A Borough Council v C & Ors [2025] EWHC 508 (Fam)

[2025] EWHC 508 (Fam)

Case Nos: LU22C03038 & FD22P00061

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY DIVISION

Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date 18 March 2025

Before

MR JUSTICE KEEHAN

Between

A BOROUGH COUNCILApplicant

Sam Wallace (instructed by a Borough Council) for Applicant

Ruth Kirby KC (instructed by Goodman Ray Solicitors) for First and Second Respondents

Alison Brooks (instructed by Freemans Solicitors) for Third and Fourth Respondents

Hearing Hearing date: 12 February 2025

JUDGMENT

This judgment was handed down remotely on 18 March 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail, and by release to The National Archives on 9 June 2025.

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.

Introduction

[1]These care proceedings concern two children, A, aged 9, and B, aged 7. The children were repatriated to this country from Country D on 5 April 2022. They were placed in the care of a local authority and have remained living with foster carers since that date.

[2]Subsequently, the paternal grandparents, Mr and Mrs C, became aware that their grandchildren were in this country and in the care of a local authority. They made known their desire to care for the children in their home country of Country E.

[3]On 12 February 2025, I made a special guardianship order in favour of the grandparents in respect of A and B. The order was made(a) to grant parental responsibility for the children to the grandparents to secure their placement within them and

(b) to enable the grandparents to begin the process of applying for A and B to become citizens of Country E. The plan is for the children to live there with the grandparents surrounded by members of their wider paternal family.

[4]The special guardianship order was made with the consent of all parties, namely the local authority, the grandparents and the guardian. The purpose of this judgment is to set out the history of the proceedings and the circumstances in which it was argued that the children should be placed in the care of the grandparents, which will, hopefully, assist them in their citizenship application for the children.

[5]I wish to record my gratitude for the assistance I have received from all the parties in the conduct of these proceedings and to express my special gratitude to the Government of Country E for the assistance which it has given to this court.

Background

[6]On 28 January 2022, the local authority issued an application for permission to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court to make both children wards of court. I granted permission to the local authority and made the children wards of court on 10 February 2022.

[7]At that time the children were living at a Displacement Camp in Country D. Their mother, Miss X, was understood to have been killed during the ISIS conflict in February 2019. Their father is Mr Y of Country E heritage who was last known to be incarcerated in a jail in Country D. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (‘FCDO’) became aware of the presence of the children in the camp in Country D. Both A and B are British citizens.

[8]A decision was made by the FCDO to repatriate the children to this country and the FCDO implemented the plan for their return. The children arrived in this country on 5 April 2022 and were placed with foster carers.

[9]The local authority issued care proceedings in respect of both children on 13 April 2022. They were made the subject of interim care orders at a hearing on 28 April 2022. At this hearing, the court was made aware of a couple from Country E who were attempting to trace the children in order to care for them and were claiming to be the children’s paternal grandparents. It had been reported by the police that intelligence reports about some members of the children’s wider family were known to the police and to the security services.

[10]Whilst enquiries were pending about the couple from Country E and certain other members of the maternal family, the local authority was progressing plans to meet and assess a maternal aunt as a potential carer for the children.

[11]The fact that the children’s parents had been in Country D and associated with ISIS and the fact that some family members were known to the police in this country and to the security services caused the local authority to proceed with caution in contacting them. This approach was fully supported and endorsed by the court.

[12]The court gave directions for DNA testing to be undertaken of the paternal grandparents and of two members of the maternal family. This established that Mr and Mrs C were the paternal grandparents and that the members of the maternal family were related to the children. The maternal family agreed to support the maternal grandmother being assessed as a carer for the children.

[13]For the avoidance of any doubt, there was no suggestion that the paternal grandparents nor the maternal grandmother were previously known to the police and/or the security services.

[14]The viability of assessments of the paternal grandparents and of the maternal grandmother were negative. However, the paternal grandparents challenged this negative assessment of them. The local authority formulated a care plan, based on these negative assessments, that the children should be made the subject of final care orders and placed in long term foster care. The matter was set down for a final hearing.

