A, Re

A is a little boy, now 14 months of dual British / Ghanaian nationality and heritage. He is much loved by his natural family, seven members of which have attended each day of this hearing and by his foster carer who has cared for him since he was six days old. The focus of this hearing has been to determine who should now care for A : members of his extended natural family, Mr and Mrs H, in Ghana, or his foster carer, Ms GG, here in England. It is not possible for either of his parents, his grandmother or any other family member to look after him here.

This is the second final hearing in public law proceedings concerning A brought by the London Borough of Enfield. The first final hearing concluded with the making of a special guardianship order (‘SGO’) in favour of GG. The local authority successfully appealed that decision. The SGO was discharged by the Court of Appeal on 16 October 2018 and the matter was remitted for rehearing before me. The judgment of Jackson LJ is reported at Re A (A Child) 2018 EWCA Civ 2240.

The local authority’s case remains that A should be placed under a special guardianship order with remote members of his natural family, Mr and Mrs H, A’s second cousins (previously described as his aunt and uncle) in Ghana.

A’s mother, FA, supports his being placed with Mr and Mrs H if she is unable to care for him. A’s father, JK, is only able to contemplate a return of A to his joint care with the mother. Neither the mother nor the father, both of whom suffer with significant mental health problems, has pursued a positive case for the return of A to their care. Each recognises that the only realistic options now before the court are for A to be placed with the H’s in Ghana or with GG in England.

Mr and Mrs H were joined as parties following the appeal which they attended and have remained in England pending the outcome of this hearing. They continue to offer themselves as long term carers for A in Ghana; in this they are supported by their adult daughter, H. The SGO assessments of them are positive. Since the appeal hearing, A has had contact with Mr and Mrs H and H and a warm relationship has developed between them.

GG is also a party to these proceedings. She asks the court to make a SGO in her favour. She remains committed to caring for A and to ensure, so far as it is within her power, continuing and regular contact between A with his siblings, his parents, grandmother and members of his family in England.

A’s guardian, CP, is opposed to A being placed in Ghana and strongly supports a SGO being made in favour of GG, the foster carer.

There remain, therefore, as was the position at the first final hearing, two contenders for a SGO, one supported by the local authority and the maternal family and the other by the guardian. As Jackson LJ made clear in his judgment in remitting the case for rehearing, my task has been to look at the matter entirely afresh and independently to determine the appropriate arrangements for A’s future.

All parties, save GG, have been represented by specialist members of the Family Bar: the local authority and Guardian by Leading and Junior counsel and Mr and Mrs H by Ms Walters-Thompson (on a pro bono basis) who clearly had command of her papers. GG, was not entitled to public funding and represented herself. She has done so with considerable skill, dignity, courage and with respect for everyone. Mr and Mrs H were assisted by a friend who acted as an interpreter, the Court having been informed shortly before the hearing began that it had not been possible to secure the services of a court interpreter. With the agreement of all parties, I permitted the maternal grandmother, MA (‘the grandmother’), supported by her sister, H, the adult daughter of Mr and Mrs H and a friend to support GG to be present.

The hearing lasted five days during which I heard extensive oral evidence from:

The various assessments of the mother and father concluded that it is not possible for either of them to care for A. The SGO assessments of Mr and Mrs H and Ms GG were positive. No party sought to challenge any of these assessments. Consequently no one required the mother, father or any of the assessors to give evidence.

A is the mother’s third child. He is the second child of the mother and the father. Their first child together and A’s full sibling, M, (3yrs) and the mother’s first child, SJ, (13yrs) are cared for by the grandmother under SGOs. SJ wishes for her brother, A, to be raised by the family in Ghana. She has written a letter to the Judge hearing this matter so that her concerns for her brother and her wishes can be heard. This letter reflects and was influenced by the views, feelings and wishes of the grandmother with whom she lives.

