YV (No 2)(Kinship Carer; Child Arrangements Order; Kazakhstan), Re

These proceedings relate to a young child, YV, who at the date of this judgment is 15 months old. YV’s parents are Kazakh nationals who were living in the UK at the time of the child’s birth. They had entered the UK on temporary six-month worker visas and subsequently submitted asylum applications which entitled them to remain in the UK pending the determination of those applications.

Whilst in the UK the mother became pregnant with YV. Both parents wished for YV to be placed for adoption, and prior to the birth met with social workers from the local authority (the London Borough of Tower Hamlets) to discuss relinquishing care of their child from birth.

YV was born in June 2024 and two days after the birth, the parents placed YV in the care of the local authority under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. YV went to live with temporary foster carers. The parents subsequently provided signed consent to YV being placed for adoption under section 19 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and advance consent to adoption under section 20 of the same statute. In February 2025 YV moved to live with prospective adoptive parents. I am told that YV is developing well and appears to have a secure attachment to their current carers, and they have confirmed their wish to adopt YV. YV’s family are of Muslim heritage, as are the current carers.

From the outset, the parents objected to any of their relatives (all of whom live in Kazakhstan) being informed of YV’s birth or being considered by the local authority as prospective carers for YV. Their contention was that there was no one in their immediate families would be able to take care of YV. The mother also expressed some concern what might happen if her family was notified.

The local authority therefore made an application to Court for directions under the inherent jurisdiction (having regard to the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Re A, B and C (Adoption: Notification of Fathers and Relatives) [2020] EWCA (Civ) 41) as to whether YV’s wider maternal and paternal family should be notified of the birth with a view to exploring the possibility of the child being placed with a member of their extended family.

Although the local authority had taken steps to put both parents in touch with independent solicitors to represent them in relation to this application, the parents had limited engagement with their respective solicitors and neither filed any formal evidence in response to the local authority’s application.

A guardian was appointed for YV by an order of Morgan J on 20 February 2025. Following further directions, including the obtaining of expert evidence from a Kazakh lawyer, the local authority’s application came before me for determination on 8 May 2025. On that occasion neither parent was present or represented. Documents from the Home Office established that by the time of this hearing both parents had withdrawn their asylum applications and had returned to Kazakhstan under the Government’s voluntary return scheme. Nonetheless, I was satisfied that the parents had been properly notified of the hearing and was content to proceed in their absence.

At that hearing both the local authority and YV’s Guardian had formed the view that attempts should be made to notify the wider family of the birth. Having considered the evidence filed by the local authority, the submissions of both counsel and the guidance of the Court of Appeal in Re A, B and C (Adoption: Notification of Fathers and Relatives) I concluded that this was not a case where notification of relatives should be dispensed with and made a declaration that it was appropriate for the local authority to notify YV’s extended family with a view to exploring the possibility of the child being placed with family members. I delivered an ex tempore judgment setting out my reasons for this decision which has subsequently been transcribed and which I am publishing on the National Archives alongside this judgment (as Re YV (No 1)(Adoption; Notification of Relatives; Kazakhstan) (No 1) [2025] EWHC 2482 (Fam)).

As a consequence of that decision, I gave directions to lead to the location and notification of the wider family. My order provided for the parents to have an opportunity to tell their families about YV themselves, failing which the local authority was permitted to notify the families itself. Mindful that YV (although not currently in possession of any passport) is a child of Kazakh parents and entitled to Kazakh citizenship, my order also provided for a copy of the order to be provided to the Kazakhstan Central Authority and to its UK embassy. The order contained an invitation to the Kazakh authorities to attend the next hearing and to (a) set out their position in relation to the application generally and (b) the fact that if no suitable family members could be identified to care for YV, it was likely that they would be placed for adoption in England and Wales.

The matter came back before me for further directions on 3 June 2025. By that stage there had been a number of significant developments.

