In a recent Court of Appeal ruling, S (Foster Care or Placement for Adoption), Re, judges were asked to decide whether a four-year-old girl should be placed for adoption or remain in long-term foster care with carers she was already settled with. The local authority argued that adoption would provide permanence and stability. Both parents opposed adoption, supporting continued foster care instead.
The court refused permission to place the child for adoption. While the decision turned on the child’s individual circumstances, it highlights a wider and often misunderstood reality of care proceedings: adoption is not automatic once a child cannot return home, and courts are required to scrutinise whether it is genuinely necessary.
Why this question keeps coming up
For many families involved in care proceedings, adoption is viewed as the inevitable next step once parental care is ruled out. That expectation is reinforced by how adoption is often described in public debate — as the most stable and permanent solution available.
In practice, courts are increasingly faced with situations where children are already settled in foster care, have existing emotional attachments, and would face further disruption if moved again. These cases force judges to balance legal permanence against lived stability, often under significant time pressure and with imperfect information.
What actually happens once a child cannot return home
When a court decides that a child cannot safely live with their parents, the process does not jump straight to adoption.
The first step is usually the making of a care order. This gives the local authority parental responsibility alongside the parents and allows it to make day-to-day decisions about the child’s welfare. Importantly, a care order does not determine the child’s permanent placement.
After the care order, the local authority must develop a permanence plan. This involves identifying realistic long-term options, commonly including adoption, long-term foster care, or placement with relatives. Each option must be assessed based on how it would work in real life for that child, not how it works in theory.
If adoption is proposed, the authority must make a separate application for permission to place the child for adoption. This triggers an additional judicial decision and a higher level of scrutiny.
Who decides what — and when
One of the most common sources of confusion is who actually controls these decisions at each stage.
Local authorities are responsible for preparing care plans and recommending outcomes. Social workers assess placements, contact arrangements, and long-term options. However, they do not have the final say on adoption.
Judges decide whether a care order should be made and whether adoption should be authorised. They are not required to follow professional recommendations if the evidence does not support them. Even where all professionals agree on adoption, the court must independently assess whether the legal threshold has been met.
This division of responsibility explains why care plans can change late in proceedings and why courts sometimes reject proposals that appeared settled only weeks earlier.
A realistic example of how these cases unfold
Consider a child who has experienced multiple moves during care proceedings. Assessments of parents and extended family have failed, and the child is placed with foster carers. Over several months, the child becomes emotionally settled, begins to thrive at school or nursery, and forms strong attachments to the carers.
Contact with a parent continues regularly and positively. The foster carers indicate they are willing to care for the child long-term but do not wish to adopt, often because of age, health, or personal circumstances.
At the final hearing, the local authority proposes adoption to secure permanence. The parent opposes adoption but accepts that the child cannot return home. The foster carers’ willingness to continue caring introduces an alternative that did not exist earlier in the case.
At this point, the court must decide whether adoption is required, or whether long-term foster care can meet the child’s needs without further disruption.
The threshold courts must meet before approving adoption
Adoption permanently alters a child’s legal identity and family relationships. Because of that, courts apply a high threshold before authorising it.
Judges must be satisfied that adoption is necessary, not merely beneficial or desirable. This means being convinced that no other realistic option can meet the child’s welfare needs over the course of their life.
If long-term foster care can provide stability, continuity, and meaningful relationships — particularly where the child is already settled — adoption may not meet this threshold, even if it offers greater legal certainty in principle.
Why timing and delay matter so much
Care proceedings are meant to conclude quickly, but delays are common. Sequential assessments, placement breakdowns, and late changes to care plans can extend cases far beyond intended timelines.
By the time courts reach final decisions, children may have already spent months or years in foster placements. Judges must then weigh the benefits of legal permanence against the harm that could be caused by another move.
This timing issue often explains why adoption proposals that looked strong earlier in proceedings lose force by the end.
Where disputes and misunderstandings usually arise
One frequent misunderstanding is the belief that foster care is always temporary. In reality, foster care can become long-term, particularly where carers are committed and the child’s welfare would be harmed by moving.
Another common assumption is that courts must approve adoption even if finding adopters will be difficult. While uncertainty alone does not prevent adoption, judges can consider whether proposed plans are realistic — especially for older children or where ongoing parental contact is important.
There is also confusion about contact. Many assume that adoption necessarily ends parental contact. In practice, courts must consider contact arrangements carefully, and the likely impact of reducing or losing contact can be a decisive factor.
Expectation versus reality
Expectation: adoption guarantees permanence and therefore should always be preferred.
Reality: permanence in law does not always equal permanence in experience.
Expectation: foster care leaves children in limbo.
Reality: long-term foster placements can provide stability, continuity, and emotional security, particularly where carers are willing to commit.
Expectation: professional recommendations determine outcomes.
Reality: courts must independently assess welfare and can reject recommendations that are not supported by evidence.
What happens to parental contact over time
Contact arrangements are often central to these decisions. Courts must consider not just whether contact is safe, but how changes to contact will affect the child emotionally.
Where a child has a strong, positive relationship with a parent, courts may be reluctant to approve plans that would significantly reduce contact unless this is clearly justified. Even where adoption is contemplated, courts may scrutinise whether proposed contact arrangements are realistic and sustainable.
Over time, contact can change, but reductions do not always require a fresh court hearing. This practical reality often weighs heavily in welfare assessments.
Can adoption still happen later?
Another common question is whether choosing long-term foster care closes the door on adoption forever.
In practice, adoption can still be pursued later, but only if circumstances materially change. This might include placement breakdown, withdrawal of foster carers, or new evidence affecting welfare assessments.
What does not usually reopen the question is a simple preference shift or administrative convenience. Courts expect strong justification before revisiting such decisions.
How this is typically handled under existing law
Courts are required to evaluate adoption and foster care side by side, considering how each option would work for the child in question. Judges focus on real-world impact rather than abstract benefits.
They must consider the child’s age, emotional attachments, history of moves, and the likely effects of further disruption. Adoption cannot be authorised unless it is shown to be genuinely required to meet the child’s welfare needs.
What remains uncertain even after a decision
Even when a court prefers long-term foster care, outcomes are not guaranteed. Foster carers may still need formal approval, placements can break down, and future reviews remain possible.
Understanding the process does not guarantee certainty. It does, however, explain why courts sometimes prioritise continuity over legal finality.
Legal context (case background)
This explainer is informed by the Court of Appeal’s decision in S (Foster Care or Placement for Adoption), Re, which confirmed that adoption should be authorised only where a child’s welfare genuinely requires it, particularly where the child is settled in foster care and maintaining meaningful parental relationships.