The grandmother is the matriarch of the family and holds a highly influential and dominant position in the maternal family. She came to London from Ghana in the

A’s maternal family speak Ga and most speak English. Mrs H has very limited spoken English and could not manage to give evidence without an interpreter. Mr H has a reasonable command of English. Their daughter, H, is fluent in English. The paternal family speak Twi. Apart from the father the paternal family are in Ghana but there is no contact between them and the maternal family; although Mr and Mrs H expressed the hope that some contact with the paternal family could be established if A lives with them.

The father arrived in the UK from Ghana as a tourist six years ago and is an over-stayer. As Jackson LJ observed, his immigration status is precarious. If the father is deported, the mother says she will leave the UK with him. Although she has only visited Ghana once, (and Mrs H told the SGO assessor that the mother found life difficult there), it is a real possibility that both parents will be leaving the UK for Ghana in the foreseeable future. Even if they do not, the mother still wishes for A to be brought up with Mr and Mrs H in Ghana.

A’s foster carer, GG, is a single British woman of Afro-Caribbean origin. She is a professional state foster carer and is also fostering an Eastern European 15 year old boy on a long terms basis for the local authority. Before seeking a SGO, GG and the maternal family enjoyed a positive relationship. She and the grandmother got on extremely well and shared confidences. GG looked on the grandmother as a mother and the grandmother on GG as a daughter. They live close to each other and Ms GG supported regular contact between A, the maternal family and the siblings in the grandmother’s home which she also attended. Initially the grandmother was very supportive of A remaining in GG’s care under a SGO. The guardian described the grandmother and foster carer as “euphoric” when this possibility was suggested to them by her. The grandmother later withdrew her support for A remaining with GG: she wished A to be brought up within his natural family. The relationship between the GG and the maternal family thereafter soured and became very hostile; to the extent that the grandmother refused to see A or support contact between A and his siblings in her care. SJ, reflecting the views of her grandmother, refused to see A and is said to have expressed negative views about GG. In evidence the grandmother repeatedly spoke of feeling betrayed, let down by GG and the lack of trust that now exists between them. She sees no hope of their relationship’s being restored.

The local authority issued its application for an interim care order under s31 Children Act 2018 on 12 October 2017. During the course of the proceedings when placement of A in Ghana with Mr and Mrs H became a realistic option, the local authority sought specialist legal advice about the enforcement of an SGO made in the UK in Ghana. This advice has not been challenged.

I do not need to set out the progress of the proceedings leading to the first final hearing in detail, other than to observe that at a hearing before HHJ Karp on 22 March 2018 the mother indicated that she supported A going to be with the family in Ghana. The court order reflected that it “anticipated that a SGO will be made in favour of Mr and Mrs H and that he would travel to Ghana and later reside in Ghana with the maternal family”. (Footnote: ¹) This part of the order was communicated to Mr and Mrs H who obtained independent legal advice about how best to secure A’s permanency with them with the assistance of their daughter, H, who works at a law firm. On 5 April 2018 further orders were made so that A could obtain a Ghanaian passport. The guardian later supported an adjournment of the final hearing to allow for an assessment of the father’s cousin and the paternal family members in Ghana advanced by the father. They subsequently withdrew from the assessment and the direction for an assessment of them was discharged. At that hearing the guardian supported exploring whether A’s foster carer could be an alternative option for A. The SG assessment subsequently undertaken of GG was positive.

On 28 April 2018 a meeting took place within the maternal family (but not including the mother) to which GG was invited. The grandmother and GG have differing views as to the outcome of this meeting. The grandmother understood that GG had agreed to withdraw her application for a SGO. GG believed that there was mutual respect for their respective positions and that she had not agreed to withdraw. In any event, there was consternation and considerable unhappiness within the maternal family when it became plain that GG was continuing to seek a SGO.

