T and F (Placement Orders: Child's Permanence Reports)

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeals arose from care and placement orders made at the conclusion of care proceedings concerning two children, referred to here as Child A (aged about 4) and Child B (aged about 2). Company A filed care proceedings on 23 May 2025 concerning Child A, Child B and a half-brother, Child C. The threshold for s.31 Children Act 1989 orders was alleged exposure to domestic violence, parental substance misuse and the mother’s significant mental health problems. Child C was placed with his father; Child A and Child B were initially in the mother’s care but were placed in foster care in August 2025 after deterioration in the mother’s health and disclosures of substance use.

Case management directions required Company A to prepare and file child's permanence reports and for an Adoption Agency Decision Maker (ADM) decision to be made by specified dates; those directions were varied several times. Child's permanence reports were prepared on a standard form published by Company B and uploaded to the public law portal in a confidential file accessible to the court. Although the court ordered the reports be served on the parties on multiple occasions, Company A did not serve them on the parents' solicitors; the Appendix of each form (described as for the parents' own words) was left blank.

The final hearing took place over two days on 11–12 December 2025. The judge found the threshold established, concluded adoption was necessary and proportionate, dispensed with parental consent, and made care and placement orders. Both parents filed late notices of appeal, each asserting, among other grounds, that failure to serve the child's permanence reports was a serious procedural irregularity. Permission to appeal out of time was ultimately granted on the single ground that the failure to serve those reports before the placement orders was a serious procedural irregularity; other grounds were dismissed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Were child's permanence reports filed with the court in respect of both children before the placement orders?
2. Were those reports fully completed (in particular, did they include the parents' views in the Appendix or elsewhere)?
3. If not fully completed, why were they not completed and did that failure breach the regulations?
4. Were the reports served on the parents and/or their solicitors before the placement orders were made?
5. If not served, why were they not served and was that failure a breach of the regulations or otherwise unlawful?
6. What are the legal consequences of any failure (a) to complete the reports fully or (b) to serve the reports on the parents before the placement orders were made?
7. Were the placement orders made in compliance with statute, regulations and case law (including Re S-F (A Child) [2017] EWCA Civ 964)?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments (First Appellant represented by Attorney Phillimore; Second Appellant in person)

• Child's permanence reports are central to adoption decisions and must be available for scrutiny; failing to serve them is a serious procedural irregularity.
• The failure deprived the parents and their representatives of the opportunity to scrutinise and challenge the agency's analysis that adoption was the preferred option.
• Proceeding without the reports rendered the hearing unfair and caused a miscarriage of justice, notwithstanding other evidence.
• Company A had an absolute statutory obligation to provide the reports in advance of the placement hearing.

Respondent Arguments (Company A represented by Attorney Hand)

• Company A accepted breach of the case management order to serve the reports but submitted there was no regulatory breach or unlawfulness in the failure to serve.
• All relevant information from the permanence reports was contained in other statements and reports in the court bundle, so the omission had no impact on the outcome.
• Allowing an appeal on this ground would be harsh where the appellants' representatives knew the reports were not served and did not ask to see them.

Children's Guardian's Arguments (represented by Attorney Iten)

• There was a procedural irregularity but it did not cause injustice: the judgment does not rely on the permanence reports and the parents had opportunity to challenge the evidence before the court.
• Applied the two-stage test: (1) whether there was a serious procedural irregularity and (2) if so, whether the decision was unjust as a result.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Re S-F (A Child) [2017] EWCA Civ 964	Importance of the permanence report as containing analysis and reasoning supporting a placement order; good practice to file and disclose it.	Quoted for the proposition that permanence reports are evidentially important and that omission to file them is "poor practice"; distinguished on the facts because here the evidence was not limited and key material was in other documents.
Re D (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 749	Two-stage test: whether there has been a serious procedural irregularity and, if so, whether the decision was unjust as a result.	Applied to determine that although the failure to serve was a serious procedural irregularity, it did not render the decision unjust in the present case.
Re S (Vulnerable Party: Fairness of Proceedings) [2022] EWCA Civ 8	Principle that failure to comply with procedural provisions does not invariably lead to a successful appeal; application of the two-stage test.	Relied upon to support that a procedural irregularity requires assessment of resultant injustice; used to explain why the appeal could fail despite procedural error.
Re V (Long-term Fostering or Adoption) [2013] EWCA Civ 913	Requirement that court's reasoning for placement decisions be related to the evidence about the child.	Cited (via Re S-F) as part of authorities emphasising evidential requirements for placement order decisions and the role of permanence reports in satisfying them.
Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146	Evidence must address all realistically possible options and analyse arguments for and against each option.	Cited to emphasise the need for comprehensive analysis of options when deciding permanence and the importance of relevant evidence being before the judge.
Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965	Judge must undertake a global, holistic evaluation and balancing exercise between options for the child's upbringing.	Used to support the court's statement that judges need all relevant evidence and comprehensive analysis (which may include the permanence report) to perform that task.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded in stages. It first accepted that child's permanence reports are important and that Company A's failure to serve them despite repeated court directions constituted a procedural irregularity and, in the court's view, a serious one. The court emphasised that non-compliance with a court order cannot be excused by the fact that the omission was not noticed by the parties' representatives.

The court then applied the two-stage test (whether there was a serious procedural irregularity and, if so, whether the outcome was unjust as a result). The crucial inquiry was whether there was material information in the permanence reports that was not otherwise before the judge and the parties. The court asked Appellant's counsel to identify any such material information; none was identified. The court found that the substantive information necessary for the judge's decision was contained in statements and reports in the court bundle and that the guardian had had access to the permanence reports. Because nothing in the permanence reports could be shown to have had a bearing on the judge's decision that was not already present in the other material, the irregularity did not render the decision unjust.

The court reiterated that permanence reports are often necessary and that failure to serve them can in other circumstances produce a successful appeal and delay; it criticised the omission and noted the Appendix should have been completed but concluded that this did not invalidate the placement orders on the facts of this case.

Holding and Implications

APPEALS DISMISSED

Holding: The Court of Appeal concluded that, although Company A's failure to serve the child's permanence reports on the parents prior to the making of the placement orders was a serious procedural irregularity, that irregularity did not render the decision to make placement orders unjust on the facts of this case.

Implications: The direct effect is that the care and placement orders remain in force. The court emphasised that compliance with directions to serve permanence reports is important and must be observed; however, the decision does not establish a rule that failure to serve such reports will automatically invalidate placement orders—relief depends on whether the irregularity caused injustice. The opinion did not purport to set a new legal principle beyond applying existing authorities.