The paternal grandmother also attended the hearing on 3 June and confirmed to me, through a video link and interpreter, her willingness to look after YV.

I therefore gave directions for the instruction of an independent social worker to conduct a parenting assessment of the paternal grandmother with the matter then being restored for a final hearing before me on 9 September.

At the final hearing the local authority was represented by Ms Cabeza of counsel, and the Guardian by Ms Cheetham of counsel. Neither parent attended or was represented. The grandmother was again in attendance and addressed the Court through a video link and interpreter. On this occasion the staff from the Kazakh Embassy where unable to attend, but made themselves available by telephone to answer any further queries that might arise.

The report of the social worker was extremely positive and at the final hearing both the local authority and Guardian supported my making a child arrangements order in favour of the grandmother. At the conclusion of that hearing I announced that I would make the orders proposed and indicated that I would give my reasons for doing so in a reserved judgment.

The assessment of the paternal grandmother by the independent social worker was conducted through both video calls and home visits in Kazakhstan with the assistance of a Russian speaking Kazakh national. In total, I understand the independent social worker to have spent around 10 hours meeting with the paternal grandmother at her home in Kazakhstan and to have had additional video calls with her. The social worker has also met by video with both parents and met YV and the current carers in England. She has also received references from a colleague of the grandmother and from her employer.

The paternal grandmother is 59 years old. She lives in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan. She works in a kindergarten and is used to very young children. She has two adult children of her own, YV’s father and his sister who is married and has qualified as a lawyer in Kazakhstan. For most of their childhood the grandmother was a single parent, as her husband died when her son, YV’s father, was only 10 months old. Since that time the grandmother has lived alone bringing up her two children and has not had other relationships. The social worker describes her as “tak[ing] pleasure in being with the children at the kindergarten where she works and in the close relationship that exists between herself and [her adult children]”

The grandmother, herself came from a large family and also assisted her own mother in bringing up her youngest sibling. The social worker reports that it is very usual for children in Kazakhstan to be cared for by their grandmother, especially first grandchildren. Therefore, living with her grandmother is not likely to make YV feel singled out from other friends.

The report describes the grandmother as appearing to be “energetic and capable”. Her only reported health problem is hearing loss in her right ear for which she wears a hearing aid.

The grandmother has a studio apartment in a modern apartment block which she has bought with the assistance of a mortgage. Her current income (which I understand includes an element of disability benefit) is insufficient to meet all of her outgoings including her mortgage, but she receives significant financial support from her two adult children and her son, YV’s father, pays her mortgage. There is a strong family expectation that her children will provide her with continuing financial assistance. The grandmother is due to retire from her current employment in two years’ time when she would qualify for a pension. I understand that if she takes overYV’s care, her employer will give her a year’s paid maternity leave and then allow her to retire so that she would not have to return to work and could concentrate on YV.

The living space in the flat becomes the main sleeping area at night, and the social worker reports that it is common in Kazakhstan to have communal sleeping areas rather than individual bedrooms. The social worker summarises the grandmother’s material circumstances as comfortable and concludes that they would provide a suitable environment in which to care for YV.

The grandmother’s daughter, YV’s aunt, lives in the same apartment block as the grandmother. She appears to be a successful lawyer and both she and her husband enjoy a significant income. They are recently married and would like to have children of their own at some point.

The social worker received references from a colleague of the grandmother and from her employer. Both of these referred to her ability with children. The social worker concluded that the grandmother was “a warm and competent person” and “a mature and loving person who has had extensive experience of looking after children, both in her own family and professionally. She has been commended by colleagues for her skill at making relationships with children.”

The report identifies two issues which may pose some difficulties in the future. The first is finances. As I have already recounted the grandmother has a limited income and this will reduce further when she retires. She is reliant on her two adult children for financial assistance. Although the social worker acknowledged this as a potential issue, she felt that this was a resourceful family that would be able to find a solution if the grandmother’s financial situation became precarious.

