Re Y (A Minor) (No 2)

On 16 December 2021, I handed down a lengthy judgment in relation to the jurisdictional regime which should apply to decision-making for the future of a little Hungarian girl, referred to in this judgment as Y, then, as now, three years old.

That judgment is reported (in redacted form) and publicly available as Re Y (A Minor) (Brussels II Revised: Jurisdiction after Article 15 Transfer) [2021] EWFC 107. In it, I did my best to unpick complicated issues arising from a care case having been transferred from England to Hungary but the child at the heart of the case not having been so transferred, the situation then becoming further complicated by a number of significant changes of circumstances, not the least among which was the Covid-19 pandemic. I decided, in essence, that it should be the Family Court of England and Wales which adjudicated between the rival claims for the care of Y.

During this last week, I have heard the final hearing in that case.

The underlying care proceedings are brought by a local authority in the North of England (“the local authority”) pursuant to Part IV of the Children Act 1989 (“CA 1989”). Y, the subject of that application, was born in August 2018, in England. Y’s mother (“the mother”) is the first respondent. Her father (“the father”) is the second respondent. Ys paternal aunt (“the aunt”), joined by me to these proceedings, is the fourth respondent. Y’s foster carers since a week after her birth (“the foster carers”) are joined as fifth and sixth respondents to the care proceedings by virtue of my decision in December. As of right, but reinstated and proceeding pursuant to my decisions in relation to jurisdiction, the foster carers have applied for a special guardianship order (“SGO”) in relation to Y, to which application all of the other parties in the Part IV CA 1989 proceedings are respondents.

Y, both of her parents and the aunt are all Hungarian. Y lives with the foster carers in England. The mother also lives in England. The aunt lives in Hungary. The father currently lives in another EU member state.

Before me at this hearing, the representation has been as follows:

The essential background is as follows.

The mother and the father are both Hungarian. The mother has lived in England since moving to the country, aged 13, with her mother. The father also came to England as a child, moving to the country with his aunt and uncle. The parents commenced a relationship in or around 2015. Both were living in England at the point of Y’s conception and birth.

At the point the local authority learned of the mother’s pregnancy, significant concerns for the unborn child were apparent, these relating to the mother’s mental health (which has led, in this country, to at least three periods of compulsory detention under the Mental Health Act 1983), both parents’ drug misuse (including, at least in the mother’s case, a history of the use of crack cocaine) and domestic abuse. Beginning in mid-April 2018, the local authority undertook an assessment of the parents’ ability safely and appropriately to care for the then unborn Y, whether either of them individually or both together. The assessment, with which the mother refused meaningfully to participate, was negative. This negative assessment has not been challenged either on behalf of the mother (who is represented through the Official Solicitor) or by the father.

In the circumstances, the local authority was bound to issue care proceedings. It did so the day after Y’s birth. Within a few days an interim care order was granted. At the end of August 2018, Y was placed with the foster carers, in whose care she has remained these past three and a half years, and where she remains, settled and thriving.

The father served a period of imprisonment in England due to his commission of offences involving domestic abuse of the mother. He was subsequently deported to Hungary.

For a period during the proceedings, the mother’s whereabouts were unknown to the local authority. Since October 2019, however, the local authority has known where the mother is living in England. There has been sporadic contact with the mother by social workers and, latterly, by her legal team. Her situation does not seem markedly to have improved.

In these circumstances, there has been no challenge to the inevitable conclusion that Y cannot live with either one of her parents. The current position in relation to the mother is that she has had no direct contact with Y since August 2019 and is intermittently very difficult to track down and to engage with. The father, some time after his deportation to Hungary in November 2019, moved to another EU country, where he continues to live and work. Although he has received updates on and photographs of Y since his deportation, his last direct contact was in May 2019. Work is currently being undertaken to reintroduce him to Y, via indirect contact, following a positive risk assessment earlier this year.

Given the negative assessments of her parents, and her entirely Hungarian nationality and heritage, assessments were undertaken of various members of Y’s family in Hungary. Viability assessments were undertaken of both Y’s maternal grandmother and her paternal grandmother. These were negative.

In 2019, Y’s paternal aunt was also assessed, both by Hungarian authorities and by the allocated social worker in England. The latter was undertaken in circumstances in which the local authority did not consider the positive Hungarian assessment to have been ‘sufficiently robust’. The English local authority assessment, however, was also positive.

The final evidence in the initial care proceedings included the local authority’s positive assessment, which in turn led to the local authority confirming a care plan involving Y’s being placed with the aunt and her husband in Hungary.

The proceedings, even pre-Covid-19, were beset with many delays, which I described at length in my earlier judgment, with the repeating of which description I shall not burden this judgment. Suffice it say that a substantive hearing took place before HHJ Anderson on 11^th November 2019 as to whether the case should be transferred, pursuant to Article 15 of BIIa. The case and Y were both by then 15 months old. The judge made the Article 15 transfer sought and agreed by all. The reasoning contained in the judgment included this:

As I wrote in my earlier judgment:

As I have previously found, a valid Article 15 transfer of the care proceedings was effected by the request having been made and accepted, and the relevant Guardianship Authority in Hungary went on to make a ‘temporary Guardianship order’ in favour of the paternal aunt, which, on 6 January 2020, was converted to a ‘final’ Guardianship order.

Plans progressed for the placement of Y in Hungary. The aunt was to come to England in late January 2020 in order to meet Y, the foster carer to take Y to Hungary the following week. Personal issues prevented that from happening and the proposed visit and then transfer of Y to Hungary were put back by a couple of months. The aunt, accompanied by one of her children, travelled to England between 6^th and 12^th March 2020. The aunt had daily contact with Y. For reasons which have never become quite clear, the aunt seemed to be under the impression that she would leave England together with Y, when she returned to Hungary. In fact, this had never been the plan. Instead, it was intended that the foster carers and an English social worker would travel to Hungary with Y on 23^rd March 2020 and would spend some time there settling her in to what was to be her new life living with her aunt, uncle and cousins.

However, in the intervening period the pandemic arrived in Europe, lockdowns were introduced and international borders were closed. During the next few months, various hearings were listed in the English court, and were either vacated or were essentially ineffective.

By September 2020, the language of the local authority had changed somewhat, as it ‘inform[ed] the court that they intend to undertake an updated needs assessment of [Y] and to review the assessment of the proposed carers for [Y]’. The case was relisted on 26^th October 2020. By the point of this hearing, while international travel remained impossible, the local authority had ‘provided an updated needs assessment of [Y] and an updated assessment of the carers and it continues to be the plan to place [Y] in Hungary when this becomes possible’. The case was put over until a hearing on 8^th February 2021.

On 18^th December 2020, the children’s guardian’s legal team issued an application in Form C2, requesting a hearing, she, the guardian, being very much less than impressed with the local authority’s efforts in relation to familiarising Y with and beginning to enable her to develop some ability in the Hungarian language. The rider to the application included this:

On 17^th February 2021, the foster carers, with whom Y had been placed continuously since the end of August 2018 (so, by then, some 2½ years), applied for joinder in the care proceedings and for leave to apply for a special guardianship order. On 9^th March 2021, again as described in greater detail in my earlier judgment, HHJ Hillier dismissed both of the applications of the foster carers ‘for lack of jurisdiction’. The judge, expressly confining her judicial actions to those ‘appropriate under the residual jurisdiction’, directed explanations from the local authority and the guardian in relation to what had been done in relation to orders it was known had been made in Hungary, what arrangements had been made to effect the move of Y to Hungary, and why there had been such enormous delay (the case – and so the child at its heart – being, by then, more than two and a half years old).

