Post-adoption contact: time for cultural shift

Post-adoption contact remains one of the most jurisprudentially delicate issues in contemporary family law. It sits between two powerful and sometimes competing principles: the legal finality and psychological security long associated with adoption orders, and the child’s lifelong welfare interests, including identity, continuity of relationships, and an understanding of personal history.

Despite repeated calls to modernise our professional approach, the historic concept of adoption as a clean break from the birth family continues to exert influence. Anecdotally, post-placement or post-adoption contact orders remain rare, with a judicial preference for recording arrangements by recital rather than by enforceable order.

Traditionally, adoption implied not merely the transfer of parental responsibility but the severance of ties with the birth family. The modern approach calls for a genuine shift. Courts and practitioners now recognise that identity formation is fundamental, and that safe, structured forms of continuing connection may support placement stability rather than undermine it. We also understand far more about the enduring importance of sibling relationships, often the only relationships that last throughout life.

The statutory anchor remains section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which provides that the child’s welfare “throughout his life” is paramount. Pre-placement planning must therefore account for consequences extending well beyond minority. Identity, heritage, sibling relationships, and the psychological integration of past and present experiences fall squarely within that framework.

Section 26 governs contact arrangements following authorisation to place and before the making of an adoption order. It creates a self-contained regime, with the court required to set the template for contact going forward as earlier child arrangements orders fall away. Section 51A, inserted by the Children and Families Act 2014, introduced an express mechanism empowering the court to order post-adoption contact.

Judicial interpretation has historically emphasised restraint. In Re B (A Child: Post-Adoption Contact) the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that orders imposing contact upon unwilling adopters remain “extremely unusual”. That approach reflected legitimate concerns about placement stability and the autonomy of the adoptive family. However, no authority relieves the court of its obligation to conduct a full welfare evaluation of contact arrangements.

More recently, in Re R and C (Adoption or Fostering), Baker LJ underscored that it is the court’s responsibility to “set the template for contact going forward”. The court rejected the argument that the speculative possibility of adopters later declining to facilitate contact should dictate refusal of a placement order. The focus must remain on welfare, not apprehension.

Re S (Placement Order Contact) now stands as the leading authority on section 26 contact orders. The Court of Appeal stressed that although a section 26 order is temporally limited, the welfare analysis underpinning it must adopt the statutory lifelong perspective. The court warned against formulaic reasoning and emphasised that contact arrangements must be bespoke and flexible.

Any plan requires careful consideration of a range of factors. Drawing on McFarlane P’s Mayflower lecture, these include the age of the child at removal, the age at placement, genetic factors affecting development, risks in utero such as foetal alcohol syndrome or maternal drug use, and the child’s lived experience. That lived experience may include domestic abuse, neglect, poor feeding and hygiene, and the quality of comfort, sensitivity and play received. Health tracking, including weight, growth, sight and hearing, and any identified developmental condition, are also relevant. The court must weigh parental neglect evidenced by a significant failure to exercise parental responsibility, and risks of harm arising from abuse, whether physical or sexual. These matters are not abstract; they shape how, and whether, ongoing relationships can safely be maintained.

Recent authority reinforces a central proposition: contact decisions demand a sophisticated assessment of relational, developmental and practical considerations. The significance of sibling relationships has received particular emphasis. For many children, siblings represent continuity of narrative and shared memory in a way that no other relationship can replicate.

Policy developments point in the same direction. The Public Law Working Group’s 2024 report advocates a cultural recalibration in which direct contact is not treated as exceptional by default. It urges practitioners and judges to move beyond inherited assumptions and to engage actively with the evidence in each case.

For practitioners, the implications are immediate. Care plans, placement applications and support plans must contain an explicit and reasoned analysis of future contact. Early strategic consideration is essential. Important relationships should be identified at the outset, whether through genograms or eco-maps. The purpose of contact for this child must be defined: is it about identity, reassurance, continuity, or helping the child construct a coherent life narrative? The plan must then articulate what contact is necessary, how it will operate, and what support structures are required in terms of supervision, venue and review. Practitioners must consider whether to seek a section 26 order or to record the plan by recital, and ensure that the evidence addresses the statutory welfare checklist explicitly. Above all, formulaic frequencies should be avoided; the plan must be justified on its facts.

The question remains whether this judicial and policy guidance is yet translating into change on the ground. The onus is now on us to ensure that contact is considered holistically. Siblings are crucial, but so too may be other figures who have played roles far beyond their formal titles. The aim must be to move beyond the outmoded concept of “letterbox contact” and to develop solid, realistic plans for future contact built around the individual needs of each adopted child.

Copyright & permissions