When making care and placement orders for children, the courts will always place great emphasis on sibling bonds and try to maintain family ties whenever possible. 

However, these concerns can be set aside for the overall good of the child in certain circumstances, as highlighted in a recent case before the Court of Appeal. 

The case involved a family with five children. The local authority had concerns that the parents had chaotic lifestyles involving alcohol misuse and domestic abuse against the children. 

Following legal proceedings, placement orders were made for two of the older children and one was placed in foster care. 

This left the question of what should happen to the two younger children, both boys aged five and six, referred to in court as H and J. 

The local authority acknowledged the close sibling bond between all the children and accepted that the older siblings would be “devastated” if placement orders were made for the two younger boys. 

However, it concluded stability and security for the boys outweighed the benefits of maintaining direct contact with their parents and siblings. 

Having considered the evidence, the recorder concluded: “While foster care can offer stability and permanence, I am not satisfied that in these particular circumstances long-term foster care can offer the permanence that both boys need. 

“Having regard to H’s and J’s needs throughout their lifetime, I am satisfied that any risk of harm to the children by severing the family ties is outweighed by the permanence, stability, and security that will be achieved if the boys were adopted. 

“The boys need a forever adoptive family. I do not underestimate that this may require extra time and support to adjust to a new placement. However, this is unavoidable, as the alternative plan for long-term foster care is uncertain and falls short of what they need.” 

The mother appealed on various grounds, including that the recorder had failed to carry out a robust and rigorous analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of placement orders or remaining with the family. 

However, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision. It held that the recorder had conducted a careful and thorough analysis of all the evidence and the merits of each approach. There was no reason for the Court of Appeal to interfere with her judgment.