HHJ Hillier heard the case again on 23^rd March 2021. The ‘key issue in the case’ was described by the judge in her order as being, ‘The timetable for placing [Y] in the care of her paternal aunt in Hungary’. The judge directed the local authority to serve a ‘transition plan outlining the transfer of care from her foster carers to her paternal aunt’.

In early April 2021, the aunt’s husband, who of course had been an integral part of the earlier assessments, died by suicide. Although it had become apparent in mid-April 2021, via an interpreter overhearing conversations in Hungary, that there may have been a bereavement, it was not until 12^th May 2021 that the social worker was able to speak to the aunt and was informed by her that that her husband had died. The aunt refused or was simply emotionally unable to provide further information, promising to write, although this did not happen.

As I have previously described:

The case first came before me on 12^th August 2021. On 27^th September 2021, the local authority issued a further and fresh application for a care order in relation to Y.

The jurisdictional issue was heard by me on 30 September and 1 October 2021. I handed down my final judgment (which had been circulated earlier in draft) on 16 December 2021. That judgment paved the way for the local authority’s second Part IV application to continue and the foster carers’ SGO application to be revived, both to be heard in the English Family Court.

There followed an SGO assessment of the foster carers in December 2021 and further assessment of the aunt by the local authority social worker in January and February 2022. On 8^th February 2022, I heard and dismissed an application on behalf of the aunt to instruct an independent social worker to carry out a further and fresh assessment of her.

The aunt has not cooperated with further scheduled assessment appointments with the social worker, nor with any recent appointments to meet the guardian, nor with efforts for her video contact with Y to be observed by professionals. (I shall describe in greater detail below the longstanding concern in relation to the video contact which has been arranged between Y and her.)

As long ago as 8 February 2022, I listed the case for final hearing. The time estimate initially allowed was ten days, this to allow for judicial reading, hearing all of the contested evidence, oral submissions and preparation and delivery of judgment.

The case came before me for an Issues Resolution Hearing on 4^th April 2022. In the days beforehand, the parties had been told at an advocates’ meeting that the aunt intended to reengage with the proceedings, she having failed to file the statement which was by then long overdue. In light of what the local authority considered serial and entrenched non-engagement by the aunt, Mr Harrison QC invited me, effectively summarily, to proceed to make a final SGO at that hearing. I declined to do so. The case fell short, it seemed to me, of one in which, it would be appropriate to do so – there was a real issue to be tried. It would be, I considered, an unfair exercise of case management powers to prevent a genuine contender for Y’s care from putting her case and challenging that put forward by others. Instead, I extended the time for the father and the aunt to file their final evidence, setting out in a little detail the matters to be addressed in the aunt’s statement. The aunt was to file her statement by 19^th April 2022, by which date I also directed that she issue any such application as she intended to make (for example, for permission to apply for a child arrangements order).

There was a further Issues Resolution Hearing before me on 26^th April 2022. The aunt’s statement had come in the day before the hearing, six days late; there had still been no recent contact between the aunt and Y; and the aunt had not made herself available to speak to the social worker. No application had been issued by her or on her behalf in relation to her contention for the long-term care of Y. Again the local authority invited me to make final orders. Again I declined to do so. I reduced the time estimate of the final hearing from ten to six days, the first day to be set aside for judicial reading. It was understood and anticipated by all that the aunt would be present – remotely – throughout the hearing.

I understand that at an advocates’ meeting shortly before the final hearing, those acting for the aunt indicated that she was unable to obtain time off work for the whole of the fixture, but would instead attend – remotely, of course – on the first day of evidence, Monday 16^th May, being her day off work, to give her evidence out of turn, but would not be able to attend on the other days to hear the evidence of the social workers, the foster carers or the guardian.

Taking a pragmatic approach to the issue, the parties accepted this proposal, as did I. On the morning of Monday 16^th May, however, the appointed time for the aunt to give her evidence, I was told that she had not attended (remotely), had not responded to recent communication from her solicitors, and had sent no message to indicate the fact of or the reason for her non-attendance either before or during that morning. I stood the matter down for urgent enquiries, suggesting that the father might be able to contact his sister. He duly informed his lawyers that she had told him that she had not been able to take the day off work, and that she would not be able to do so all week. The father facilitated contact between the aunt and her lawyers, who were eventually told by her that she had been asked by her employers to attend work, so had been obliged to do so. She would be unable to give evidence or to attend at any point during the week during normal sitting hours. Her legal team were not able to give me a reason for the aunt not having notified them or the court when she learned that she would not be able to attend court, even for the single day.

I decided at that stage that it would be disproportionate to allow for all of the witnesses to be fully challenged on the various disputed factual matters referable to the dispute as to where and with whom Y should live; I indicated that I would hear cross-examination on the various other, more peripheral matters (set out more fully below), but would deal with the principal issue on the basis of written evidence and oral submissions. There would be little point, it seemed to me, in entertaining hours of challenge to the local authority’s and the foster carers’ cases in circumstances in which the aunt, effectively by her own volition, was unable to speak to, or to be challenged in relation to the detail of, her own written evidence.

In the event, then, I heard live evidence from the local authority social worker (“the social worker”), the male foster carer and the children’s guardian.

I have also read the bulk of the written material, including, of course, the assessments of and the two written statements by the aunt. (If I do not refer below to much of the detail included in that material, it is not because it is not in my mind, but because the material is voluminous, and this judgment must be kept within reasonable bounds and must be delivered with relative expedition.) I heard extensive and very helpful oral submissions from each of the parties’ leading counsel and from the male foster carer.

Placement. The principal issue between the parties is where and with whom Y should live. The foster carers, strongly supported by the local authority and the children’s guardian, contend that she should remain with them, the underpinning regime to be transposed from one of local authority control to one of special guardianship. The Official Solicitor, on the mother’s behalf, also supports this contention. Conversely, the aunt, with the support of her brother, Y’s father, seeks Y’s placement with her in Hungary. Although there is no application from the aunt in relation to how, legally, this would be achieved, it would not be particularly difficult to effect the move, if it were appropriate, nor to craft the appropriate legal regime to allow for this, not least as the aunt is already the beneficiary of a final guardianship order in relation to Y in Hungary.

Name change. In the event that Y continues to live with them, the foster carers seek permission to cause her to be known by a new, or at least an extra, name, that is to inject their surname into the given and familial names she already carries. Their preference would be that her current surname (which she takes from her father, not her mother) would be the first half of a double-barrelled surname, theirs to be the second half, so, [forename] [father’s surname]-[foster carers’ surname]. They are not wedded, however, to this particular configuration. This proposal is supported by the children’s guardian, but is ‘vehemently’ opposed by the father, and fairly strongly opposed by the aunt and the local authority. The mother, although lacking capacity and so represented by the Official Solicitor, is noted to be broadly supportive of the proposed change.