A complete breakdown in the family’s relationship with GG occurred when HHJ Karp was giving judgment and it became clear that she would be making a SGO in favour of GG. The maternal family, led by the grandmother, reacted vehemently: they were in considerable distress in the courtroom. The local authority later made luke warm attempts to persuade the grandmother to enter into mediation but there was no real enthusiasm for this and the grandmother’s refusal was taken at face value. Having heard from the grandmother, however, I am satisfied she would have continued to reject mediation; even if more strenuous efforts had been made.

Until the final hearing which concluded in July 2018, A was having regular and positive contact every fortnight with his siblings and the maternal family in the grandmother’s home with GG. Following the hearing the grandmother refused to permit any contact between SJ, M and A and refused to attend any meetings. At one point A’s maternal aunt wanted to facilitate sibling contact and GG made arrangements for this but the aunt then withdrew.

When the SGO was discharged the local authority sought to introduce contact between Mr and Mrs H and A. GG responded positively to the proposal and suggested that the meetings could include sibling contact but the grandmother continued to oppose this. Her continuing negative influence against GG was such that she interfered in the arrangements being made for GG to be involved in the contact Mr and Mrs H were having with A. The grandmother wrongly informed the local authority that Mr and Mrs H did not agree to GG’s being present during their contact. I am quite satisfied, having heard the evidence of the guardian and Mr and Mrs H, that the guardian has accurately recorded Mr and Mrs H’s views at her meeting with them on 23 October 2018 and that their later change of mind was a direct result of the negative influence of the grandmother.

Despite not having met A before, Mr and Mrs H’s contact with A has been very positive. A has responded well to them and they to him: a very warm relationship between them has begun to develop.

GG has remained committed at all times to doing whatever has been required to restore sibling contact, to support Mr and Mrs H’s contact with A, to build bridges with the maternal family (albeit her efforts have been rejected by the grandmother) and to prioritise the welfare needs of A. The criticism levied at her during the hearing, for example, regarding the arrangements for A’s 1^st birthday and his feeding regime during contact, were unfounded and unnecessary.

As Mr Twomey submits, one advantage arising on a re-trial is that the parties have, in the form of the judgment of Jackson LJ, a bespoke guide to the legal principles that are to be applied in this case: Re A (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 2240 [14-22; 28-29]

Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights of course provides that:

Orders of the present kind are made in accordance with law and with the legitimate aim of promoting the welfare of the child. The additional questions that is addressed by the proportionality evaluation is whether the proposed interference is necessary in the first place and if so whether it goes any further than it must to achieve its purpose. In CM v Blackburn and Darwen BC [2014] EWCA 1479, Ryder LJ put it this way at [36]:

“The whole purpose of a proportionality evaluation is to respect the rights that are engaged and cross check the welfare evaluation i.e. the decision is not just whether A is better than B, it is also whether A can be justified as an interference with the rights of those involved. That is of critical importance to the way in which evidence is collated and presented and the way in which the court analyses and evaluates it.”

In every case heard in the Family Court, the children and (with occasional exceptions) the adults will hold rights under Art. 8(1). Where there are competing outcomes, the choice of one outcome over another will commonly entail some degree of interference with those rights. It is well- established under European and domestic law that where there is a conflict between the welfare of the child and the rights of an adult, the child’s interests will predominate. What is necessary in the individual case is to identify the nature of rights that are engaged and the extent of the proposed interference. This cross-check prevents the choice of an unnecessary interference or one that is disproportionate to the problem.

The importance of identifying the actual rights that are engaged is illustrated by the facts of the present case. Without deciding the matter, it would seem that [A] has ‘family life’ with his foster carer, qualified by the fact that she has been a professional carer providing a neutral, holding placement. He also has important family life rights with his parents, grandmother and siblings. As to the H’s, they are the only viable placement within the birth family, but he has never met them, and he might therefore be said to have a right to private life in their regard with the potential for it to develop into family life if he was placed with them.It is therefore important to identify not only what rights are engaged but also their short, medium and long-term significance, before going on to consider the justification for any proposed interference. This exercise is of particular importance when the choice is between a placement with relatives and a placement outside the family, certainly where the decision is finely balanced.

