News

Rotherham MBC v M, F & C [2025] EWFC 298 (B) HHJ Afzal CBE - Revocation of Placement Order - Role of IRO - Papers to OS, is one child entitled to compensation

 Two things caused me to write this article concerning the case law report:

  1. It contained no case law and
  2. It is not a situation I see very often.

25th September 2020.  C and his brother AR were made the subject of care and placement orders.  No joint placement found, and AR was put with adoptive parents in November 2021, C remaining in foster care January 2022.  IRO recommended the LA seek revocation of placement order for C, on the basis he could stay with foster parents.

May 2022.  Case considered by panel, who recommended long term foster care.  Since then the case was regularly reviewed by IRO, recommending the same 18th March 2025.  Application was made by the LA for revocation of C’s placement order to be replaced by care/foster order.

At this stage (given the judgement was emailed to parties on the 19.8.25), you can probably guess the outcome - but please read on!

4th April 2025 hearing - Application for revocation of placement order not granted because:

  1. F, who had PR, not served - overall, Judge ordered an evidential statement from LA, and legal skeleton argument.
  2. Judge also said ‘IRO may[1] have been entitled to bring this case to court’, so directed an explanation from IRO.
  3. The current care plan needed amending to reflect that C ‘seems’ to have suffered emotionally in not knowing his fate, and not being accessed to CAMHS.
  4. If C had suffered a detriment, he may be entitled to compensation.  Judge wished to consider sending papers to OS.  Parties ‘invited’ to address this in their evidence.
  5. There was no full detailed analysis from the CG.

At the final hearing on the 13th June 2025

  1. service on F dispensed with because:
  2. C’s rights dominant under art 6/8
  3. F had sexually abused C, no contact to C by F, F not wanting updates on C
  4. If F was served it would cause C significant emotional harm
  5. M was served with notice of April hearing but no deliberate attendance, had not exercised contact for some years, not engaged with LA, fair and proportionate to proceed without M.
  6. The court granted revocation of the placement order, reviving the care order, C to remain where he has been since 2019.

The judge was concerned about:

  1. the detrimental effect of delay on C.
  2. why the IRO did not bring the matter back to court (Judge - ‘the IRO has accepted that there were steps that could have been taken’)

The LA opposed sending the papers to the OS and publication of the judgement because:

  1. no detriment to C
  2. contact maintained with his brother
  3. C has not sought contact with either parent
  4. delay caused no breach of C’s article 8 rights

But the judge said ‘I find the failure to provide confirmation to C that he will remain in long term foster care, and with his current carers, is a significant issue and one that has caused him uncertainty at such a delicate time in his life. This needs to be further explored in case he is entitled to damages.’

Comment:  Although the LA did not tyr to excuse the delay, they otherwise seemed to take a tight stance (possibly shielding any compensatory loss if possible) whereas the IRO was quite open in accepting more could and should have been done.  You might conclude a clear case for some compensation to C !

 

[1] Judge later said ‘IROs have access to legal advice and can take steps to escalate matters and ultimately, albeit exceptionally, consider referring a case back to Court.’