Contact. If Y is to remain in this country, the question of contact with her parents and the aunt must be considered. While there is a measure of agreement, questions arise (a) as to whether there should be an order for contact or merely the recording of the agreed arrangements in recitals to the order, and (b) as to the appropriate frequency for the aunt’s contact. It should be noted that currently – and this might well change in the future – what is anticipated is either indirect contact, or direct, but remote (i.e. video-call) contact, rather than in person, direct contact. In the future, it may well be appropriate for Y to see any or all of the father, the mother and the aunt in direct, face-to-face contact, whether in this country, Hungary, or even somewhere else.

Technical international issues. Potential pitfalls arise if Y is to remain in this country, pursuant to an SGO, while she remains both a citizen of Hungary and the subject of a Hungarian guardianship order in favour of her Hungarian aunt. There have been evidence and submissions in relation to registration and recognition in Hungary of any English order, the appropriate means to effect the revocation of the Hungarian order and the role of the local authority in relation to both of these, whether directly, or by lending its assistance (including financial support) to either or both of the foster carers and the aunt.

The aunt has two other children, now aged 8 and 4, the elder from a previous partner, the younger from her husband, who took his own life in April 2021.

When first asked, the aunt was initially somewhat ambivalent about the prospect of caring for her brother’s baby. She wanted her parents to be considered first and before her, and was prepared to contemplate thinking about putting herself forward to care only if they could not. This is perhaps not surprising. She was a young mother of two small children and she and her husband both worked long hours. She came round to the idea, put herself forward and fell to be assessed as a carer.

Since initially putting herself forward and to date, there have been a number of assessments of her:

As I have referred to above, two particularly significant incidents intersperse the time period of these assessments:

I have described in my earlier judgment the ‘jurisdictional quagmire’ which ensued. When the mire was eventually forensically drained and the jurisdictional pathway opened up in England, the assessment described at (f) (above) took place. This was the first assessment to have been undertaken since the various seismic events of the spring of 2021. Early in that updating assessment, the author writes:

The body of the assessment set out, among many other issues, the author’s concerns that the aunt continues to minimise the impact on the children of her late husband’s behaviour and of his death. The aunt gave inconsistent reasons for not having mentioned his alcohol issues during the initial assessments, viz. (a) not having considered there to have been issues with drinking at the relevant times, yet (b) having been ashamed to raise the issue. The assessor also considered the aunt to underestimate the significant additional pressure it would inject to her parental role if Y were placed with her (‘She does not believe that having a third child “would impact on [her] much”.’).

The addendum assessment attempted to analyse what support would be available to the aunt if Y were placed with her in Hungary and how that support might help to reduce and manage the identified risks and concerns. The worker experienced significant difficulty in making contact with the Central Authority and the Guardianship Authority, found that consent had not been given for her (despite what the aunt had told her) to speak to the aunt’s son’s kindergarten and was unable, despite efforts, to make contact with the paternal grandmother. She did speak to the paternal grandfather, although the net result was that she was more, rather than less, worried about the quality of care which would await Y in Hungary.

The conclusions of this addendum report, then, were as follows:

There is no doubt as to the aunt’s good faith: she puts herself forward to care for her niece because of her loyalty to and love for all members of her family, including Y. It is to her credit that she should continue to do so, notwithstanding the almost indescribable trauma she has experienced in the last year or so.

However, very significant question marks have been raised in relation to the aunt’s actual commitment and to her ability and capacity, given the many other calls on her time and emotional and physical resources, to offer Y all that she would need. The local authority also questions her ability to protect Y from the aunt’s brother, Y’s father, and her capacity for openness and honesty.

In a document helpfully produced to supplement their closing oral submissions, Mr Harrison QC and Ms Tait marshal under helpful headings the evidence which I have read and heard, which they say justifies the local authority’s position. Largely maintaining their headings, that document can be summarised as follows:

In her first statement, in January 2022, the aunt reaffirmed her love for Y and her commitment to caring for her.

She wrote of the devastating effect of the unexpected and traumatic loss of her husband, during the isolation of the pandemic.

She explained not having told the social workers during initial assessments of her husband’s alcohol misuse as this ‘seemed to have subsided […] [he] seemed to have resolved his historical problems with drinking’.

She accepted inconsistency in attending the contact sessions, but blamed poor internet connectivity.

She criticised the local authority’s assessment plan and asked instead for an independent social work assessment.

In her second statement, in April 2022, she described her current circumstances, new, more spacious accommodation in a quiet, residential area. She was working, she said, in a restaurant kitchen. While this had entailed long hours, this was to reduce as the restaurant took on more staff. She would take a month off work, she said, if Y were placed with her. She described her proposals for kindergarten and medical care for Y.

As to linguistic issues, she thought it unfair to criticise her for not having learned more English. In any event, a cousin who speaks English would be able to help out if Y moved to Hungary, and she could help Y to pick up Hungarian with the help of an app, confident that with immersion in her family and at school, Y would soon settle and achieve fluency in Hungarian.

She spoke of support from Family Support Workers, if needed, from her own mother, and, if required, financially from the government.

Her sporadic contact attendance she put down to working long hours at the restaurant.

She felt that the local authority had been dismissive of her, certainly since it had ‘made its mind up as to the plan for [Y] to remain in her current placement’. She apologised for missing appointments with the children’s guardian and for not rearranging them. She blamed her internet on missing the last court hearing.

The aunt was keen to explain the significance to Y in terms of her identity and cultural heritage of being able to live with aunt in Hungary:

If the court were to maintain Y’s placement with the foster carers, the aunt thought the proposed 6-yearly contact proposed between her and Y far too low: it should be fortnightly ‘to allow for me to continue a positive relationship with Y’.

The guardian was at pains to point out in her report that she acknowledged the positive early assessment of the aunt and her husband and that their ‘genuine motivation and commitment to caring for [Y] can be gleaned from the papers and their ability to care for their own children is confidently acknowledged’.

The children’s guardian wrote:

Learning in the aunt’s belated statement of her proffered reasons for the various shortcomings the guardian identified, she did not in any way change her assessment.

Y was placed with the foster carers just before she was two weeks old, although they had been meeting her care needs in the neonatal ward for a week before then. She has lived with them at all times since then.

The foster carers are experienced parents in their own right. They have brought up five children, two from the female carer’s first marriage (cut short by the unexpected natural death of her first husband) and three whom they have adopted. All are now adults, although two still live with the foster carers. Older than birth parents would be, the male foster carer is 64 years and the female is nearly 70 years old.

The foster carers are also highly experienced as foster carers, having fostered for more than 25 years (with a break during the period of the adoption of each of their three children).

The male foster carer has had a long career as a child social work professional.

