In this update, we only have 3 cases but each useful and interesting in its own right. This update comes out as we await the Mazur appeal judgment, which will probably deserve its own update, given its significance for the profession.
Re Y [2026] EWFC 38
This involved an application to ‘set aside’ previous findings of fact in relation to parental alienation, which were unduly influenced by the views of a psychologist. It is firstly worth noting the legal test for such a Part 18 application (paragraph 32 onwards). The crux of the case is dealt with at paragraph 71 onwards, with the President setting out how the Family Court should approach the question of alienating behaviour and the use of unregulated experts. The conclusion being that the Court should first deal with the finding of fact before considering expert input.
Re S [2026] EWCA Civ 47
S (Foster Care or Placement for Adoption), Re – Find Case Law – The National Archives
This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal, addressing the question of long-term foster care vs adoption at final hearing. This was complicated by the question of contact and the possibility that the child (4 years old) could stay with her current foster carers. The trial Judge was correct to hold a pessimistic view that adopters would entertain a high-level of post-adoption contact and ultimately prefer foster care. It’s a thoughtful and detailed judgment, with a summary of the applicable law.
C & Ors [2025] EWFC 436
C, D, E and F, Re (ACA s51A: contact order after adoption) [2025] EWFC 436 (B) (08 December 2025)
This is an interesting case at first instance, dealing with an application for contact at adoption order stage (ACA 2002 s51A) to force two adoptive families to make their respective adopted children (siblings) available for contact with each other. The court at final hearing, when making a placement order, did make a s26 contact order (twice per year) which had been ignored by the Local Authority and the prospective adopters had not even been informed of the existence of such an order. All parties agreed 2x per year was the correct level, but the Court had to decide whether or not make an order against the adoptive families (not having any power to order the LA), when the adoptive families agreed to the level of contact. The Court weighed up the no order principle and ultimately concluded that an order was necessary, mainly to assist the adopters to access the support within the Local Authority to facilitate contact (noting that the LA had no explanation for its failure to facilitate contact when it was ordered under s26).
One of the adoptive families wrote to the Court following judgment to express disappointment that they were now subject to orders purely as a result of the LA failure to inform, facilitate and support. I think they have a point.
