Re J, K, and L (application for non-agency adoptions) [2025] EWFC 157(B)

Jayne Harrill, instructed by Rizwana Khan of Barrett and Thomson, successfully represents the mother in opposing the foster carers’ application for non-agency Adoption Orders.  The three children were made the subject of Care Orders and Placement Orders in 2020 and had been placed with the long-term foster carers. The local authority initially supported the foster carers when they expressed an interest in adopting the children but subsequently changed their view following a number of referrals regarding the foster carers’ care of the children. The foster carers applied for non-agency Adoption Orders, this was not supported by the local authority, mother, or Childrens’ Guardian. The local authority applied to discharge the placement orders, this was unopposed by all other parties and necessary for the Court to consider whether to make Adoption Orders. HHJ Vincent in her detailed welfare analysis acknowledging the progress the mother had made since the original care proceedings:

114. It is one thing to accept the children will not be living with their mother now or even for the rest of their childhood. But, if they were to be adopted, then that is a prospect that would never be available to them for their whole lives. This mother has made remarkable progress in her own parenting journey. She has shown maturity and insight into the children’s needs. She has been fully engaged in these proceedings and contact sessions have gone very well. She could continue to spend time with the children if they were adopted, but they would have another mother, and her relationship with the children would be on different terms than if they were in foster care.

HHJ concluded Adoption Orders were not in the children’s best interests and discharged the Placement Orders.

This case can be contrasted with Re O, G and L [2025] EWFC 21 (B), see blog 31 March 2025, when Jayne successfully represented the foster carers seeking a non-agency adoption order, opposed by the local authority, at the final hearing in care proceedings.

Both cases are fact specific demonstrating the importance of a detailed and balanced welfare analysis when considering whether adoption is proportionate and necessary.

The judgment is available to view here.