There’s been a tension for quite a long time between children’s timescales (and the 26 week timetable and principle of no delay) versus exploring all realistic alternatives to adoption.
This Court of Appeal case is a decision on this point, and in my view a helpful reminder to the parties and Courts that the welfare of the child is paramount and that the impact of delay in decision-making for the child needs to be bourne in mind.
Christopher Marlowe said of Helen of Troy that she had the face that launched a thousand ships, and Isaac Asimov postulated later that therefore a milli-Helen is the quantity of beauty sufficient to launch a single ship. This post will launch if not a thousand bookmarks, then at least a hundred for every LA lawyer in the country will want to have this one to hand from time to time.
M (A Child) (Placement Order) [2025] EWCA Civ 214 (06 March 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2025/214.html
At the start of the Appeal hearing, the proceedings had been going on for 62 weeks. I won’t go into the background of why the parents weren’t considered suitable, but for a long time, the issue of placing the child with an aunt and uncle in Pakistan was being considered. By the time of the final hearing, the Local Authority took the view that they no longer supported a placement of the child in Pakistan.
That was broadly for these reasons – 14 months after proceedings had been issued, the aunt and uncle still had no visa to come to the UK – that would take at least a further 6 weeks – after that, they could come to the UK and participate in a detailed assessment of their parenting with the child, then obtaining a Court order in Pakistan which might take 6 months. There were also considerable issues with the financial support that the aunt and uncle would need to be able to care for the child.
- The judge recorded that the aunt and uncle accepted that:
- The judge said at paragraph [76] that the plan to place M with his aunt and uncle was “fraught with uncertainties”. She then particularised issues such as the need to obtain visas, that the local authority were no longer willing to fund a UK assessment, the further delay occasioned by the assessment itself followed by further court proceedings and the need for a mirror order.
- The judge emphasised the importance of timescale because of the impact on M. The judge went on at [78-79]:
- The judge held at [81] that the adjournment would have to be at least three to four months to complete the assessment and return to court, and probably “more akin to six to twelve months before successful placement could be achieved if the assessment were positive”. There would, she said, be a real possibility that the assessment would not be positive and/or that M could not be placed with the aunt and uncle, which would lead to further delay. The timescales for adoption were, she held, “both shorter and more certain”. She accepted the evidence that a match could be found within a reasonable timescale with placement within months.
- Against the backdrop of her findings, the judge reached the conclusion at [82] that it was not in M’s best interests “even when judged by the yardstick of considering his lifelong best interest” to continue the process of assessment with the aunt and uncle “despite all the detrimental consequences that flow from such a decision”.
- The judge concluded by saying that whilst it had been a difficult case, it was not a finely balanced one. She expressed her empathy with the aunt and uncle “who have done all in their power to offer their nephew a home”. However, “further delay for an unknown length of time and for an uncertain outcome is quite contrary to M’s needs”.
The Court of Appeal looked at the question of whether the trial Judge was unreasonable and unduly pessimistic about the plan.
53. That there was a real possibility that the assessment might fail was in my judgment an inevitable consequence of the uncertainty inherent in the whole complicated plan; for example, it may simply not have been viable because the funding was no longer available from the cash-poor local authority or the applications for visas may be refused. M may himself have found the introduction to his aunt and uncle with the language barrier just too difficult and, as had been identified by Ms Rafiq, there were issues with schools and the home conditions. These were all potential stumbling blocks. For my part I can see that there was also a significant risk that the demands on the aunt and uncle might be simply too great. Should the matter have been adjourned then, providing they managed to obtain visas, the family would have relocated to a strange country for an unspecified period of time for assessment and, if successful, the uncle would then return to Pakistan with the two older (but by no means grown up) children. Once home they would have to manage without their primary carer while their father worked punishingly long hours, potentially for many months, whilst court proceedings took their course in both the UK and Pakistan, proceedings which would be necessary in order to provide essential protection for M’s position in Pakistan.
The Court of Appeal re-emphasised the point made in Re W 2016 that there is no ‘right’ or ‘presumption’ for a child to be brought up within their natural family {author note – I don’t particularly like this aspect of the Re W decision, but it is the law}
- The judge did not ignore the positive aspects of the CFAB assessment or the cultural advantages to a family placement, and in conducting her finely tuned balancing exercise specifically said, as recorded at [41] above, that there were grounds for optimism based on the CFAB assessment. However, as Ms Styles rightly submitted, optimism is all well and good but when considering the future of M, a hard-edged evidential approach is necessary.
