D (Placement in Jamaica), Re

These proceedings concern a little girl, D, born in 2024 and aged 1. The parties to the proceedings are the local authority which brings this application, the London Borough of Redbridge; D's mother (“the mother”); and D herself through her children's guardian.

All parties to the proceedings ask me to make an order which will set D on a path to a permanent move to Jamaica where she will live with her maternal half-brother, E, in the care of E’s paternal aunt Ms L. The issue which I have to decide is whether to approve that plan as being in D’s best interests, taking into account the legal and practical complexities of her proposed emigration.

If I decide that the obstacles to a move are too great for the Jamaica plan to be attempted, the parties (including D’s mother) agree that the only other option for D’s long term care will be a placement order leading to her adoption in this jurisdiction.

Whichever decision I make, the proceedings cannot conclude now. If I decide that the Jamaica plan is in D’s best interests, it is likely that I will in due course make a special guardianship order in favour of Ms L, which will then be mirrored in Jamaica. I cannot make that order yet for a number of reasons, not least the fact that D has not yet met Ms L in person, although there has been some video contact.

If I decide, having reviewed the viability of the Jamaica plan, that adoption is the only outcome which will meet D’s needs, I will need to adjourn for a short period for the local authority to put that option once more before the Agency Decision Maker and to confirm that it intends to pursue its application for a placement order.

D is her mother’s fourth child. The mother has two adult sons who live in country Y (a European country). E, her third child, was born in June 2022 and is now aged three. The mother is, I believe, a national of country Y but she has settled status and D is entitled on that basis to British citizenship.

Sadly, although she clearly has the capacity to be a loving and devoted parent, the mother suffers from a serious substance misuse problem and the chaotic lifestyle that often accompanies it. She managed to achieve relative stability for a period following E’s birth, and cared for him until April 2023 when he was removed, after drug tests indicated that she was continuing to use both cocaine and cannabis. E was made subject to a special guardianship order in favour of Ms L, his father’s sister, in October 2023, and moved to live in Jamaica shortly thereafter.

The mother became pregnant with D during the course of E’s care proceedings. At one point during the pregnancy she became homeless and was sleeping on the street. She was provided with temporary housing but was then evicted because of drug use. She did not access antenatal care.

The local authority issued these proceedings shortly after D's birth. An interim care order was made, and D was placed in foster care. The mother attended only a few contact sessions and did not complete her parenting assessment. She has maintained intermittent contact with her solicitors and has been able to give instructions in respect of D’s final placement, but has not attended any hearings in these proceedings for some time. Earlier this year she gave birth to a fifth child, F, who is now also subject to care proceedings and living in foster care.

The mother has provided only a first name for D's father. Almost nothing is known about him and the local authority has not been able to identify him. There are references in the documentation to him being variously of Caribbean, Indian or Pakistani heritage; I assume that these references are the result of different information being provided by the mother, and I do not know how reliable this is.

These proceedings have been delayed because of the local authority’s efforts, initially, to identify and assess potential family carers for D and, more recently, to establish whether a placement with Ms L in Jamaica would be possible. The uncertainty surrounding the latter issue has resulted in a number of changes in the local authority's care plan for D.

Early in these proceedings Ms L put herself forward to care for D, together with her partner Mr M. A special guardianship assessment, carried out by an independent social worker with the full support and cooperation of the Jamaican authorities, concluded that Ms L and Mr M were well-placed to offer D a permanent home and that this placement would have a number of advantages. D would have the opportunity to grow up together with a sibling close in age, and the chance to maintain a relationship with her mother and other maternal relatives through indirect, and possibly in future direct, contact.

The local authority first sought advice on the possibility of D emigrating to Jamaica in October 2024. That advice was to the effect that because D did not have a biological connection with Ms L, it would not be possible for her to achieve secure immigration status in Jamaica. In the absence of any other viable carer within the family, the local authority Agency Decision Maker endorsed a plan for adoption and the local authority applied for a placement order.