In Re A Jackson LJ went on to consider the statutory framework for the making of SGOs:

Mr and Mrs H are in their early 60s and will have the support in caring for A of their adult sons who live with them. Their daughter, H, who lives with her family about an hour’s drive away, will also support her parents in caring for A. She will take over his care in the event that they become too fragile to continue to do so. Mr and Mrs H are described by the ISW, Ms C, who carried out the SGO assessment of them, as “experienced and competent parents who have the time and the skills to provide A with good quality care.” (Footnote: ²) Their home is warm and loving. H and her children visit every weekend. There is a nursery nearby which A will attend. Mr and Mrs H have a comprehensive understanding of the difficulties which led to these proceedings and are aware that A may require support for his mental health in the future. They are supportive of direct contact with the maternal and paternal family in Ghana and in the UK which they are willing to supervise. The local authority support package now includes an increased allowance of £1,000 per annum towards the expenses of A’s returning to the UK to see his family. Mr and Mrs H confirmed in evidence their commitment to returning at least once a year and probably twice. The SGO assessment recommended the making of a SGO order, concluding that “this is a family placement whereby the proposed care -givers would wish for [A] to maintain contact with both maternal and paternal families….The [Hs are] competent experienced parents who are able to offer [A] a high level of nurture and stimulation……..Placement with the [Hs] will mean that A will be raised on a different continent than his maternal siblings. This may impact their relationship as adults in respect of face to face contact with the family in the UK. This is likely to be greatly reduced if [A] is placed in Ghana. That said this placement offers [A] the opportunity to grow up in his family of origin.”

Mr and Mrs H are good, genuine people who are fully committed to caring for A. Mr H described with real warmth the games he played with A in contact, including a ‘high five’, chuckling with joy as he remembered doing this and seeing A’s reaction. There can be no doubt that if A is placed with Mr and Mrs H, they will embrace him as a full member of their family: they will love him and nurture him and will ensure that all his needs are met to a high standard. Although Mrs H is unlikely to speak English to A, he will have good exposure to the English language. It is spoken at the nursery and schools he will be attending and Mr and Mrs H’s family speak more English than Ga. Mr and Mrs H confirmed to me that they would have no difficulty in working closely with GG (whom Mr H described as “a nice lady”) during any transition period. There is clearly no ill feeling from Mr and Mrs H towards GG.

The social worker, Ms M, confirmed that, so far, there have been about ten contact sessions and that Mr and Mrs H had interacted very positively with A. Supervisors had remarked how impressed they had been with the quality of the contact. Ms M described how A has already developed a special bond with Mr H and holds out his arms to go to him.

GG began her evidence by saying she did not mean to offend the family in anything she said. She was plainly conscious of and sensitive to the family’s wishes and feelings which she respected, but did not share; whilst prioritising what she believes to be the best interests of A. She confirmed she did not stand by the view she had expressed in her statement that Mr and Mrs H would act in a way that was not in A’s best interests (Footnote: ⁴). She explained that, in this respect, she had been misled by a degree of miscommunication about Mr and Mrs H by the local authority.

The SGO assessment confirms that GG has provided a consistently high standard of care for A and is meeting all his needs. (Footnote: ⁵) She is committed to maintaining sibling contact and contact with the maternal family and will do all she can to rebuild her relationship with the grandmother and maternal family.

As I have acknowledged at the beginning of this judgment, GG has represented herself with enormous dignity and courage. She was at all times polite and courteous. Her evidence was plainly truthful and honest (and where there are differences between her evidence and that of the grandmother, I prefer that of GG). There can be no doubt about GG’s commitment to A and the high quality of the care she has given and would continue to give to him if he remains in her care.

