Re A (Children)
[2013] EWCA Civ 1611 · Court of Appeal
What happened: The judge considered adoption appropriate for two boys only if prospective adopters met specific requirements. Otherwise, she considered long-term fostering the better option. She attempted to build those requirements into the placement orders. The local authority challenged the restrictions, and the mother argued that the placement orders should fall if the safeguards could not stand.
What the court decided: The Court of Appeal held that the judge could not impose the proposed controls over the local authority’s choice of adopters. It also allowed the mother’s cross-appeal and set aside the placement orders: on the judge’s own findings, adoption had not been shown to be required without those conditions. Final care orders remained. A fresh placement application was possible if suitable adopters were identified.
Why it matters to adoptees: The case exposes an important distinction between describing a home that might meet a child’s needs and having a sufficient basis to authorise adoption. The children’s particular requirements could not be replaced by a general assumption about the benefits of adoption. It also shows the limits of judicial control over what happens after a placement order is made.
Review limitations recorded
No exhaustive later treatment review; see source and review limitations.
Limitations: Placement orders set aside; care orders continued. Court did not permanently exclude adoption. Contact powers are distinct from the impermissible conditions considered here.
Case details and sources
Adoptee involvement: Proceedings concerned a child or children. This summary does not attribute personal views to them beyond the published judgment.
Remedy sought: Placement orders set aside; final care orders retained.
Legal route: Local authority appeal and mother’s cross-appeal
Judgments in this case
- [2013] EWCA Civ 1611 · Court of Appeal · 2013 · Judgment
Sources checked
- Judgment source (opens in a new tab)
Paragraphs 29–45 · Judgment
Review scope: Judgment reproduction checked for conditions, cross-appeal, retained care orders and possible fresh application. No exhaustive later treatment review.
Human verification pending. Entry: CASE-NEW-044.