An IRH took place on 13 January 2025 before District Judge Coupland. The judge considered the immigration advice obtained by the local authority and was not satisfied, according to a recital on the order, that the option of a placement in Jamaica had been fully explored. He directed the local authority to obtain further advice, setting out on the face of the order the issues on which expert advice was required. The expert was asked to consider, amongst other issues, whether adoption by Ms L and Mr M might be a possibility. At that hearing the proceedings were reallocated to Circuit Judge level.

The further expert advice was received on 25 February 2025. The local authority had been unable to identify a dual qualified lawyer and the advice was prepared by English counsel. She was, therefore, unable to advise the court on the issues relating to D’s immigration status or placement in Jamaica. At a further IRH on 28 February 2025 I directed the local authority to obtain expert evidence from an expert based in Jamaica to address the issues raised by DJ Coupland, including whether a cross-border adoption might be a possibility. The report of the new expert, Simone Bowman, was filed on 11 June 2025. She suggested, contrary to the initial advice obtained by the local authority in October 2024, that although adoption was not an option, there might nevertheless be a viable alternative route for D to be placed with Ms L in Jamaica.

An effective IRH took place on 2 July 2025. The local authority’s revised plan, supported by the other parties, was that D should be made subject to a special guardianship order in favour of Ms L. In order to achieve that outcome the local authority proposed that the proceedings be adjourned to allow time for Ms L, Mr M and E to travel to the UK for initial introductions followed by a transition plan for D to move to Jamaica. I was not prepared to approve that outcome while there remained, at least in my view, a number of uncertainties arising out of the different views expressed by the various experts. I therefore listed the case for a final hearing in order for the experts to give oral evidence.

In the lead up to the final hearing the local authority continued its discussions with the Jamaican child protection authorities and obtained further information about potential routes to a placement in Jamaica. It therefore sought and was granted permission to rely on a further expert opinion from a legal officer at the Jamaican Child Protection and Family Services Agency (“CPFSA”).

Following the conclusion of the evidence, and prior to submissions, the local authority held a meeting attended by the social worker, Team Manager, Service Manager, Practice Manager and guardian. In submissions it was confirmed that the local authority remains committed to the plan for D’s placement in Jamaica. It will support the move both practically and financially and intends to maintain D’s status as a child in need, with an allocated social worker, until a guardianship order is made in Jamaica and D’s immigration status is secured.

This case requires the court to consider some provisions of Jamaican law. The law of a foreign jurisdiction is an issue of fact for the court in England and Wales. It must be proved on the basis of expert evidence.

In deciding between the options before the court, D’s welfare is my paramount consideration. Because one of those options is adoption, I must consider D’s welfare throughout her life and apply the welfare checklist in ACA 2002, s 1(4).

In order to make a placement order I must be satisfied that the threshold criteria in CA 1989, s1 are met: that is, that at the time when the local authority took protective measures the child was suffering or likely to suffer significant harm, attributable to the care being given to them by their parents not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give. There is no dispute about that in this case.

D’s mother has given instructions that she would not oppose a placement order if the court decides that special guardianship is not a possibility. She has not however given formal consent for the purposes of ACA 2002. I may dispense with her consent under s.52(1)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act on the grounds that D’s welfare requires me to do so.

D and her mother have rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to respect for their private and family life. To the extent that the orders I am asked to make interfere with these rights, I must satisfy myself that the interference is both necessary and a proportionate means of addressing the identified harm. An order which has the effect of severing the ties between a child and a parent may only be made if justified by an overriding requirement pertaining to the child’s best interests. In other words, the test is one of necessity, and the court must be satisfied that “nothing else will do”: Re B [2013] UKSC 33.

