Ensuring Proportionality and Comparative Welfare Analysis in Child Placement – Re A (A Child) [2025] EWCA Civ 424

Introduction

Re A (A Child) [2025] EWCA Civ 424 is a landmark Court of Appeal decision addressing how courts should evaluate competing placement options for a vulnerable child and the evidential basis required before dispensing with parental consent. The appeal arose from Salford City Council’s challenge to the Recorder’s refusal to make a placement order in respect of P, a two-year-old girl who has lived since birth with her maternal grandmother (“MGM”). At issue were three grounds of appeal: (1) whether the judge erred by dismissing the placement order application without a simultaneous comparative evaluation of all realistic placement options; (2) whether she should have made a final order, rather than adjourning for further evidential material; and (3) whether she failed to evaluate the long-term risks to P if she remained in her grandmother’s care.

The key parties included the Local Authority (Salford City Council), P’s maternal grandmother (the proposed kinship carer), P’s mother and father, and the Guardian appointed under the Children Act 1989. The court’s decision re-affirmed the strict necessity and proportionality test for severing parent–child ties, emphasised the requirement for a fully evidence-based comparative welfare analysis, and underscored best practice in supervision order planning.

Summary of the Judgment

Lord Justice Moylan, with whom Nugee LJ and Falk LJ agreed, dismissed the Local Authority’s appeal and upheld the judge’s refusal to make a placement order for adoption. The central findings and decisions were:

The judge correctly identified the “realistic options” as either adoption or P remaining with her grandmother (by care order, private law order plus supervision, or special guardianship).
After hearing extensive evidence, the judge concluded that P was thriving in MGM’s care and had strong family bonds.
While accepting there was a risk that MGM might fail to protect P from sexual or emotional harm in the distant future, the judge found that risk to be speculative and capable of mitigation through adapted therapeutic support.
The judge conducted a comparative, side-by-side welfare evaluation, balancing the prospective risk of harm against the “profound lifelong harm” of removing P from her established family placement.
She concluded that adoption was neither necessary nor proportionate (the “nothing else will do” test), and that placement with the MGM remained the best welfare outcome.
The judge refused to make a placement order and adjourned only to allow the Local Authority to file a supervision order support plan—not to re-open the core merits of placement.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court’s reasoning drew on established authorities in care and adoption law:

In re B (A Child) [2013] 1 WLR 1911: Confirmed the stringent necessity and proportionality test (“nothing else will do”) before severing parental ties.
Re B-S (Children) [2014] 1 WLR 563 and Re H-W (Children) [2022] 1 WLR 3243: Emphasised that welfare evaluations must compare realistic placement options side by side, not in isolation.
Re G (Care Proceedings: Welfare Evaluation) [2014] 1 FLR 670: Reinforced that judges must balance pros and cons of adoption versus other placements.
In re W (A Child) [2014] 1 WLR 1611 and In re T (A Child) [2018] 4 WLR 121: Articulated the court’s function in prompting Local Authorities to reconsider care plans if needed.
Re F (Placement Order: Proportionality) [2019] 1 FLR 779: Set out questions to ensure adoption is necessary and proportionate.
Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360 and Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5: Guided appellate courts on the standard of review—respecting trial judges’ fact-finding and balancing of evidence.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s method and conclusions for the following reasons:

Identification of Realistic Options: The judge correctly framed the binary question—adoption versus family care with MGM—while recognising multiple legal mechanisms (care order, private law plus supervision, special guardianship).
Comparative Evaluation: The judge weighed positive factors (P’s thriving development, strong bond with grandmother, cultural continuity, unsuccessful search for a culturally suitable adoptive family) against speculative future risk of sexual or emotional harm.
Evidential Basis for Risk: The judge critically examined professionals’ assessments of MGM’s capacity to change and protect P. She found them unreliable—lacking specialist therapeutic intervention, insufficient longitudinal assessment, and not grounded in tailored support plans.
Necessity and Proportionality: Applying the “nothing else will do” principle, she concluded removal and adoption would inflict disproportionately severe harm compared to unquantified future risk, particularly when mitigation through adapted support was realistic.
Adjournment for Implementation Details: The judge’s decision to adjourn only to approve a supervision order support plan was procedural, aligning with best practice guidance, and did not reopen the merits of placement versus adoption.

Impact on Future Cases

This judgment will influence public and private family law practice by:

Re-affirming that comprehensive comparative welfare analyses are indispensable in care and adoption proceedings.
Stressing that a placement order for adoption must be underpinned by a rigorous evidential basis demonstrating no other realistic, proportionate option exists.
Highlighting the requirement for courts to have approved supervision order support plans before making non-care orders.
Encouraging local authorities to develop tailored therapeutic interventions and training for kinship carers when assessing long-term safeguarding capacity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Care Order: A court order under the Children Act 1989 placing a child under local authority responsibility but often allowing familial residence.
Placement Order: Enables local authority to place a child for adoption; severs parental consent in favour of prospective adopters.
Special Guardianship Order (SGO): Grants a carer parental responsibility for a child without terminating birth parent ties.
Child Arrangements Order + Supervision Order: A private law order setting where a child lives plus a statutory supervision requirement by the local authority.
“Nothing Else Will Do” Test: Adoption requires proof that no realistic, safer, proportionate alternative exists to secure the child’s best interests.
Comparative Welfare Evaluation: Judges must weigh all realistic care options against each other—identifying pros and cons—rather than considering each in isolation.
Agency Decision Maker: The senior local authority official who reviews and authorises fostering, adoption, and care plans.

Conclusion

Re A (A Child) [2025] EWCA Civ 424 is a definitive restatement of two non-negotiable principles in child protection and adoption law: first, any decision to remove a child from family must satisfy a strict necessity and proportionality test; second, courts must undertake a side-by-side comparative welfare analysis of all realistic placement options on a robust evidential foundation. The judgment also underscores the importance of pre-approved supervision order support plans when kinship care rather than adoption is the chosen route. Both local authorities and courts will need to incorporate these requirements into practice to ensure that child welfare decisions are fair, transparent, and evidence-based.