The foster carers have, throughout, been alive to Y’s cultural needs, in many ways, at least in the early months, rather more proactively than the local authority social work team. The foster carers made the point, even in their first statement:

The foster carers were as good as their word in relation to seeking out Hungarian resources. The local authority sought out language tutors, but, unsurprisingly, perhaps, given Y’s age, this was never really a viable possibility. The foster carers, through their enquiries with an interpreter who was retained by the local authority to assist with contact, discovered a relatively local Hungarian School, which meets at weekends, which Y now attends and where she is exposed to Hungarian language, in songs, nursery rhymes and games, supported throughout by the foster carers. Through people they have met there, the foster carers have started to become involved in the local Hungarian community and network and have discovered a number of Hungarian families very local to them, some with children around Y’s age.

I was struck, when the male foster carer gave evidence, of the openness the couple have provided for their own adopted children in relation to their heritage and life stories. As well as conventional birthdays, the children of the family have had an annual nominated ‘Adoption Day’, which is used both as a celebration of the children’s coming into the family and also, importantly, as an opportunity to talk specifically and openly about the child’s background, heritage and life story. If Y were to remain in their care pursuant to an SGO, the same sort of arrangement would pertain, in addition to the various efforts to incorporate Hungarian friends, culture and food into their, and so Y’s, everyday lives.

The foster carers have been the subject of a Connected Persons Assessment. The assessment descends into the usual granular detail about the couple, their histories, and their current living and familial circumstances, which I need not include in this judgment. They are described as warm and caring individuals, in a very longstanding, healthy and mutually supportive relationship, who have offered love and stability to their own children as well as to countless others during a long fostering career. The assessment describes how Y is embedded not just in the lives of her two carers, but in the broader, richer family life which incorporates the couple’s adult children (two of whom live with them) and their grandchildren who ‘have built a significant relationship with [Y] and view her as a ‘cousin’ who resides in their grandparents’ care,’ one of the couple’s adult children reporting that her two children ‘have an established relationship with [Y] and care for her deeply’.

The assessment recognises two ‘difficulties’. The first is the couple’s relative advanced years, given that Y is only three years old. The second is that they ‘do not share the same cultural heritage as [Y]. Furthermore, they are not able to speak or understand that Hungarian language, customs or traditions.’ The conclusion of the assessment was that if the decision is made for Y to remain in England, then an SGO in favour of the foster carers should be made ‘so that [Y] can be offered permanence and maintain her strong attachments to the [foster carers’] family.’

The children’s guardian’s assessment of the foster carers is overwhelmingly positive:

In relation to their ability to manage the heritage and identity issues, she writes:

Y is described by the children’s guardian as ‘a gregarious little girl with an energetic and spirited personality.’ When at ease she is confident, chatty and mischievous. She is clearly wholly settled with the foster carers, who have experienced no significant behavioural difficulties, save for a long period when her sleep, so theirs as well, was much disturbed. Other than a degree of delay in speech development, there are no significant issues in relation to her.

Y has settled in well at nursery, where she is demonstrably ‘energetic, sociable and inquisitive’.

Both the guardian and the social worker see a little girl who is very clearly thriving.

Self-evidently, she has been deprived the possibility of any meaningful attachment relationship with her birth parents, the impact of which will only be seen in the fullness of time. However, she has been placed with high quality carers since she was barely a week old and, crucially, has remained in their care at all times in the more than three years since. This has allowed for the formation of healthy, secure attachments with her primary caregivers, the advantages of which are already becoming visible in the confident and relaxed way in which she interacts with other members of her familial and social circle and with the wider world.

Of course, the other of Y’s characteristics which it is crucial to note are that she is a fully Hungarian child, born of Hungarian parents, with only Hungarian birth relatives, and so with a lineage and culture which derive wholly from Hungary. This is a vastly important aspect of her being and of her identity.

The foster carers did not know that it was possible to effect a change of name for a child placed under an SGO until the lawyers providing them with advice in relation to these proceedings told them so.

Y’s name is currently [forename] [father’s surname]. The foster carers would like to change that name to the extent of adding their surname into her current name, preferably so that her surname becomes double-barrelled, [forename] [father’s surname]-[foster carers’ surname].

Their reasons for doing so, they tell me, have nothing to do with trying to water down, still less to side-line or extinguish Y’s Hungarian heritage. Rather, it is to reflect her lived reality throughout childhood: she will be a Hungarian child, who lives in England, speaks English and has English carers. She will be – always – the birth child of her parents; but she will also be a member of the foster carer’s family, in both a nuclear sense, but also very much as part of a close-knit, wider family group, comprising her foster parents’ older children and their children, who will be, effectively, de facto uncles, aunts and cousins. The foster carers point out that their three adopted children all took the foster carer’s surname, and that, save for their adopted daughter, who has chosen to be known by her husband’s surname, the family group remains distinguishable by that name. The foster carers consider that the addition of their surname is likely to make it easier for Y at school and socially given that part of her name will the same as that of those who are to look after her throughout her childhood.

The father is described as being ‘vehemently opposed’ to Y’s name being changed in this way. Although he is described as being very grateful to the foster carers for having looked after Y so well these past few years, and fully supports Y’s staying with them if she cannot live with his sister in Hungary, he considers that it would be wholly wrong to allow Y’s name to be changed to take on a name which is hers neither through birth nor through association with anything in her birth heritage.

It is not suggested on his behalf that the father would be so upset by the insertion of this name that it would prevent him from progressing the contact which is planned, through indirect, to direct video contact, possibly one day moving to direct face-to-face.

The aunt takes the same view as the father.

The local authority also opposes the proposed name change. The social worker’s evidence to me was that Y remains and always will remain a Hungarian child, with whom the local authority is committed to promoting as much contact with her birth family as is possible. She is concerned that, in due course, especially if she has contact with her birth family, and as she becomes curious about her identity, Y may come to question why her name was changed. Further, confident that there will be at least some ongoing contact with birth family, the authority does not want to condone a course which may be the cause of tension, to create, as Mr Harrison QC put it, ‘a running sore’.

The children’s guardian took a different view. She considers that adding the foster carers’ surname takes nothing away, but adds an important component which then allows her name to reflect both sides of her identity, that is her identity begotten by birth, parentage and nationality, and her identity created from her day-to-day lived experiences as an English-speaking girl, being brought up in England by an English family.

The guardian did not accept the argument put to her, in particular by Mr Setright QC, that, by definition, to add a new component to a name will dilute the effect or import of the original components.

The law is settled, well-known and easily stated.

When it comes to making decisions about long-term outcomes for Y, her welfare is paramount (s.1(1), CA 1989). I am to take into account the non-exhaustive list of factors contained in the so-called welfare checklist when assessing where her welfare lies (s.1(3), CA 1989).

Where there are competing options for her long-term future, I am to undertake a global, holistic evaluation of each, taking into account benefits and negatives, and am then to compare the options, one against the other. (See Re G (Care Proceedings: Welfare Evaluation) [2014] 1 FLR 670, per McFarlane LJ; KH v A CC & Others [2020] 1 FLR 1057, per Baker LJ).

