It seems a concurrency or foster to adopt placement fell apart, recorded as it was in the Daily Mail The story was picked up from what I can see by the Guardian and Metro, it sounds almost implausible but this is the reality of taking on a child without a placement order- there is a risk.
When concurrency was first put forward as an option a lot of judges weren't happy because they felt that it pre-empted their decision making, it was treated as a done deal. This case I suppose and one back in July proves it isn't a done deal, but the anguish must be unbearable for that couple.
I do think that Munby needs to work on how he phrases things but in essence he appears to have said,,,
Sir Munby ruled that a child’s ties to its family should only be broken in exceptional circumstance, adding: ‘Without wishing to belittle or diminish all they have done for the boy, this is a case where there has been an unexceptional period of time caring for an unexpected child in an unexceptional case.’