The grandmother, MA, has selflessly taken on the full time care of two of her grandchildren, SJ and M, in circumstances where the very poor mental health of her daughter meant that, even with support, it was not possible for her to care for them. The grandmother provides these children with a warm and loving home: the standard of her care is high. Were it not for her age and health she would have willingly stepped in again and taken on the care of A. The grandmother explained in the clearest of terms how important the family say it is for A to be brought up within his natural family, even if this means being with the extended family in Ghana. She said the decision in favour of GG was a “big blow” to her and to the family. They are a close knit family who want very strongly to care for A themselves.

During the first part of her evidence the grandmother was not supportive of sibling contact continuing if A remains with the foster carer. She shifted when she resumed her evidence saying she would allow contact, even in her home, which she would supervise and would not want to cut him off. She is not willing however to engage in mediation with GG and referred to her throughout her evidence as “the carer”, rarely using her name.

The grandmother’s evidence occasionally verged on the dramatic. She was not a reliable or, at times, an honest witness. She prevaricated in answering questions; for example, as to whether or not she would allow contact to take place, repeatedly saying she did not trust the foster carer and, when pressed, gave the appearance of crying and let out a big wail. But there were no tears.

The grandmother is genuine in her desire for A to be brought within the family, even though this means he will be placed in Ghana. She is a dominant woman with a strong influence over the family. She has already deliberately frustrated sibling contact and there is a real risk that GG will continue to be viewed with hostility within the grandmother’s home if A remains in her care. This has already had an adverse impact on SJ who has adopted her grandmother’s views and it is likely that M will do likewise.

The Guardian canvassed GG about the possibility of her keeping A under a SGO after the positive assessment of Mr and Mrs H and at a time when plans were being made in March 2018 for A to be transferred to their care. She did so because she was concerned at the prospect of A’s growing up away from his family in England and, in particular, from his siblings. She continues to support the making of a SGO in favour of GG and strongly so. In her reports, she highlights her concerns about the placement with Mr and Mrs H but her focus for much of her final report was on what has happened since the final hearing and the appeal hearing.

In evidence the Guardian summarised how she saw the advantages and disadvantages of each option and confirmed that she stood by the recommendation in her report. She considered the greatest advantage of A being placed in Ghana will be that “he wouldn’t be exposed to any negativity from his maternal grandmother to his primary carer” . The primary disadvantage of such a placement is that A will not grow up alongside his siblings. She hoped that contact between the siblings could be built up to staying contact. She did not believe that indirect contact with direct contact for one or two months each year would “compare at all in any sense to that lived experience”. She remained concerned as to who would be caring for A in Ghana and the limited exposure she believes he would have to the English language.

So far as the advantages of A remaining with GG are concerned, the Guardian said she he would not have to experience the loss of his foster carer and his high quality parenting by her would continue. She described A as being “incredibly comfortable” in his home environment with her and how he is a very different child when with GG. The disadvantages of a placement with GG included the fact that A would not be brought up by members of his immediate family, that he would not be living in the same household as his brother and sister and that he would not be part of the Ghanaian culture on a day to day basis.

When cross-examined by Mr Twomey about her analysis and the basis of her concerns and conclusions, the Guardian struggled to make sense of her own reasoning and was quite unable at times to explain how she had reached the conclusions and views she had. She was unable to answer some questions at all. She disagreed with Mr Twomey that the benefit to A of growing up embedded in his ethnic Ghanaian culture, that the opportunity to remain in touch with close family members by visiting and the fact that the placement with Mr and Mrs H had the support of A’s maternal family were powerful arguments: she said she preferred to described them as strong, but not powerful, despite having had the opportunity to consider the judgment of Jackson LJ and being referred to paragraph 55 where these “powerful arguments” are set out (Footnote: ⁶).The Guardian was also unable to explain why she had not recorded in her final report the advantage for A of being brought up by his natural family if he was placed with Mr and Mrs H.

When asked by Mr Twomey to spell out in detail the welfare advantages to A of being brought up within his family, the Guardian paused for a very long time before referring to A knowing about his family history and cultural norms, his family norms and the experience of getting to know broader family networks. She acknowledged that A would get to know the day to day life of living in Ghana with his family members and that he will know that he is loved by them. He would know that the placement was supported the family and that M joining him in Ghana could be an advantage to him. The Guardian summarised the advantages to A as “the family being wrapped around him”. Only when it was suggested to her by Mr Twomey did the Guardian agree that A’s identity goes to the heart of his emotional stability.