As to the tension, often apparent in cases such as this, between the advantages to a child of not having her status quo, and so her attachments, disturbed and the advantages of being placed in an extended family placement, in M’P-P (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 584, McFarlane LJ stated:

Of the trial judge’s analysis of the foster carer in that case, McFarlane LJ noted:

The Court of Appeal defined the fundamental issue thus:

It was noted in the judgment that the ‘status quo’ argument was generally not a substantial factor in public law cases given that the child would often be in a home which was temporary [§47] and it was also noted in submissions that there was a danger of a status quo forming simply due to the passage of time and repeated interim orders. However, the Court of Appeal also cited Ormrod LJ in D v M (Minor: Custody Appeal) [1982] 3 All ER 897:

McFarlane LJ noted:

Translated to the present case, I derive from these various judicial utterances an understanding that, into my holistic analysis, I must inject a careful evaluation of the benefits to Y of continuing to live in the home in which she has been settled and formed secure attachments over a very prolonged period (and the converse potential damage of moving from it), alongside a similarly assiduous assessment of the benefits to Y of being brought up by a close relative, in the country of her heritage, with all of the associated benefits in terms of identity and culture (and the converse disadvantage of not doing so).

We come full circle, then: I must evaluate – with precision and in detail – the advantages and disadvantages of each of the viable options, and then compare them, side by side.

I should acknowledge that I am very grateful to Messrs. Setright QC and Langford for their work in shepherding the various jurisprudence in relation to the court-sanctioned changing (or not) of a child’s name and to Messrs. Sampson QC and Leong for supplementing this work slightly.

Section 14B, CA 1989 provides:

The starting point, for current purposes, is the modern locus classicus, Dawson v Wearmouth [1999] 2 WLR 960, [1999] 1 FLR 1167. In that case, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle said at 1175H:

It was from the speeches in Dawson that Butler-Sloss LJ in Re W, Re A, Re B (Change of Name) [1999] 2 FLR 930 derived the following propositions:

In Dawson, the section 1(5) CA 1989 principle that a court shall not make a relevant order ‘unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all,’ resonates in the House of Lords reasoning:

Fast-forwarding two decades, King LJ, in C (Children) (Child in Care: Choice of Forename) [2017] Fam 137, posed the question, ‘What is in a name?’, answering her own question thus:

Roberts J, in X County Council v A [2020] EWHC 3638 (Fam), on an application for care and placement orders, stated:

In Re L (A Child) [2007] EWCA Civ 196, [2007] 2 FLR 50, the Court of Appeal (Ward, Wilson, and Toulson LJJ) considered an appeal against a decision of Black J whereby she had refused an application by the maternal grandparents, in respect of whom she had made an SGO, to change the surname of the child. The material part of Black J’s decision was recorded by the Court of Appeal thus:

Ward LJ (with whom Wilson and Toulson LJJ agreed) stated:

I have to say that for my part, and with the greatest possible respect, I find it difficult to see how the argument to which Ward LJ refers ‘that because the Court is given the reminder to consider a change of name when making a SGO, there is some bias in favour of such an order being made’ could be met with anything other than instant rejection. The facts of every case are different. For as long as we remain bound by the truism, in fact and law, ‘Each case has to be decided on its own facts with the welfare of the child the paramount consideration and all the relevant factors weighed in the balance by the court at the time of the hearing,’ there can surely be no room for any sort of presumption (or ‘bias’) in any direction in any particular type of case, and especially in the context of SGOs, an order appropriately deployed in such a very wide range of circumstances. For my part, I certainly shall not proceed on the basis that there is anything even resembling a presumption in either direction when I come to consider this question.

In S v B and Newport City Council [2007] 1 FLR 1116 Hedley J made an SGO in favour of a 6-year-old child’s maternal grandparents, in whose care the child had resided since he was 6 months old pursuant to a care order. The birth parents were each unable to meet the child’s needs and were identified as being volatile. A s.34(4) order permitting the prohibition of contact between the child and his parents had been in place. The judge, in addition to making the SGO (which discharged the s.34(4) order, and the care order) made a PSO prohibiting contact with the children. Additionally, and as an ancillary order, the judge made an order under s 14B(2)(a), giving leave for the child to be ‘known henceforth for all purposes’ by the surname of the maternal grandparents.

In even more extreme factual context, Cobb J considered the question of the change of two older children’s names in Re B and Another (Change of Names: Parental Responsibility: Evidence) [2017] EWHC 3250 (Fam), [2018] 1 FLR 1471. Alongside the Judge’s granting of a suite of far-reaching orders which effectively and significantly curtailed the parental responsibility of a father who posed a grave risk to his two children and their mother, he also allowed the children’s names – in full – to be changed. Of the applicable law, Cobb J said this:

I set out the full jurisprudential landscape, including that relating to whole name change, to full surname substitution and to change of a child’s given name, even though none of these accurately describes the particular question which I must determine. I do so in order that all of the various principles and all of the arguments which have found favour (or not) with earlier and higher courts can be seen. Ultimately, I will be guided entirely by Y’s welfare, determined in the context of her own very particular circumstances, past present and future, and bearing fully in mind the importance of her heritage, of the reasons for and the meaning of her original name, and of truth and authenticity in relation to her identity.

I am invited by the local authority to draw adverse inferences from the fact that the aunt has effectively chosen not to participate fully in this trial. Having made two written statements and having told the court, through her representatives, that she would attend on the first day to give evidence, she did not attend (remotely), did not forewarn the court or her lawyers, and only on fairly extensive efforts being made indicated that she would not be attending, she having been called in by her employer, she said, to work on a day off.

Mr Harrison QC and Ms Tait point to the comments of Lord Sumption JSC in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and others [2012] UKSC 34, [2013]2 AC:

By extension, says the local authority, in these CA 1989 proceedings (which include applications pursuant both to Part II (the SGO application) and Part IV (the underpinning care proceedings)), I am entitled to draw adverse inferences against a party who is claiming to assert a positive case, and who stands by her statements of evidence, but who does not take advantage of the clear ability to give – and to be tested through – oral evidence.

Of course, the aunt’s duty to attend derives not only from the fact that she advances a positive case, the evidence in support of which should be tested, but also from the requirement under the rules to attend all hearings ‘unless the court directs otherwise’ (see FPR 2010, r.12.14(2)(a)).

In answer to the notion that there may be some rule of law that adverse inferences can be drawn against a non-attending party, Mr Sampson QC for the aunt draws my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi [2021] UKSC 33, [2021] 1 WLR 3863 in which the Wisniewski line of reasoning was dealt with thus:

Although it was not cited before me, the decision of Williams J in Re K (Cocaine Ingestion: Failure to Give Evidence) [2020] EWHC 2502 (Fam), [2021] 2 FLR 349 is of considerable assistance on this question. Dealing with a mother who declined to give evidence during a fact-finding hearing in Part IV CA 1989 proceedings which were investigating the most serious allegations (she claiming to be ‘not in the right frame of mind’ to attend to give evidence, being ‘extremely muddled and confused’, and ‘that her mind had blocked out much of what happened’), the Judge said this of the approach to be taken to her effective refusal to attend:

It seems to me that the 2020 decision of Williams J in Re K (in the Family Division of the High Court) is entirely supported by the subsequent 2021 decision in Efobi (in the Supreme Court, on appeal, via the Court of Appeal, from an employment tribunal). I may draw adverse inferences from a witness’s failure to testify. I am not obliged to do so and there is no strict system of rules to be traversed in deciding whether to do so. In considering whether to draw inferences, and if so which, I will have a close eye to all the circumstances and must adopt an approach which accords with common sense.

