Amanda Meusz of the Garden Court Family Law Team acted for the child L, on behalf of Cafcass Management, instructed by Elizabeth Beckett of GT Stewart Solicitors.
In summary, on the evidence that was before the Family Court, the Court of Appeal found the plan for adoption was not necessarily proportionate and the decision was accordingly wrong. The deficiencies in the parenting that L was likely to receive were not of a nature and degree to justify the termination of the parent/child relationship.
Lord Justice Jackson emphasised the importance of a return to first principles as set out in the well-known cases of Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33; [2013] 1 WLR 1911, where the Supreme Court confirmed that a care order can only be made if it is necessary in a democratic society for the protection of a child’s right to grow up free from harm, and proportionate to the needs of the situation: see Re H-W (Children) [2022] UKSC 17.
Full judgment (BAILII): N (A Child: Placement Order: Proportionality) [2025] EWCA Civ 1541