- Notwithstanding the commitment shown by the aunt and uncle to offering M a home and the undoubted advantages if it can be achieved, and that it is in a child’s best interests to have a family placement, in my judgment there were a myriad of reasons why the plan to place M in Pakistan might fail. Given the long delay which had already taken place in getting the proceedings to trial, that the assessment might not be successful was a feature which the judge was bound to have at the forefront of her mind. As in any case where it is hoped that a family placement can be achieved it is important, as was perhaps not recognised until too late in this case, that there is no presumption or right for a child to be brought up by a member of his or her natural family. In Re W (A Child) (Adoption: Grandparents Competing Claims) [2016] EWCA Civ 793, McFarlane LJ said:
- The judge was alive to the challenges and spoke of “two contrary principles having pulled the court in different directions, the importance of children’s welfare of being brought up by natural family where it is safe and achievable, and the harmful effects of delay”. Ultimately the judge concluded that M’s welfare demanded that he be placed for adoption and that when she performed a proportionality cross check she said she was “satisfied that, despite its draconian nature and lifelong consequences, adoption is a necessary and proportionate interference – in short, nothing else will do”.
In looking at whether the Court should have granted a further extension to the proceedings to allow for further assessment of the aunt and uncle, the Court of Appeal said this:-
The court was also taken to Peter Jackson LJ’s judgment in Re S-L (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 1571; [2020] 4 WLR 102, in which he considered the use of s32(5) CA 1989. In relation to a case where improper use had been made of the provision, he made an observation which applies equally to all cases:
“12. In cases involving children, there can sometimes be good reasons for adjourning a final decision in order to obtain necessary information. The overriding obligation is to deal with the case justly, but there is a trade-off between the need for information and the presumptive prejudice to the child of delay, enshrined in section 1(2) Children Act 1989. Judges in the family court are well used to finding where the balance lies in the particular case before them and are acutely aware that for babies and young children the passage of weeks and months is a matter of real significance. Sharpening this general calculation, public law proceedings are subject to a statutory timetabling imperative. Section 32(1)(a) provides that the court must draw up a timetable for disposing of the application without delay and in any event within 26 weeks; subsection 32(5) allows an extension only where the court considers it necessary to enable the proceedings to be resolved justly.
13[…] the recorder’s decision to adjourn therefore squarely engaged the above provisions in relation to both children and she was obliged to explain why an extension of the timetable was necessary. In any event, she was under a general obligation to ensure that an adjournment was justified. Adjourning a decision should never be seen as ‘pressing the pause button’: it is a positive purposeful choice that requires a proper weighing-up of the advantages and disadvantages and a lively awareness that the passage of time has consequences”.
It was agreed by all parties that at 18 months old M is in a critical phase for making long term healthy attachments and that the older he is the more likely he is to encounter attachment difficulties and the harder it would be to find a match if he were to be adopted. Ms Darkens, again in reflective mode, when asked in oral evidence about M’s timescales said that “the timeframe for the optimum outcome for him was months ago”.
Mr Styles highlighted that many matters critical to the outcome are simply outside the judge’s control. Three areas spring to mind:
(i) Obtaining funding from the Resource Panel: the Panel would have to approve the essential funding notwithstanding that the local authority’s care plan is no longer to place M with the aunt and uncle;
(ii) Obtaining a visa from the Home Office: Mr Gupta accepts that visas have to be obtained and that the courts cannot put pressure on the Home Office. He says, however, that it is routine for the Home Office to be asked to expedite an application for a visa. I agree that the local authority could do that, but they certainly could not do so by reference to a court-prescribed timetable;
(iii) Obtaining a Guardianship Order in Pakistan: the uncontradicted evidence of Mr Khan is that it is preferable for an order to be obtained in Pakistan prior to placement there. The evidence is that this can take up to six months. It goes without saying that even the most rigorous timetabling by a UK judge can have no influence on the processes of the courts of a foreign jurisdiction.
These and other matters which are outside the control of the Court have to be taken into account when deciding whether a further extension of the proceedings are to be permitted. Further, it has to be remembered that “Day 1” for the consideration of acceptable timescales is not by reference to the date that a court agreed to adjourn the final hearing, but is the date on which the care proceedings were issued, as Peter Jackson LJ said in Re S-L (cited above), any court should be “acutely aware that for babies and young children the passage of weeks and months is a matter of real significance”.
Notwithstanding Mr Gupta’s realistic submissions, supported by Mr Brookes-Baker on behalf of the mother, and Ms Shaikh on behalf of the father, the judge’s careful and sympathetic analysis of the application for an adjournment for further assessments of the aunt and uncle cannot be faulted and in my judgment she reached the right decision given the uncertainties inherent in the proposed plan for placement in Pakistan and the urgency of achieving permanency for M.
Conclusion
M has been in care all his life. At the date of the trial he was 14 months old and the aunt and uncle, through no fault of their own, were not in a position to say that they could, as of that date, be regarded as a realistic option for the placement for M with them.
In my judgment for all the reasons set out above, I would endorse the judge’s observation that the decision was a difficult one but not a finely balanced one. What made it difficult was that the hopes of the family, and particularly the aunt and uncle, had been raised and then maintained long after a decision should have been reached that, for many reasons in addition to delay, the aspiration to place M with his extended family in Pakistan was not achievable within his timescales and that M’s best interests could only be served by the making of a placement order with a view to his being adopted in the UK.
For these reasons I dismissed the appeal against the making of a placement order.
suesspiciousminds 