The Guardian was unable to explain why she had not provided in any of her reports or earlier evidence the detail she had now provided in cross examination on the 4^th day of this final hearing about the advantages to A of being placed with Mr and Mrs H. She also struggled to explain how she had reached some of the conclusions she did and why there were important omissions in her report. Her reasoning for concluding that there is a high risk, as opposed to a raised risk that a move from GG to Mr and Mrs H would “negatively impact upon his overall development and ultimately his mental health in his adult years” (Footnote: ⁷) was clearly flawed and she had to concede that there was no evidence to support her assertion. The Guardian conceded there was a conflict in her conclusion that an advantage of A going to Ghana would be that he would avoid the negative influence of the grandmother on his primary carer whilst at the same time saying she was relying on the grandmother to underpin sibling contact if A stayed with GG. Further doubt was cast upon the validity of the Guardian’s analysis and reasoning by her inability to explain what she meant by “African/English” (Footnote: ⁸) and the reference in her report to the carers ability to respond to “cultural norms” (Footnote: ⁹).

At the end of her evidence the Guardian agreed that it would have been very difficult for SJ not to have been aware of the very strong views and feelings of the grandmother and that if the M made negative comments to A, this would be very damaging for him and harmful to M and SJ. It would also be damaging for the children to be involved in court proceedings if disputes occurred over contact. The Guardian’s optimism that the grandmother would support contact and that no order was necessary was patently misplaced.

It is obligatory to have regard to the welfare checklist at s1 (3) of the Children Act 1989. It provides me with a workbench and tools with which to devise a proper welfare outcome (Footnote: ¹⁰). Given the particular circumstances of this case, although this is not an adoption case, I have also taken into account the factors under s1(4)(f) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. My consideration of all these factors is reflected in my assessment and analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the competing placement options:

Is it proportionate to place A with a non-family member, notwithstanding the availability of not only a suitable but also a good family placement? Is it necessary for A to grow up with his foster carer when such a placement with his natural family is available to him? As Mr Twomey submits, this is not a case where a sibling will lose contact with his brother or sister if he is placed with the extended family in Ghana or a case of a life long relationship being lost as the consequence of the placement. It is in reality, a comparison of the nature and quality of the contact A will have with his siblings and maternal family. Each form of contact has its own benefits, advantages and disadvantages. If placed with Mr and Mrs H, A will enjoy contact with his siblings and maternal family in the UK for extended concentrated periods during school holiday times (the school holidays in Ghana and the UK coincide).

In considering A’s rights to family life under Article 8 Mr Howe drew my attention during his closing submissions to The ‘Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Right to respect for private and family life’ (updated 31 August 2018), and in particular to paragraphs 269, 235, 283 and 284, and to Moretti and Benedetti v Italy (Footnote: ¹⁷). As he submits, of less significance but still of a positive nature, is

A’s rights in the short, medium and long term must be taken into account. A currently has an established family life with GG and there is potential for this to develop. His contact with Mr and Mrs H has been positive. Whilst it could be said that A now has some family life with them, this is embryonic and it more accurate to say that A has the right to private life in their regard, with the potential for this to develop into family life if he is placed with them. A has also retained a family life right with his siblings, grandmother and aunt.

A’s rights that are engaged, therefore, are his right to family life with GG (albeit arising as a consequence of a neutral holding placement in state care) which is to be set against his right to private life with Mr and Mrs H with the potential for this to develop into family life with them.