Central to the aunt’s argument, skilfully and forcibly put on her behalf, albeit in her absence, by Messrs. Sampson QC and Leong, is the indisputable fact that Y is a Hungarian child. Her father is Hungarian, although now he lives in another EU country, and her mother is Hungarian, although she lives, and has done so for many years, in England. Although Y herself was born in England and has lived in England for her three, rising four, years of life, and although she has been brought up thus far to speak English, she is, and will always be of Hungarian heritage.

Much complaint is made on the aunt’s behalf of the slowness (on her case) with which the local authority grappled with the need to promote – in a meaningful way – Y’s Hungarian roots. This is especially egregious (again, on her case) in light of the fact that placement in Hungary was always on the cards, and for a long time was not only the preferred plan, but the court-sanctioned plan, not actioned only because of the global petrification created by the Pandemic.

Certain it is that on 18^th December 2021, the children’s guardian’s legal team applied on her behalf for a hearing in light of and to address the guardian’s significant concern that the local authority was not doing enough to promote and develop in particular Y’s Hungarian language, given that she was (still, at that stage) to be placed there. It is also clear that, at various points in the long history of this case, judges formed an adverse view about what was being done to deal with the fact of Y’s being Hungarian and, perhaps more pressingly, the possibility of an imminent move to Hungary. For example, I included in my order of 12^th August 2021 the following recital:

Further, while significant criticism is levelled by the local authority at the aunt in relation to her frequent non-attendance at contact, and her often fairly limited engagement when she did attend, the aunt counters with the complaint that very little was done to enable the contact to be successful. Given the child’s age, and so reduced ability to concentrate on and to participate in video-contact via an interpreter, that it was not a roaring success is perhaps no surprise, the aunt would say.

Also to be considered, I have already set out the many, proactive and ingenious ways in which the foster carers, if Y remains with them, will ensure her exposure to, at times her immersion in, at the very least Anglo-Hungarian culture.

What, then, should I make of all of this?

On the one hand, it is incontrovertibly true that the only way to ensure Y’s upbringing fully within, and her full exposure to, her Hungarian heritage is for her to be raised in Hungary, by Hungarian-speakers.

However, it should at this point be mentioned, and more than purely parenthetically, that this was never Y’s parents’ plan for her. If it were not for subsequent intervening events (the local authority’s removal of Y from their care, the father’s incarceration and deportation, etc.), presumably Y would be living with one or both of them in England, speaking Hungarian and English and about to embark on a childhood in English mainstream education. If Y’s historic, genetic heritage is entirely Hungarian, she is the product of two parents both of whom have substantial and longstanding links to England, and that too is certainly an important part of her story.

On the other hand, this is not a ‘zero sum game’. While placement with the foster carers could scarcely equate – regardless of any effort on their part – with living in Hungary, their openness and enthusiasm, as described above, would go a very long way to ensuring, at the least, that Y would grow up fully aware of, with a fair degree of knowledge about, and with a wholly positive view of, her Hungarian heritage. Furthermore, the foster carers’ entirely open and inclusive attitude towards post-final-placement familial contact would ensure that Y will have as much time with and exposure to her birth relatives (in particular, her mother, father and aunt) as is safe and otherwise in accordance with her best interests.

The aunt is 26 years old. She has two children, aged 8 and 4. She endured, recently and during the isolation of the Covid-19 lockdowns, the death by suicide of her husband, the father of her younger child. Without descending into florid and distressing detail, the circumstances – for her – were about as traumatic as one could imagine. The impact of this trauma must have been compounded by the fact that, for a significant period of time before her husband’s death, whether or not in a fluctuating pattern, her husband had grave issues with alcohol and with his mental health. No doubt all of this is the more horrendous for the aunt to bear because her husband was, in other ways, a good man and a loving husband and father.

Now, as then, the aunt evidently works very long hours in Hungary in order to provide for her children. There is no evidence to suggest that they are not well provided for. This court has nothing but admiration for the aunt – she is the committed and devoted mother who will do everything she can simply to ensure the wellbeing and the survival of her children.

However, as if these various vicissitudes were not enough, fate has also decreed that it is she who is the only family member able to represent herself as a viable carer for young Y, who will otherwise be all but lost to the family.

I have no doubt that Y is loved by her aunt. Nor do I doubt that the aunt demonstrates wholly admirable loyalty to all of her family, including her brother, Y’s father.

Referring back to my discussion above in relation to the law, in family proceedings, as to when adverse inferences can be drawn from non-attendance, I have no need in this case of hard and fast rules or presumptions. Nor, in fact, do I consider myself to be particularly disadvantaged by the aunt’s not being, or feeling, able to attend on the day on which she was to give her evidence.

Taking into account her entire conduct, over these regrettably very prolonged proceedings, including, but certainly not limited to, the acute non-attendance at the final hearing, it seems to me that I am well placed to reach a fairly complex conclusion.

That conclusion is this:

Messrs. Sampson QC and Leong submitted to me that there is no evidence to support the notion that Y would suffer any harm, still less significant harm, if she were to leave her foster carers’ care to be placed with her aunt in Hungary.

I cannot accept that submission.

The social worker devoted an entire statement to the potential impact on Y of separation from the foster carers and placement with the aunt. She wrote this:

The children’s guardian’s expertise leads her to a very similar conclusion:

In Re M’P-P (supra), McFarlane LJ, having mentioned the early work of John Bowlby and others on Attachment Theory, went on to speak of ‘the enhanced understanding of the neurological development of a young child’s brain that has become available, particularly, during the past decade. As a result, the importance of a child’s attachment to his or her primary care giver is now underpinned by knowledge of the underlying neurobiological processes at work in the developing brain of a baby or toddler.’

Y has known no other primary carers than the foster carers since she was a week-old premature neonate in hospital. She is now rising four years old. She has a healthy, secure attachment with the foster carers. The aunt, despite the contact which has taken place by WhatsApp, is a relative stranger to Y; she is a complete unknown qua caregiver. And there is a language barrier such that Y and the aunt do not speak each other’s language.

It seems to me, in those circumstances, that there is nothing theoretical about the potential harm which Y would suffer if she were to leave the care of her foster carers to be placed with an unknown carer who speaks only a language alien to Y. It is a certainty, in my view, that she would suffer harm going well beyond disruption, that she would feel abandoned, frightened and alone, that she would long harbour a deep sense of loss, made all the worse by the fact that her age would render it impossible to explain to her why her life had taken such a turn.

If Y were to be placed with her aunt in Hungary, she would be living (a) with a close member of her birth family as caregiver, (b) alongside other close members of her birth family, her cousins, (c) with ready access to other close members of her birth family, viz. her grandparents. She would eventually learn to speak, and thenceforth have as her first language, what is, by virtue of her birth, her mother language. She would grow up immersed in her culture and heritage of birth. Throughout her childhood she would be aware in a real sense of who her birth parents are, and would very probably be able to have contact with them, certainly with her father, whether remote or, in time, face-to-face. There would never be a time when she yearned for her birth country, or when she asked why she did not live there or with a family member.

