Council and IRO criticised for three-year delay in making application for revocation of placement order

In Rotherham MBC v M & Ors [2025] EWFC 298 (B) (13 June 2025), HHJ Afzal granted the application for the placement order, made in 2020, to be revoked.

He said: “There has been a material change in C's circumstances that means that adoption is now unlikely. This includes C's adverse childhood experiences which now includes proven sexual abuse by his father, his behaviour and mental health. Extensive efforts were made to find an adoptive placement without success and the plan changed from adoption to long term foster care in […] 2022.”

The judge noted that the application for revocation was made nearly three years late. The Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) had recommended a change of care plan in January 2022, but this was not progressed.

He said that this led to the child (C) not knowing that he can remain with his current foster carers, and his therapy being delayed pending a decision.

Outlining the background to the case, the judge said: “[In] September 2020, C, along with his brother AR, was made the subject of Care and Placement Orders. Despite proper efforts, an adoptive placement could not be found for C and his brother together. A placement was found for AR, and he was placed with his adoptive family in November 2021.”

In January 2022, the IRO recommended that the local authority seek revocation of the placement order so that C's plan could be one of long-term foster care, and he could remain with his foster carers where he was settled and had been for over two years.

In May 2022, C's case was considered by the SOPBA Panel which concluded that adoption was no longer in his best interests, that the placement order should be revoked, and a plan of long term foster care should be in place.

The judge said: “Since that time, regular reviews were conducted by the IRO which repeatedly recommended that the revocation application needed to be made but no action was taken to progress this.”

At the first hearing of the application in April 2025, the judge was unwilling to finalise the case as requested by the local authority as:

“A. No notice had been given to C's father, who has parental responsibility and is an automatic party. The LA invited the Court to dispense with the requirement of notice on him but had made no application in this respect.

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

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

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

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

However at the final hearing, the above considerations had been addressed, and it was concluded that neither parent (F or M) needed to attend.

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

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

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

Finally, considering the revocation application, HHJ Afzal said: “The Court grants the application for the Placement Order....to be revoked. There has been a material change in C's circumstances that means that adoption is now unlikely. This includes C's adverse childhood experiences which now includes proven sexual abuse by his father, his behaviour and mental health. Extensive efforts were made to find an adoptive placement without success and the plan changed from adoption to long term foster care in […] 2022.

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

On the delayed application, the judge observed that whilst the delay was “unacceptable”, the impact on C was limited to the issue of him not knowing that he can remain with his current foster carers. However, this was still “significant”.

He said: “I accept that C has not questioned his placement, there has been no disruption to his plan for permanence, stability of care, support or other services, or the level of those services and his care needs have been met to a high standard. It is compelling that the plan remains for C to continue to be cared for by his current foster carers. However, for C not to know this was going to be the case for so many years is unacceptable, particularly when he was facing such significant challenges including the need to give evidence in respect of the abuse he had suffered, and his therapy being delayed pending this.”

The judge also invited the IRO to provide a statement and to attend the hearing to “explain why independently of the LA, the IRO did not take steps to refer this case to the Court when the LA failed to do so in accordance with the IRO's clear and repeated recommendations”.

He noted: “IROs have access to legal advice and can take steps to escalate matters and ultimately, albeit exceptionally, consider referring a case back to Court.”

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

HHJ Afzal meanwhile said the the failure to provide confirmation to C that he would remain in long term foster care, and with his current carers, was one that had caused him uncertainty "at such a delicate time in his life".

This needed to be further explored in case he is entitled to damages, he added.

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

Lottie Winson