Having considered the welfare checklist and balancing the advantages and disadvantages of each placement, the welfare balance in this case rests heavily in favour of the family placement with Mr and Mrs H and I can find no welfare imperative that necessitates A being placed away from his natural family. Even if, exceptionally, balancing the welfare benefits of A remaining with Ms GG with those of a family placement with Mr and Mrs H fell in favour of Ms GG, it would not survive the proportionality cross check. A has his whole life ahead of him and this should be a life with Mr and Mrs H.

I am satisfied that the only placement that can meet A’s Article 8 rights to family and private life is a placement with Mr and Mrs H in Ghana who will best meet his welfare interests throughout his minority and beyond.

In granting a SGO in favour of Mr and Mrs H, I am departing from the recommendations made by A’s guardian. I have made some observations about her evidence and analysis earlier in this judgment. It is disappointing that, despite the length of these proceedings and despite an informative judgment from the Court of Appeal, the Guardian failed to consider the matters drawn to her attention and highlighted by Jackson LJ, particularly at paragraph 31 of his judgment (Footnote: ¹⁸). The Guardian’s written and oral evidence shows that she failed to engage with the most significant and prominent advantages to A of a placement with Mr and Mrs H and that she failed to consider and analyse equally the risks and positives of each placement. She has given insufficient consideration, for example, to A’s identity needs, the importance of his Ghanaian heritage and cultural background and the strong support for the placement from the maternal family. And she has placed too much weight and optimism on good sibling contact resuming if A remains with GG. Significant parts of the Guardian’s written evidence central to her analysis were flawed and did not withstand scrutiny in her oral evidence (Footnote: ¹⁹). Overall the guardian was not able to assist me with which placement would best meet A’s bests interests throughout his minority

In her evidence, the grandmother spoke strongly and movingly not only about the ability of A’s family to make decisions for the children in their family, including A, but also of their right and entitlement to do so. That is their culture. Mr Twomey invites me to consider what she said in the context of the compelling words of the Convention of the Rights of the Child (Footnote: ²⁰) and Article 5 (Footnote: ²¹) but, as McFarlane LJ made abundantly clear in Re W, a child does not have a ‘right’ to be brought up by his or her natural family and no presumption to that effect exists. The words of McFarlane LJ in Re W (supra para 16) (Footnote: ²²) bear repetition and emphasis. I refer again to this to make it clear that I have not determined the outcome of this case on the basis of any “rights” the maternal family believe themselves to have to decide A’s future but on my application and consideration of the legal principles set out in what I have described as Jackson LJ’s bespoke guide.

I referred at the outset of this judgment to the high quality care that Ms GG has given to A. With her, he has had the very best start in life he could possibly have had, the foundations of which will now stand him in good stead, not only for his move to Ghana with Mr and Mrs H but also for the rest of his life. Ms GG is a gentle and caring woman of integrity with a strong Christian faith. She is a foster carer of the highest calibre who has found herself, through no fault on her part, ostracised by A’s family and treated with disdain and distance by the local authority. Foster carers of the calibre of Ms GG are a rare resource and should be valued and supported. I hope that Ms GG, though very bruised by the experience she has had with A and this local authority, will feel able to reflect on her decision to stop fostering. I trust that the local authority too will reflect and recognise the immense contribution Ms GG can make to other children in need of the high quality care she can offer. Without making any statement of policy or guidance, I would encourage guardians to think and long and hard before canvassing and encouraging a state foster carer who is holding a child in a neutral interim position, to apply for a SGO when there is a good placement available within the natural family. This is particularly so where, as in this case, there is a family placement available with a glowing assessment, a recommendation for placement of the child with that family member and where the placement has the support of the child’s mother and immediate family. Each case will turn on its own facts. There will, of course, be cases where it is right for a child to remain with his or her foster carer on a long term basis, sometimes under a SGO or, exceptionally, even with an adoption order being granted in their favour. This is not such a case.

I conclude this judgment as I began, recognising that A is a child who is much loved by his natural family and by his foster carer. It would benefit A enormously if the maternal family and the foster carer can now work harmoniously together to enable A to have as smooth a transition as possible to his new home with Mr and Mrs H.