremely well meaning, a very pleasant personality… but his words and meanings were occasionally unclear, and this all fitted with the picture that I have gained of an extremely good-hearted somewhat compliant but cognitively challenged person, who loves his children very much” ([J1][109]). Later, the Judge reflected that: “his approach is loving, affectionate, caring and warm, and he is very proud of his children” ([J1][139]). Throughout the proceedings in the Family Court he was supported by an intermediary. The father has enjoyed regular contact with C and D, and all the reports of that contact are positive; he is said to regard them as his “pride and joy”.

In June 2025, the Judge made findings of fact which satisfied the section 31(2) CA 1989 ‘threshold criteria’ for the making of public law orders in respect of all four children, and at that stage ruled out the father as a long-term carer for C and D. The proceedings were then adjourned for further assessments of the mother and wider maternal family.

The Judge concluded the proceedings in December 2025 by making a care order in relation to A on the basis that she would remain in foster care; the Judge provided for B to live with his father under a supervision order. A care order and a placement order were made in relation to C and D, on the basis that they would be placed – ideally together – in an adoptive home. None of those orders is under appeal. The focus of the appeal is, as I have said, an order for limited contact between C and D and their father.

At the time of the final hearing, the four children were seeing each other on a fortnightly basis and they were seeing their parents (separately) twice per week. The final care plans (9 October 2025) referred to the promotion of sibling contact in the future, and the ambition of the authority to “seek to identify a placement [for C and D] which might support sibling contact” (emphasis added). Contact between the father and C and D was expressed thus: “should the adoptive parent(s) feel they can manage any potential ongoing associated risks from [the father's] association with mother, they may feel in a position to consider direct family time twice per year”. The care plan contemplated a farewell (‘wish you well’) visit between C and D and their father and (separately) their mother.

During the hearing, the Local Authority amended its care plan ([J2][127]), to reflect the possibility that separate placements may need to be found for the boys, and to express the Local Authority's evolving views about future parental contact for the younger boys. By the conclusion of the final hearing:

i) The parties all supported the continuation of sibling contact once all the children were in their permanent placements; there was professional consensus that this sibling contact should be reflected in a section 26 order;

ii) The Local Authority proposed (and the Guardian supported) the continuation of contact between the father and C and D following their placement for adoption; however the Local Authority and Guardian both opposed the making of a section 26 order. The father sought a section 26 order.

To complete the picture, the Judge recorded that the mother: “wisely and generously accepts that if placement orders are made that she would seek currently no order for contact because it might prejudice being able to find an appropriate placement for the boys together” ([J2][13]); there is no record of her view as to future contact between C and D and their father.

The Judgment and Final Order

The judgments delivered in June and December 2025 are both the work of considerable industry; they cover the factual and legal ground with care, and offer...