The approach I apply to the decision to be taken in this case is set out in Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, where the Court of Appeal re-affirmed what had been said earlier by MacFarlane LJ, as he then was, in Re G [2013] EWCA Civ 965:

“In most child care cases a choice will fall to be made between two or more options. The judicial exercise should not be a linear process whereby each option, other than the most draconian, is looked at in isolation and then rejected because of internal deficits that may be identified, with the result that at the end of the line the only option left standing is the most draconian and that is therefore chosen without any particular consideration of whether there are internal deficits within that option. The linear approach is not apt where the judicial task is to undertake a global holistic evaluation of each of the options available for the child’s future upbringing before deciding which of these options best meets the duty to afford paramount consideration to the child’s welfare.”

The evidence in respect of D's welfare, as set out in the social work statements and the guardian’s final analysis, is uncontroversial and it has not been necessary for any witnesses other than the experts to give oral evidence.

Over the course of these proceedings the court has received evidence from four expert witnesses on the legal implications of a potential placement in Jamaica. Two of these witnesses gave oral evidence. I am grateful to the advocates for undertaking a thorough and conscientious exploration of the differences in the expert opinions, notwithstanding the fact that as far as the parties are concerned there is no issue as to the outcome which would be in D's best interests.

The advice obtained by the local authority in October 2024 was prepared by Jacqueline Cummings of Archer Cummings & Co, a law firm based in Kingston, Jamaica which assisted the local authority with the steps needed to achieve E’s move to Jamaica and his placement there with Ms L. Ms Cummings is a Jamaican lawyer and former president of the Jamaican Bar Association, with expertise in both family and immigration law.

Ms Cummings gave oral evidence at this hearing. Her evidence was impressive. She appeared to have a thorough understanding of the relevant law and was able when asked to identify the statutory provisions and case law which underpinned her opinion. Her conclusions at the end of her oral evidence were as follows:

Simone Bowman is a dual qualified (England and Wales and Jamaica) lawyer who prepared an opinion in June 2025. In her report Ms Bowman suggested that a guardianship order was a realistic possibility as a way of replicating the effect of a special guardianship order in Jamaica, and also that there might be a discretionary route for D to be granted secure immigration status.

The local authority experienced considerable difficulties in contacting Ms Bowman after the submission of her report, and was unable to confirm her availability to give oral evidence at this hearing. There were several aspects of her report that required clarification and it was not possible to achieve this. The weight I can give to her evidence is therefore limited. It was partly for that reason that the local authority was granted permission to rely on a further expert opinion.

The final expert, and the second to give oral evidence, was Nichole Chambers. Ms Chambers is qualified as a lawyer in Jamaica; she works as a senior legal officer for the CPFSA, and previously practised as a solicitor in England and Wales. She had the advantage of reading both the report of Ms Cummings and a transcript of her oral evidence before preparing her own report in response to a number of focused questions.

Ms Chambers was of the view that:

I have read the reports of Ms Cummings and Ms Chambers several times, reviewed my notes of their evidence and reflected on the differences between them. It is clear to me that both are well-qualified and highly experienced. I have concluded that their different views about the viability of a placement for D in Jamaica stem from the slightly different perspectives that each has as a result of their respective roles within the Jamaican justice system.

Ms Cummings is a lawyer in private practice. She has considerable experience of conducting cases in court, particularly those which involve complex immigration issues. Her knowledge of the case law was extensive. Ms Chambers has a broader experience of the day-to-day handling of cases, like D’s, which involve children moving between Jamaica and other jurisdictions for the purposes of a family placement. She also has the advantage of working closely with the Jamaican Passport Immigration & Citizenship Agency (“PICA”) on such cases, and has therefore built up a substantial body of experience of the way in which their decisions are made.

None of the experts was able to provide formal advice in respect of D’s adoption by Ms L. That is because Jamaican lawyers are prohibited from advising on adoption applications. The local authority has ascertained, from publicly-available information provided by the Jamaican Adoption Board, that Ms L may not be eligible to adopt D in Jamaica as she and her partner are not married. She is, of course, not eligible to adopt in England and Wales as she is neither domiciled nor habitually resident here.

