In this issue, we look at a brief but significant June 2025 judgment of the Family Court which highlights the crucial role of the independent reviewing officer (IRO) as an independent safeguard within the children’s care system. The Family Court’s criticisms of the local authority’s protracted failure to act following a decision to abandon plans for a looked after boy, C, to be adopted, and the concurrent failure by C’s IRO to independently hold the local authority to account, draw attention to both actual and potential consequences of such failings for children in care. This issue will also be of interest to those wishing to learn more about firstly, the balancing of children’s and their parents’ human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and secondly, the types of circumstances in which the Official Solicitor may be asked to consider if a harm caused to a child merits an application for damages.
Family Court criticises 3-year delay in local authority’s application for revocation of placement order and IRO’s failure to challenge inaction
Background – C’s circumstances
This decision of the Family Court concerns a boy referred to in the judgment as ‘C’. C’s age is not shared within the judgment.
In September 2020, C and his brother AR were each made the subject of a care and placement order. Despite extensive efforts by the responsible local authority, a suitable adoptive home where C and AR could live together could not be found. The plan for the brothers to live together was abandoned and an adoptive placement was found for AR.
In January 2022, C’s independent reviewing officer (IRO) recommended that the local authority should seek a revocation of C’s placement order; it was also recommended that C remains long-term with his foster carers with whom he had been living for over two years and where he was settled.
In May 2022 an adoption decision-making panel concluded that adoption was no longer in C’s best interests, that the placement order should be revoked, and that C should remain with his foster carers.
For nearly three years after, regular reviews of C’s care were conducted by the IRO; during these, it was repeatedly recommended that the revocation application should be made to the Family Court, but no action was taken to progress this.
C’s parents’ participation in court proceedings and C’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights
As is always the case when a care and/or placement order is made, the parents of the child with respect to whom the order is made retain parental responsibility (and share it with the local authority designated in the order). Consequently, C’s parents both had parental responsibility during the time when the Family Court was considering C’s circumstances.
C’s father:
Balancing the human rights of both C and his father under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), namely Article 6 (‘Right to a fair trial’) and Article 8 (‘Right to respect for private and family life’), the Family Court concluded that C’s father should not be notified of the proceedings because C’s Article 6 and 8 ECHR rights were “dominant” and “considerably outweighed” F’s; interference with F’s ECHR rights was considered justified, necessary and proportionate. The rationale for this conclusion was that:
– C’s father’s Article 8 ECHR rights “are limited to being C’s biological parent” as, following C’s disclosure of sexual abuse by his father, the father “stopped exercising any parental rights”, “did not exercise contact and made it clear he did not want to have updates about C”(C’s father was subsequently convicted of sexually abusing C and he received a long custodial sentence).
– C is clear he does not wish his father to know anything about him. The Family Court concluded that notifying C’s father of the proceedings and the plans for C’s future “would cause C significant emotional harm” and that “C’s wish must be respected and his right to a private life prioritised”.
– Lastly, because of the nature of the issue before the Family Court (i.e., an application for the revocation of a placement order in respect of C), any interference with the father’s Article 6 ECHR rights would be “very limited”.
C’s mother:
C’s mother had been notified of the proceedings before the Family Court but did not attend the first two hearings or engage with the Court when instructed to provide evidence. She had also stopped seeing or keeping in touch with C a few years earlier, and there was “a continuing pattern of disengagement with the [local authority]”. In light of this, the Family Court considered C’s mother’s absence to be “deliberate and voluntary”, concluding it was “fair and proportionate” to proceed without her involvement.
The Family Court’s decision in relation to the application for the revocation of C’s placement order
The local authority’s application for the Court to revoke the previous application for a placement order for C was granted on the basis that there was “material change in C’s circumstances”, meaning adoption was unlikely.
As a result of this, C’s care order was ‘revived’ by the Family Court. C’s updated care plan, which confirms the plan for C to remain with foster carers and for this to be the long-term plan for his care, was considered and approved by the Family Court.
The Family Court’s consideration of the 3-year delay by the local authority to apply for the placement order to be revoked
The application for a revocation of C’s placement order was made nearly three years after it had been recommended by C’s IRO and, soon after, approved by the relevant (adoption decision-making) panel.
Whilst the Family Court recognised that the impact on C of this delay was “limited” in that there had been no disruption to his day-to-day care, it found that the delay was unacceptable and its impact significant, further compounded by the challenges faced by C due to the criminal proceedings against his father.
The role of the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO)
C’s IRO was invited by the court to “explain why independently of the [local authority], the IRO did not take steps to refer this case to the court when the [local authority] failed to do so in accordance with the IRO’s clear and repeated recommendations”; this was despite the IRO having access to legal advice and being empowered in law to take steps to escalate matters on behalf of looked after children, including, in exceptional circumstances, by referring a case back to court.
Within their response to the court, the IRO accepted “that there were steps that could have been taken”.
The Family Court concluded that “the safeguard built into the care/adoption regime [i.e. the IRO] did not operate effectively in this case and the IRO could and should have done more to ensure C’s care plan was amended” in line with the decision to abandon the adoption plan.
Involvement of the Official Solicitor
If, as a result of the local authority’s 3-year delay in applying for the revocation of his placement order, C has suffered a detriment then he may be entitled to compensation. This led the Family Court to share C’s documentation with the Official Solicitor to allow for an evaluation of whether and what remedy might be appropriate and feasible.
The local authority opposed this stating that “whilst the delay in bringing this application [to court] is inexcusable it has not caused C any real detriment”. The local authority evidenced that C’s contact with his brother had been maintained throughout this period and, therefore, there was no breach of C’s rights under Article 8 ECHR to private and family life. Despite agreeing with the local authority in respect of C’s Article 8 ECHR rights, the Family Court concluded that the failure to take prompt action and provide confirmation to C of the plans for his long-term care was “a significant issue and one that has caused him uncertainty at such a delicate time in his life”. For this reason, the involvement of the Official Solicitor was considered appropriate and justified.
You can read the full Court of Appeal judgment here: Rotherham MBC v M & Ors [2025] EWFC 298 (B) (13 June 2025)
Learn more:
Placement orders, including contact with siblings and other family members: Sibling contact and placement (for adoption) orders – March 2025 issue of our children’s rights legal digest;
The role, statutory functions and duties, and powers of IROs:
– IROs’ duty to protect children’s human rights – June 2023 issue of our children’s rights legal digest;
– IROs – law map for advocates
– Slides for our 2023 advocacy clinic about IROs’ statutory duties, functions and powers