Moreover, Y would live with a good, loving carer, whose abilities have been positively assessed and who is bound by nature to love Y and motivated by the loyalty of blood to care for her.

However, as I have found, she would be living with someone who is already struggling to manage the significant burdens of her life, and who will, again on my findings, face even greater difficulties attempting to add another young child to her household. Importing into this analysis the findings I set out at paragraph [140] above, there is a significant likelihood that the care given to Y would slip below acceptable levels.

Further among the problems the aunt would face is the management of her brother, Y’s father, in relation to the risk posed by whom the aunt will likely find it difficult to protect Y.

More potent even than these negative aspects of a placement with the aunt is the certainty that Y would be profoundly detrimentally affected by separation from the foster carers, no matter how carefully the handover of care were managed. The subsequent process of adjustment would be hampered, in my view, by the huge shock to Y’s system she would experience by virtue of living in a place where everything is different, this further compounded by the fact that she would be all but cut off from the world around her for many months by virtue of the language barrier. I remind myself of Y’s age – she is coming up for four, and the sheer length of time she has known just one set of surrogate parents. She would be bewildered by the move, she would grieve what she had known, and it seems to me she would be affected, probably harmed, into the long-term.

There is reason to consider that Y’s secure attachment to her foster carers would make her more resilient than a child without that benefit to such a move and that that attachment could successfully transfer to her aunt; but these are far from certainties and, even if achieved, could not prevent the process from being deeply painful for Y.

If Y continues to live with the foster carers, she will have the benefit of an entire childhood with one single set of primary attachment figures: she would enter adulthood in the same home and with the same ‘parents’ as she experienced when she left the neonatal ward at two weeks of age. Those carers are tried and tested, not only by virtue of the fact of their exemplary care of and the existing secure attachment with Y, but also by reason of their parenting and fostering of their own and scores of other children.

As well as her primary attachment to the foster carers, Y would grow up at the heart of a large and vibrant extended family, living alongside and among her carers’ adult children (and their partners) and their grandchildren, who are, in terms of age, of her generation.

She would also grow up with full knowledge of her background. The foster carers have demonstrated a desire and a capacity for total openness and honesty in relation to the truth of Y’s backstory and heritage. Moreover, they have shown initiative and determination in finding for and giving to Y as much exposure to her Hungarian culture as their particular corner of England allows. The foster carers are also wholly open to ongoing contact between Y and birth family members including her parents and her aunt, yet they are and will be responsible in ensuring that this takes place only to the extent that it is safe and is in Y’s best interests.

The principal downside of a placement with the foster carers is, of course, the flipside of the factors I set out in paragraph [148] above. However assiduous is the foster carers’ attention to Y’s culture and heritage, it will never be anything but a dim reflection of that to which she would be exposed if she were to live in Hungary, with Hungarian-speaking relatives. If she grows up in England, whether or not she has friends in the local Hungarian community, and whether or not she celebrates certain Hungarian festivals, abides by certain Hungarian customs, eats certain Hungarian food and learns some of the Hungarian language, she will still be living in England, speaking English and attending an English school. No matter what contact arrangements are put in place, she will not know or fit in with her Hungarian relatives in the same way as if she had lived with and among them. These are the realities of life in England.

My lodestar, of course, is Y’s welfare. I have considered at some length above factors which resonate with those set out in the s.1(3) CA 1989 checklist. I have her age, her background and her characteristics firmly in mind.

Her ascertainable wishes and feelings and the likely effect on her of a change in her circumstances, I can take together. In my estimation, as I have set out above, Y would be distraught at the prospect of leaving her foster carers and would be damaged if that came to pass.

There may well be cases in which a step which causes such harm is necessary or otherwise proportionate, for example if the benefits of the alternative placement are all but overwhelming or if there are inherent deficits in the current placement. However, in this case, the opposite is true. The current placement – as well as being one in which Y is wholly settled and thriving and where she has forged strong, healthy, secure attachments – is also of the highest quality in every other way. Conversely, as I have found, placement with her aunt, despite good intentions, would be a course fraught with a number of serious potential dangers for Y.

In the final analysis, it seems clear to me that it is overwhelmingly in Y’s interests to continue to live with her foster carers. I come to that conclusion with my eyes wide open to what Y will lose in terms of exposure to her birth heritage which would be the corollary to living and growing up in Hungary, but confident in the knowledge that her foster carers will do all in their power to mitigate that loss for Y.

Y will continue to live with the foster carers. I shall make a Special Guardianship Order in their favour.

I have set out at some length above the competing arguments in relation to the proposal to change Y’s name by adding to it the foster carers’ surname.

In summary, it is said against the proposal that Y is Hungarian, that she is, in law and fact, the child of her birth parents, and that she will always be both of these things. She would scarcely be exposed as standing out at school in this day and age by virtue of having a different surname to the people who drop her off and with whom she lives. If she were ever to ask why she has a different name to the family she lives with, the answer can simply be given, and the very act of doing so will helpfully reinforce her understanding of her heritage and life story. Her birth family, it is said, is so resolutely opposed to the proposed change that it would create an issue which could become a ‘running sore’. It might be inconvenient to her to be known by a different name to that on her birth certificate, amendment of that not being a possibility. Finally, if ever the time were to come when name change were indicated, it could take place then.

In favour of the proposal, it is pointed out that Y’s heritage includes the fact that she was born in England, her parents lived in England, she has always been, and now, pursuant to my ruling, will always be resident in England, living with English carers. Her carers are surrounded by family members most of whom also bear their name. And what is proposed is to add an important indicator of heritage and belonging, while subtracting nothing.

It is an important factor that Y’s current name represents the agreed choice of her birth parents. Originally bearing her mother’s surname, she now, by their agreement, bears the forename they have chosen and her father’s surname.

It is also significant that the father (in common with other paternal family members, although not, notably, the mother) objects very strongly to the proposal. Relevant though this factor is, I do not consider it remotely likely that the father, or any other family member, would be so affronted by a name change that it would impact on any decisions they were to make in relation to whether and how to take up contact with Y.

It is important, in my view, to look carefully at the nature of Y’s placement. It is to be underpinned by an SGO which, it has rightly been pointed out to me, is a very different beast to an adoption order. The principal relevant difference is that under the SGO, while the foster carers will gain status, the birth parents will not lose status: Y remains, in law, their child. However, notwithstanding the type of order, it is a fact that Y was placed with the foster carers when a tiny baby and will remain with them, now as special guardians, for her entire childhood. They will be the only acting parents she will ever know as a child. Conversely, Y has never been, and will never be, looked after by either of her birth parents. It is hoped that she will see her parents in contact, but even that is some way off and by no means a certainty.

I am struck by the fact that Y will have to make sense of her place in the foster carers’ family. The process of explaining why she does not live with her birth parents may, perhaps oddly, be rather easier than explaining how she fits into her now permanent family. Her special guardians each have one or more of their own children by birth; they share three adopted children, now adults; and they have grandchildren, far closer in age to Y than are her adult ‘siblings’ (by virtue of the SGO). Given the fact that she is now the only child for whom her special guardians are responsible, she will occupy an absolutely central place in their household, regardless of whether other adult children live there or visit with grandchildren. Moreover, while an SGO does not have the legal finality of an adoption order, as a matter of fact, this SGO is intended to be permanent and final, and it represents a placement with two people which began when Y was a week old and will continue until she is an adult. It seems to me, in these most unusual circumstances, that there would be a real benefit to Y in linking her, by name, with her carers and their family.