On the issue of placement there is a considerable degree of overlap between the experts’ opinions. All agree that the only realistic route by which D can be cared for in Jamaica by a non-relative is under a guardianship order pursuant to the Children (Guardianship and Custody) Act, s4. Case law has established that the Supreme Court has power under this provision to appoint a guardian who is not biologically related to the child. The approach is welfare-based, and the Act sets out a list of factors to be taken into consideration, a number of which overlap with the factors in the welfare checklist in CA 1989, s1(3). Once made, the effect of a guardianship order is largely to mirror the provisions of an English special guardianship order.

The experts also agree that in deciding whether or not to make a guardianship order the Supreme Court is likely to give some weight to the fact that a special guardianship order has already been made in England and Wales. They differed as to the extent to which the Supreme Court would accept the evidence already obtained within the English court proceedings. Ms Cummings thought that the Supreme Court would be likely to direct a fresh welfare assessment, while Ms Chambers was of the view that although her agency would be directed to undertake a basic assessment of the home and the child’s living arrangements, it would not be necessary to duplicate the work already done for the English court and the further assessment in Jamaica could be completed within, at the most, six weeks.

Although in her written report Ms Cummings had expressed some concern about the approach likely to be taken by the Jamaican Supreme Court to an application for a guardianship order in the circumstances of this case, where the child does not have a biological connection with her proposed carers, she accepted in oral evidence that the prospects of such an order being granted would be better if D were placed with Ms L under an order of this court following a full welfare assessment. Ms Chambers was more optimistic: she was confident that the Supreme Court would, like this court, give significant weight to the advantages to D of growing up together with her sibling, and that the guardianship order would be granted.

On this issue I prefer the evidence of Ms Chambers, who has considerable direct experience of the Supreme Court’s approach to cases involving the placement of children, including children coming from England and Wales under special guardianship orders. The approach of the Supreme Court to an application for guardianship cannot be guaranteed, but I am satisfied that the prospects of obtaining the order are sufficiently good for this issue not to represent a significant barrier to the court’s endorsement of the placement.

The uncertainty around D’s immigration status if she travels to Jamaica under a special guardianship order in favour of Ms L is the issue which has caused me the most concern.

It is agreed between the experts that the only way in which D will be permitted to enter Jamaica initially is as a visitor. As a British national she will be granted leave to remain for an initial period of at least three months, which may be extended up to a maximum of 12 months. The evidence is that this maximum extension is likely to be granted, particularly in circumstances where there is an ongoing court application.

The key issue in dispute between the experts is whether or not D is likely to be granted extended permission to remain in Jamaica after her visitor’s visa (Footnote: ¹) expires.

One possible route is s2(2) of the Immigration Restriction (Commonwealth Citizens) Act. This provides:

It is agreed by both experts that Ms L qualifies under one or more of subparagraphs (a) to (d). They do not agree on whether D is likely to be classed as Ms L’s dependant (subparagraph (e)).

IR(CC)A s2(1) defines “dependant”, in relation to another person, as:

the child or step-child under the age of sixteen years, of such person;

Ms Cummings is of the view that this provision is likely to be interpreted strictly by the immigration authorities. D is not Ms L’s biological or adopted child, and is therefore unlikely to be considered to be her dependant. Ms Chambers disagrees. She says, based on her experience of working with PICA in cases involving children, that a purposive interpretation is more likely and that once Ms L is appointed D’s guardian by the Supreme Court, assuming that order is made, D will be treated as her dependant.

A further route to citizenship, available only to minors, is s4 of the Jamaican Nationality Act. That reads as follows:

In Ms Chambers’ view, once Ms L becomes D’s legal guardian under a guardianship order made by the Supreme Court, the Minister (via PICA) is highly likely to exercise his discretion in her favour. Ms Cummings was more cautious. She agreed that the application will involve the exercise of discretion, and said that she could not give a view as to the likelihood of success in percentage terms. She gave examples of applications she had made for registration in different contexts, and said that she had succeeded in some instances and not in others.