The second issue relates to contingency planning and who would take on YV’s care if something were to happen to the grandmother in the future. The social worker describes the grandmother as “fiercely independent and resourceful” and a person who has weathered hard times as a single parent when her children were growing up. It is suggested that she finds it difficult to imagine any scenario in which she would be unable to care for YV herself, however the grandmother felt that if she became unable to look after YV, her own children would supply her with all the support she would need. The report also notes that the grandmother has one sister to whom the grandmother is particularly close.

Overall, whilst acknowledging these issues, the report does not consider that they should preclude the grandmother from caring for YV.

The social worker notes that living in Kazakhstan would allow YV to grow up in the authentic culture of Kazakh heritage and YV would not stand out as any different to their friends. She considers that the grandmother will be committed to love and nurture YV to create an environment in which YV can flourish. She concludes:

“It is my conclusion that [the grandmother] is capable of providing a loving home for [YV] where [they] would be cherished and encouraged to meet [their] potential. [The] grandmother would also have the support of her immediate family, should she need assistance with YV’s care as [the grandmother] grows older.”

In the light of this positive parenting assessment, both the local authority and the guardian support the Court making a child arrangements order providing for YV to live with, and be cared for, by the paternal grandmother, and an order under section 13 of the Children Act 1989 permitting the paternal grandmother to remove YV from the jurisdiction.

Although neither parent participated in the final hearing, I am aware of their positions. The mother is clear that she does not want YV to come to Kazakhstan; she wants YV to be adopted and grow up in England because she considers that it would allow YV to have a better life than growing up in Kazakhstan. The social worker makes clear that although the mother is “firm and tenacious [she] is in no way heartless”. She wept though her interview with the social worker and commented on how difficult she has found it to hold her position to do what she thinks is best for her child. The father’s position has been more equivocal and shifting and I recognise that he finds himself caught between the wish of his partner for their child to have a life in the UK and the wish of his mother to care for YV herself.

In terms of the Court’s jurisdiction, the local authority is not able itself to apply for an order under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (see section 9(2)). A number of ways to surmount this jurisdictional hurdle were suggested to me by counsel, but the simplest, and the one that I have decided to adopt, is for me to make the relevant orders of my own motion pursuant to section 10(1)(b) of the Children Act 1989.

I canvassed with counsel whether, in making my decision in relation these matters, the appropriate welfare checklist for me to apply was that found under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, or whether this was a case to which the checklist found at section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 applied. The former applies whenever the court is considering whether to “make, vary or discharge a section 8 order”, whilst the latter is applicable “whenever a court … is coming to a decision relating to the adoption of a child”. Section 1(7) of the 2002 Act provides some additional guidance on this latter test. It provides:

“In this section, ‘coming to a decision relating to the adoption of a child’, in relation to a court, includes—

(a)

coming to a decision in any proceedings where the orders that might be made by the court include an adoption order (or the revocation of such an order), a placement order (or the revocation of such an order) or an order under section 26 (or the revocation or variation of such an order),

(b)

coming to a decision about granting leave in respect of any action (other than the initiation of proceedings in any court) which may be taken by an adoption agency or individual under this Act”

but does not include coming to a decision about granting leave in any other circumstances.”

Both counsel took the view that the relevant test applicable here is that found under section 1 of the Children Act 1989 and I agree. I am currently seized of proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction in which I am considering making a child arrangements order under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 of my own motion. As such the Children Act checklist is, on its face, engaged here. By contrast no proceedings in relation to YV are as yet on foot under the 2002 Act. Although the practical consequence of the orders that I am making is that YV will be cared for by the grandmother in Kazakhstan and will therefore not be adopted in England and Wales, I do not consider the decision that I am making to be “a decision relating to the adoption of a child” for the purposes of section 1(1) of the 2002 Act. In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to subsection 1(7)(a) of the 2002 Act and note that the proceedings currently before me do not fall within the scope of that section. In any event, even if I am wrong as to the applicable test, for the reasons that I explain below, I consider that on the facts of this case they lead to the same outcome.

