I have recently represented two sets of foster carers in adoption applications that were opposed by the Local Authority.
The first is unreported but the central issue was whether a young child, placed with the foster carers at birth, should remain with the foster carers or be moved to other adopters who had already adopted a half-sibling. Both sets of prospective adopters were positively assessed, and all the professionals agreed it was a finely balanced decision. The Judge decided in favour of the child growing up with their half-sibling.
The second was J, K and L (Application for Non-Agency Adoptions) [2025] EWFC 157 (B); an application by foster carers to adopt three children who had been in their care for five years with a plan for adoption. In the Judgment the foster carers are referred to as prospective adopters (PA1 and PA2). The foster carers were represented by Matthew Brookes-Baker from Harcourt Chambers in court.
Over the years concerns were raised about the carers’ behaviour management in relation to the children. After multiple investigations and delays, the local authority ultimately supported long-term fostering over adoption, citing stability concerns. During the proceedings allegations were made that led to the children’s removal, without notice.
By the time of the final hearing the local authority and guardian opposed adoption, seeking revocation of the placement orders. The birth parents also opposed adoption orders being granted. The children wanted to return to the foster carers.
The court accepted that the foster carers loved the children and were committed to them, but concerns remained about their ability to parent therapeutically, reflect on issues raised, and adapt to meet the children’s complex emotional and behavioural needs.
Ultimately the court refused to make adoption orders. The Judge felt that adoption by the foster carers would offer love, stability, and lifelong family ties, but it also posed risks due to unmet therapeutic needs, reduced professional support and severed birth family links. The court found long-term foster care better met the children’s complex needs.
One interesting aspect of this case was that the LA and court felt that the children would be entitled to more support as fostered children and that as adopted children they were more vulnerable. The LA referred to this support as “a high level of intervention and support from the state throughout their minority” and the Judge referred to adoption meaning that it “risks them losing the targeted and intensive multi-agency support that professional assessments over the years have clearly identified they need”.
She went on to say:
“The high level of support that the children and carers have received would not continue at the same level if the children were to be adopted. PA1 in particular has been a powerful advocate for the children, and could be counted on to continue to advocate for the children to receive support around their educational, developmental, social and health needs. However, they would not have the level of support that is provided on an ongoing basis as part of the implementation of a care plan. They would not have regular visits from a social worker, certainly not at the frequency that Mr E has been visiting. PA2 and PA1 would no longer have a fostering supervising social worker to discuss and reflect on situations with as they arose. They would not have the benefit of CAMHS for children in care.”
That was not the only reason the adoption orders were not granted but I find it very concerning that our courts are accepting that the support needed by children who have experienced trauma and changes of placement might not be accessible by adopters. Surely as a general rule children should not lose support by being adopted?
Many adopters access CAMHS for their children and have the benefit of post-adoption support from local authorities or their own adoption agencies. Many also advocate for their children in their education setting throughout their minority, and access assessments and medication, where required. In theory adopters can access therapeutic support for their child funded by the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund (although the reduction of that fund is an issue for another time).
I wonder whether any adopters who want more support would feel that they would benefit from regular social work visits? And what other support do children receive in foster care than adopters would welcome?
Emily Boardman
Boardman, Hawkins & Osborne LLP