There is an overlap between the issue of registration as a Jamaican citizen and the question of whether D is likely to be granted Unconditional Landing, broadly equivalent to indefinite leave to remain in the UK. I have not found this issue easy to understand, not least because there appears to be no statutory or regulatory basis in Jamaica for the concept of Unconditional Landing (or if there is, none of the experts have referred me to it). According to the PICA website, there are several categories of persons who may be eligible for Unconditional Landing, most of which are confined to those who do not hold a Jamaican passport but are of Jamaican or Caribbean descent. The only category open to D is the fourth category, which includes persons “naturalised or registered as citizens of Jamaica”. D cannot be naturalised until she is 18. This issue therefore circles back to the question of whether it is possible for Ms L to make an application for D to be registered as a Jamaican citizen, and the prospects of success of such an application.

Ms Chambers’ view is that D is likely to be granted Unconditional Landing while the application for registration is pending. The application for Unconditional Landing can be made as soon as D arrives in Jamaica, but is likely to stand a greater chance of success once a guardianship order is made in the Supreme Court. Ms Chambers’s view is that in those circumstances the application for Unconditional Landing may be granted in as little as a few weeks. Ms Cummings disagrees; she thinks that it is unlikely that D will qualify for Unconditional Landing status, because she is unlikely to be eligible for registration as a Jamaican citizen.

If an application for registration and/ or Unconditional Landing is refused, there are two alternative options. The first is that D leaves and then returns to Jamaica under successive visitor’s visas. That would be a short term solution only: if attempted too many times, re-entry is likely to be refused (Ms Cummings gave an example of an adult client who was turned away at the border after spending several successive six-month periods in Jamaica as a visitor). It might however offer a “bridge” until a more permanent solution is achieved.

The other option to secure D’s right to remain in Jamaica is a student visa. Such a visa would be relatively straightforward to obtain once D is enrolled in school, but she is not yet two and it is not clear whether a place in “basic school” (the equivalent of nursery, open to children aged three) would qualify her for a student visa or whether this would have to wait until she starts primary school at five. Once granted, the expectation would be that the visa would last throughout D’s education, that is until the age of 18 or longer if she attends university in Jamaica.

In the longer term, provided that D is able to remain in Jamaica throughout her minority, the prospects of her obtaining Jamaican citizenship are good. She will be eligible to apply for naturalisation once she reaches the age of 18, provided that by then she has lived in the country for at least five years. She will retain her British citizenship; both the UK and Jamaica permit dual nationality.

Having reviewed the evidence on this issue, I conclude as follows.

This is not a case where there is any guarantee that D’s immigration status will be secured within a short period of her arrival in Jamaica. It may be a lengthy and complex process. There is a risk that one or both applications (for registration as a Jamaican citizen, or for Unconditional Landing) will be refused. At best this will lead to a period of uncertainty and stress for D’s carers and at worst it is possible, although I hope unlikely, that she will be deported.

There are, however, a number of grounds on which the court can be cautiously optimistic about the viability of this option.

Ms Chambers, whose expert opinion was positive in terms of the prospects of D being permitted to remain in Jamaica, and ultimately to achieve Jamaican citizenship, works within the CPFSA and closely with PICA. These are the two agencies which will be charged with making recommendations and decisions for D. To the extent that any decisions involve the exercise of discretion, it is clear that the CPFSA will be prepared to lend its support to the application.

This local authority has worked tirelessly to achieve a placement for D in Jamaica. In the months leading up to the final hearing the local authority exchanged emails with staff at both PICA and the CPFSA about D’s situation, and this led to a meeting in July which was attended by the social work team, the local authority solicitor, Ms Chambers and the Director of the CPFSA. The outcome of that meeting was a consensus that the proposed placement should be supported. The working relationships that the local authority has made with relevant personnel in Jamaica, together with the local authority’s commitment to provide D with an allocated social worker until her status in Jamaica is secured, are likely to assist if difficulties arise along the way.