[15]At the final hearing in February 2024, an agreed way forward was reached and approved by the court having heard oral evidence from the social workers, paternal grandmother, and Dr Shaw. It was agreed that an independent social worker would undertake an assessment of the grandparents in Country E for the reasons set out in the judgment of Deirdre Fottrell KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, of 25 March 2024.

[16]The assessment of the grandparents was undertaken by the independent social worker, Stephanie Snow. Her assessment was wholly positive and in her report of 26 June 2024, she recommended that a special guardianship order should be made in respect of the grandparents. In the summary of her report, she observed:

“I met with Mr and Mrs C daily over a period of a week, spending around 12 hours with them in total as well as meeting with their network. The assessment process was intense, but Mr and Mrs C were keen to work with me and had no issue with engaging at such an intense level. I found both to be open with me and not in any way evasive despite my questions at times being very personal. Mr and Mrs C have the capacity to be excellent carers for A and B. I specifically considered the concerns raised within the viability assessment and do not share the views and conclusion from that assessment. With regard to a lack of understanding around the children’s needs, I did not find this to be the case. Mr and Mrs C presented as knowledgeable of the children’s experiences and understanding of the complex behaviours they are presenting with. When unsure of how they would deal with a situation they were clear in saying that they were not sure of the best way, and it was something that they would seek guidance on. They recognised that both children have experienced extreme trauma and will need gentle, loving, consistent care to heal from their experiences. I spoke with them about the social workers concerns that they had minimised or failed to understand the violence the children had been exposed to in Country D. Mr and Mrs C were clear that they do understand and were not saying that the children should have been left in Country D with ISIS members but were trying to explain that they worried that the children would not have understood what was happening and would have been scared as the life they were leading was all they had ever known. In addition, they were worried that being questioned by professionals would have been distressing for them. We considered the potential gender identity issues for A, particularly focusing on the fact that there is very little representation of the LGBTQ community within Islam. Mr and Mrs C were openminded and curious. They had clearly listened to and respected the advice of Dr Shaw and stated that they would simply support A, allow him to express himself in how he dresses at home (as is the advice in the UK) and not be drawn to ‘push’ him in either direction. They were honest in saying it is an unusual situation in their Islamic community but not unheard of and not something that they would not be able to cope with. I discussed issues of extremism and radicalisation with Mr and Mrs C at length and I am as confident as I can be that neither have ever had any links to ISIS, neither present with radical views and neither support their sons’ decision to go to Country D. They were both very naïve at the time their sons travelled to Country D and the recruitment of people from Country E was just starting at the time and had not been well known. They kept a lot of what was going on to themselves initially through fear of what their community may think and feelings of embarrassment and shame – all of which are natural responses to such a situation. I consider that the children’s needs would be well met in Country E in the care of their paternal grandparents and that this could be achieved by the making of a Special Guardianship Order.”

At the conclusion of her report and in recommending the making of a special guardianship order she noted:

“I recommend that Mr and Mrs C are suitable special guardianship carers for their grandchildren and that should placement with them be agreed upon, it would be in the children's best interests. The children would have the experience of being 'claimed' by their family and experience a sense of belonging and cultural heritage, which will be familiar to them. Mr and Mrs C have evidence that they are able to meet their grandchildren’s needs to a high standard and with professional input which is available even if the children are to move to Country E. The children have experienced a lot of trauma and present with some complex needs and behaviours. Mr and Mrs C were fully aware of the issues of concern and were openminded and curious with regard to how to address and manage them. They were keen to work with professionals to increase their knowledge and ability to support their grandchildren. I consider that Mr and Mrs C have the capacity to offer excellent care for their grandchildren that will meet their basic care needs and also their emotional and psychological needs.”

[17]At a subsequent directions hearing on 20 August 2024, the court was informed that the local authority and the guardian accepted and agreed with the recommendation of the independent social worker. Directions were agreed for the local authority to: i) Formulate a transition plan to include the grandparents to come to this country to meet the children and to spend time with them; ii) Ensure arrangements were in place to secure future therapeutic intervention and support for the children; and iii) Begin the process of formulating a special guardianship support plan.

[18]The grandparents arrived in this country and were introduced to the children in late September 2024. They spent time with the children over the course of a week. I am very grateful to the local authority for arranging and paying for the grandparents to travel here and to provide them with accommodation and living expenses.