It further seems to me that the argument against the change based on Y’s heritage militates rather more strongly in the other direction. Undoubtedly Y’s birth heritage is Hungarian; and Y’s birth parents chose her Hungarian name. However, Y’s lived reality has always been and will now always be that she resides in England, with English carers, speaking English, attending an English school. She is not a visitor, nor a temporary charge in her special guardians’ care and she must be secure in that knowledge. In those circumstances, the proposed name change would represent a tangible link to the other, the lived, aspect of her identity.

I am fortified in my decision by the fact that this is a placement and a household in which Y’s birth heritage will never be swept aside, still less hidden, but rather explored, discussed and celebrated. This is the opposite to the scenario facing Black J in Re L, where the otherwise well-intentioned grandparents did not feel able to promote, even proactively to discuss with the child, her birth parentage, and where the proposed name substitution would serve to obscure rather than to illuminate the truth.

Y’s truth, it seems to me, is that she is, and will always be the Hungarian child of her birth parents, but, save only for the first week of her life, she will also always be the child of her foster carers, now her special guardians. In those circumstances, it can only enhance her sense of belonging, as she struggles to establish her view of self standing astride these two different worlds, that her name embraces both.

Accordingly, I give permission for Y to be known, for all purposes, as [Forename] [Original surname]-[Special guardians’ surname].

I can deal with this issue briefly.

There are plans for the development of contact with the father, moving from the indirect exchange of video clips, to direct, but video, contact. There is the prospect, in the future, of face-to-face contact, subject to established commitment, risk assessment and practicalities (the father lives in a different country and, having been deported, is not permitted to re-enter the UK).

There are similar plans for the development of contact with the mother, provided that she engages with a contact risk assessment, albeit that there would need to be further assessment after a period of exchanging introductory video clips.

It is proposed that video contact with the aunt continue, but that it is at an initial frequency of six times per year.

Two questions arise. First, should any of the arrangements be reduced to an order, or should they simply be recorded in recitals to my final order? Second, should the aunt’s contact be more frequent: she contends for its taking place fortnightly?

I am of the clear view that there should be no positive order. The arrangements are all, necessarily, relatively vague and are contingent on further steps being taken and, crucially, commitment being demonstrated by the various birth family members. There is no doubt but that the special guardians will honour their side of the agreement, such that I see no reason for them to be bound by the terms of an order. This is especially so, given that it is not difficult to envisage circumstances in which the terms of any order ceased to be appropriate, potentially obliging the special guardians to return to court to seek its variation.

Broadly the same reasoning underpins my decision not to order (or otherwise recommend) that the aunt’s contact should be more frequent than is proposed. The history leads me to believe that if contact is taken up as agreed, if it is proactively and positively managed by all parties, and if, in consequence, it is a genuinely positive experience for Y, then the special guardians will readily agree to an increase in its frequency, if this is indicated. Conversely, sadly, history suggests that any greater frequency than that proposed is unlikely to be honoured with any regularity by the aunt, leading to disappointment for Y and frustration for her carers.

I have today made a Special Guardianship Order in favour of Y’s erstwhile foster carers. It is the clear intention of that order that Y should remain in their sole care for the remainder of her childhood. However, even though she never lived with her and has never even been to Hungary, Y’s aunt is, as matter of Hungarian law, the beneficiary of a guardianship order in relation to Y.

The potential problem has long been a feature of international family law. Many years ago, the now perhaps unfortunate phrase ‘limping child’ was coined, described thus by Cheshire:

Clearly it will be most unsatisfactory if Y has a different status in England than in Hungary. The issue may progress from unsatisfactory to actively problematic if, for example, Y were to be effectively prevented from safe travel to Hungary (perhaps to see the country of her heritage, perhaps to have contact with birth relatives) by virtue of uncertainty as to whether she might be unable to leave.

The two-fold solution, I hope, is fairly simple. First, given that Y is now not going to live with the aunt in Hungary now, or at any point in her childhood, the guardianship order should be revoked. Second, the orders I have made should be registered with a view to their recognition in Hungary, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter IV of the 1996 Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (“Hague 1996”).

I hope and expect that the local authority will do all that it can to ensure that these joint aims are achieved. It seems to me that to do so is pre-eminently the appropriate substance of special guardianship support services. This might involve liaising with authorities in Hungary, making the relevant applications in Hungary and/or assisting either the aunt or the special guardians to make such applications or to signal their consent to the various necessary steps.

One of the principal purposes of regularising Y’s status in the ways I have described is to enable her safely to have contact (if otherwise indicated) with family members.

Hague 1996 provides, inter alia:

I very much hope, and I respectfully request, that the Hungarian Central Authority, on being requested to do so by the Central Authority for England and Wales and on being provided with a copy of this judgment and my order, does all that it can to assist in regularising Y’s status and situation.

I also appeal to the aunt to do all she can to enable this process to take place. I have no doubt that she continues to want what is best for Y, as she has throughout. That now requires Y to have a single, settled status, throughout the world, and to be able to travel freely, in particular to Hungary, when the time comes.

Y’s immigration and citizenship status is also somewhat complicated. She is of Hungarian nationality, resident in the UK pursuant to having EU settled status. She is likely to be eligible, at least in time, for UK citizenship. I hope that the local authority will consider it part of their duty to Y and to her special guardians, previously their foster carers, to assist in relation to any necessary process when the time comes.

Y, not yet four years old, has been the subject of an almost unparalleled series of legal twists and turns. Never in the care of her birth parents, she has been the subject of two sets of care proceedings, a private law application, an Article 15 BIIa transfer, a failed attempt at a cross-jurisdictional placement and now has different status in two different countries, necessitating, no doubt, yet more complex legal action.

She has also been adrift in legal proceedings, her future uncertain, for an unconscionable amount of time.

Happily, she has been wholly unaware of and largely unaffected by all of this. She left hospital a couple of weeks after she was born into the care of two extraordinary people, in whose care, by virtue of this judgment and the order which will emanate from it, she will remain for the rest of her childhood. She is settled and thriving, securely attached to the only caregivers she has known.

Her birth family, though no doubt they will be bitterly disappointed by my decisions, have all shown the good grace to register their appreciation of and gratitude to Y’s carers. I am confident that Y will grow up with a full awareness of her place in the world and her Hungarian heritage; it is to be hoped that she will be able to know – in a real sense – her Hungarian birth relatives. She will also know that those relatives – and in particular her aunt – did all they could to offer themselves up to provide a home for her.

I make a Special Guardianship Order in relation to Y in favour of her foster carers. I give my permission for Y to known henceforth and for all purposes by the name [Forename] [Original surname]-[Special Guardians’ surname]. The order will record in its recitals the proposals in relation to ongoing contact with birth family members, but will include no child arrangements order in relation to that contact.