Once a special guardianship order is made in this jurisdiction, D will have no other carer available to look after her, other than Ms L. If Unconditional Landing (or another secure status) is refused, her situation will be precarious in the extreme. That distinguishes her from some of the other cases, involving adults, which Ms Cummings referred to in her evidence and will, I hope, improve the prospects of a successful application.

The legal issues surrounding D’s placement and immigration status in Jamaica are, of course, only part of the picture. I must be satisfied that the outcome for D is in her best interests, taking into account her welfare throughout her life. I have regard to the welfare checklist in ACA 2002, s1(4).

Despite her mother’s lifestyle during pregnancy, and the fact that the mother tested positive for both cannabis and cocaine on D’s birth, D is developing well and meeting all her milestones. There may be some future impact of her exposure to drugs in utero, but at present she does not have any identified additional needs.

D is a young baby who has spent almost all of her life in foster care. She has built good attachments to her carers, but I note that they travelled abroad for an extended period recently and as a result D spent a period of time in respite care. That underlines the limitations of foster care for a child of this age and the importance of identifying, sooner rather than later, the permanent family with whom D will grow up and the carers who will become her primary attachment figures. For that reason, although some delay in achieving her permanent placement is inevitable, this should be minimised.

D’s early experience of removal from her mother’s care, and the fact that she will experience a change of placement and the disruption that comes with that, means that the court has a particular responsibility to satisfy itself as to the stability of her future living arrangements. If the placement in Jamaica were to fail, either because of immigration difficulties or for other reasons, that would be disastrous for her.

D is a British child with mixed, part-European heritage. She has no genetic or cultural links to Jamaica. According to Ms Cummings, 92% of the population of Jamaica is of African heritage (although that figure relates to the Island as a whole, and the city where Ms L lives is perhaps likely to be more diverse). D may feel out of place in a community where most people do not share her ethnicity or cultural background.

D has three older half-siblings, two of whom live in country Y and the third, E, in Jamaica. She also has a younger maternal half-sister, F. The outcome in terms of F’s care proceedings is not yet known but I note that unlike D, F has an identified father who has put himself forward to care for her, and the local authority’s most recent evidence suggests that there may be other potential carers within the paternal family.

D has not yet met any of her siblings, although the local authority is planning to arrange contact with F in the near future. On the evidence currently available to the court, it is E who represents the best chance for D of being brought up with a member of her birth family. Her relationship with him, if they are brought up as siblings within the same household, is likely to become one of her most significant lifelong relationships, and a powerful protective factor against feelings of loss and isolation in later life.

The views of D’s mother are important. She has not been able to sustain abstinence for long enough to care for D herself, but she has made the effort to remain engaged with her solicitors and has expressed a clear wish for D to live in Jamaica with E.

Ms L is not related to D but she has put herself forward to claim her and has shown her commitment to the assessment process and to these proceedings over a lengthy period of time. She and her partner asked to be assessed to care for D at an early stage in these proceedings, explaining that they wished to do so because she is E’s sister and they are unable to have children of their own; they have been clear throughout that they are willing to offer both children a lifelong commitment. The special guardianship assessment highlights the quality of Ms L’s parenting of E, jointly with her partner Mr M. E is, plainly, a treasured child who is the focus of their home; they have high aspirations for him and have developed a warm, loving and confident parenting style.

I have been struck by the fact that Ms L has, at least since I have been allocated this case, attended every hearing in these proceedings, some of which have taken place when it is the middle of the night in Jamaica. She has followed the evidence closely, asked questions and made thoughtful points. This matters for D, who will have to come to terms in the future with the knowledge that her mother was unable to overcome her addiction in order to care for her. For such a child, the knowledge that there was someone in her early years who wanted her enough to come forward and claim her can be a powerful factor supporting the child’s sense of identity and self-esteem.

A move to Jamaica would be a big move for D, who has only ever lived in the UK. She is, however, young enough to adjust to the differences in culture and, to an extent, language, and I am confident that she will be able to do so, just as E did before her.