[19]Unfortunately, an issue arose in respect of the children’s foster carers who were unhappy about the introduction of the children to the grandparents and were reluctant to facilitate and support indirect contact with the grandparents in Country E. Further, concerns were raised by the local authority and the guardian about the foster carers’ ability and willingness to act upon professional advice. A decision was made to move the children to alternative foster carers which was supported by the guardian and endorsed by the court.

[20]The children are now settled with their new foster carers and are supported in spending time with the grandparents.

[21]On 3 January 2025 the grandparents arrived in this country for an extended stay to spend time with the children including overnight stays with the grandparents. The agreed plan of the local authority, the grandparents and the guardian was that the grandparents would live here until the final hearing of this matter with the aim of returning with the children to Country E if the court approved this course, and once the Government of Country E confirmed the children would be permitted to live there in the care of the grandparents.

[22]The final hearing took place on 12 February 2025.

Analysis

[23]The grandparents have been fully committed to caring for the children. They have consistently and fully engaged with the social workers, the two assessments of them and with the children’s guardian. They were undeterred by the initial negative viability assessment of them and, as late events have demonstrated, they rightly and reasonably challenged that first assessment of them. They have readily left their home to stay for extensive periods of time in this country to meet and build a warm and loving relationship with the children.

[24]The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that after a hesitant start, which was to be expected and was wholly understandable, the children have developed a close, loving, and warm relationship with the grandparents. It has become increasingly clear that the children have built a trusting relationship with the grandparents which, given their previous life experiences and traumas, is remarkable and very much to be welcomed. It bodes well for their future lives in their grandparent’s care.

[25]The comprehensive assessment report of the independent social worker, Ms Snow, is very positive about the ability of these grandparents to meet the needs of these children and to provide them with love, nurture and protection throughout their childhoods with the close support of the wider paternal family in Country E.

[26]The grandparents are committed to maintaining the children’s knowledge of and contact with the members of the maternal family who live in this country.

[27]Given the children’s past experiences and trauma they will need ongoing therapy and support. I am satisfied that these support services have been provided for by the local authority in a considered and thorough Special Guardianship Support Plan.

[28]When determining the welfare outcome for the children and, in particular, whether to make a special guardianship order in favour of the grandparents, I have had well in mind the recommendations and Best Practice Guidance set out in the President’s Public Law Working Group’s Special Guardianship Order Report of June 2020.

[29]One consequence of making a special guardianship order in favour of the grandparents is that it will enable them to submit citizenship applications in respect of the children to Country E. It has been indicated that the relevant government department would process these applications as a matter of priority which would take about three months. The advice received to date is that it would be advisable to await the outcome of the citizenship applications before the grandparents attempted to return to Country E with the children using their UK passports and entering the country on visitor’s visas. Final clarification of this issue is being sought via the officers of the High Commissioner.

[30]If the children have to await the outcome of the citizenship application before travelling with their grandparents, the grandparents are committed to stay here with the children pending the determination and the local authority have committed to providing the grandparents with accommodation and financial support.

[31]On the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied that it is in the welfare best interests of the children to make a special guardianship order in favour of their grandparents. None of the other theoretical options, adoption, long term foster care or a placement with the maternal family are even remotely in the interests of these children. I am also satisfied that it is necessary to make those orders for A and B now because it would be wholly inimicable to the welfare best interests of them to delay any further the process of the grandparents submitting citizenship applications for them.

[32]I should note that both children were known by their mother’s last name of X. It was agreed that I should approve a change of surname for both children to C, their grandparents’ family name.

[33]Throughout 2023 and 2024 the Government of Country E generously assisted the court by answering questions about the children obtaining citizenship and being permitted to live with the paternal grandparents in their home country. It kindly responded to written questions, filed position statements and/or attended court hearings by the High Commissioner, leading counsel and/or solicitors.

[34]I wish to express my gratitude to the children’s services department of this local authority and to the allocated social workers for the dedication and commitment shown to achieving a positive and beneficial family placement for the children. I also wish to extend my gratitude for the hard work and dedication to the children’s guardian, to counsel, and to the parties’ respective legal teams.