The realistic options before the court are adoption in the UK by strangers, and a placement in Jamaica with Ms L and Mr M.

Adoption has a number of advantages in this case. D is a baby girl with no identified additional needs. She is likely to be matched and placed relatively swiftly with a family who will be able to offer her a stable and permanent home. Their capacity to care for her is likely to be very good. The London adoption agencies have a good track record of finding at least a partial match for each child’s cultural background so it may well be that D will grow up in a home where her mother’s language is spoken.

It is perhaps reasonably likely, although there can be no guarantee, that D’s prospective adopters will be open to establishing a relationship between D and E. Prospective adopters these days are encouraged as part of their training to be open to direct contact with their child’s birth family, and sibling contact, particularly with a sibling who is in a safe and stable placement, is often welcomed. There are orders the court can make to set the template for sibling contact so that prospective adopters understand the importance the court has placed on this.

The disadvantages of an adoption are the complete severance of D’s legal relationships with all of her birth family members, and the likely loss of any meaningful opportunity to build a relationship with her mother, her only relative in this jurisdiction, for the foreseeable future. D will grow up with a family who are not biologically related to her and as a result she may well feel a sense of dislocation and loss. She may worry about her mother’s wellbeing and even whether she is still alive: I suspect that the mother may struggle to maintain regular communications with an adoptive family, who will be understandably wary about the risks she poses, and life story work may be difficult. Adoptive placements do sometimes come under strain, particularly when children reach adolescence and start to question aspects of their history and the decisions made for them when they were too young to have any influence on those decisions themselves. In the worst-case scenario, the adoption may break down.

The main advantage of a placement with Ms L is that D will grow up with a sibling, and this is likely to foster her understanding of who she is and to provide her with a sense of belonging. Her legal relationships with her birth family will remain intact and she will have the opportunity to develop these as she gets older. As well as her lifelong relationship with E, D may be able to meet and form relationships with her two adult half-brothers. Although the mother has not been consistent in maintaining indirect contact with E (the plan was for regular video calls, but the mother does not always attend) a direct channel of communication has been established, and if her circumstances improve the mother may be able to resume more regular contact with both children.

A further advantage of this proposal is the high standard of care which Ms L and Mr M are able to offer D, and the considerable level of commitment which they have shown to this potential placement. They have worked hard to give E a positive sense of his background and identity, and the assessing ISW was confident that they would ensure that D also feels that she is loved and a valued member of the immediate and extended family.

The disadvantages of a placement with Ms L are, first, the uncertainty around D’s immigration status and the risk that she may not be granted permanent leave to remain in Jamaica. Although the likelihood of D being deported is probably quite small, the consequences of this would be catastrophic. A further disadvantage is that D will grow up in a country and a culture that is quite far removed from that of her mother, who is her only identified parent. She may feel out of place in an environment with which she has only an indirect connection, through the paternal relatives of her half-brother.

The decision in this case is quite finely balanced.

I acknowledge that a placement in Jamaica carries risks. The likelihood of an immigration application being refused is not as low as I would like, and the consequences of this happening are very serious.

The safer option in the short term is undoubtedly adoption. However that option will take away D’s only chance of growing up with a blood relative, a sibling who has the potential to become one of her most significant adult relationships.

I remind myself that I must take a long-term view and consider D’s welfare not just now but for many decades into the future. From that perspective I have concluded that the benefits to D of a placement in Jamaica outweigh the risks, which are most acute in the short term but will largely dissipate if, as is hoped, D’s legal and immigration status is secured.

For those reasons I approve the plan which the parties jointly put before the court for D to move to Jamaica to live with her brother, Mr M and Ms L.

The local authority has prepared a transition plan under which Ms L and Mr M will travel to the UK, together with E, to meet D before she moves into their care and returns to Jamaica with them. The transition will be fully supported by social workers in both jurisdictions. It is intended that a hearing should be listed at an appropriate point in that process, and a special guardianship order made before D leaves the jurisdiction.