Turning then to the checklist, YV is obviously too young to have any ascertainable wishes and feeling. So far as their physical, emotional and educational needs are concerned, it seems to me that it is essential that they grow up in a loving and supportive home and I am entirely satisfied from the parenting assessment that the grandmother is capable of providing this environment. I have no doubt that if YV were to remain in the UK and made the subject of an adoption order they would also be provided with a loving and stable upbringing, but by placing YV in the grandmother’s care, they will also grow up within their own culture as a Kazakh child and be in a position to develop and maintain relationships with their birth family, in particular their paternal family.

In terms of the likely effect on YV of any change in their circumstances, I recognise that a move from the current carers to the grandmother’s care will be a significant change for YV. I note that YV is recorded as having been quite unsettled during the first few weeks with their current carers after being separated from their initial foster carers, and I accept that the transition to a new carer, new country and new language will be challenging. The social worker has suggested that a carefully thought through transition plan could help to ameliorate the distress that YV is likely to experience on being separated from their current carers. As I describe below the local authority have proposed such a plan which is accepted by the guardian and which I approve.

As to YV’s age, sex, background and other characteristics, in my judgment the key point is that YV is a Kazakh child of Kazakh heritage. The proposal that they should live with and be cared for by their grandmother means that they will grow up surrounded by Kazakh heritage and culture in a way that could not be replicated if YV were to be adopted in England. YV will also be growing up in a Muslim household, but despite concerns expressed by the parents that a strict adherence to Muslim teaching could limit YV’s life chances, the social worker notes that YV’s aunt (the grandmother’s own daughter) studied law at university and is now a successful lawyer.

I note, and have taken into account, the uncertainties identified by the social worker in her report that might arise if there was a change in the grandmother’s circumstances at some stage in the future. Whilst I do not discount these, I consider that the grandmother is currently in good health, is wholly committed to taking on YV’s care and has two adult children to whom she is close and who are already providing her with practical and financial support.

Overall, I do not consider that YV is at risk of suffering harm, either in the grandmother’s care in Kazakhstan or were they to remain in this jurisdiction.

Taking all of these factors into account, and weighing the evidence and the views of the local authority and children’s guardian, I am satisfied that YV’s welfare requires me to make a lives with order in favour of the grandmother and to give permission for YV to leave this jurisdiction and to move permanently to Kazakhstan.

As I have already mentioned, I would have reached the same conclusion having regard to the checklist found at section 1(4) of the Adoption of Children Act 2002. A number of the factors on which I have placed significant weight are common to the two checklists. However, the checklist under the 2002 Act also requires me to take into account the likely effect on YV (throughout their life) of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person and also:

“the relationship which the child has with relatives, with any person who is a prospective adopter with whom the child is placed, and with any other person in relation to whom the court or agency considers the relationship to be relevant, including—

(i)

the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of its doing so,

(ii)

the ability and willingness of any of the child’s relatives, or of any such person, to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop, and otherwise to meet the child’s needs,

(iii)

the wishes and feelings of any of the child’s relatives, or of any such person, regarding the child.”

Taking these additional factors into account, whilst I recognise the bond that YV has undoubtedly forged with their current carers, the fact that there is a member of their close family willing to commit herself to their care throughout their childhood and bring them up within that family and within their Kazakh heritage means that, in my view, it is in YV’s best interests that I should make orders which will enable this to take place

One point that I must make clear is that although I am making a child arrangements order which will result in YV living with and being cared for by the paternal grandmother in Kazakhstan, it is not the intention of the local authority, the children’s guardian or indeed the Court that YV should be adopted by the grandmother. It is an offence under section 85(3) of the Adoption of Children Act 2002 for a child who is habitually resident in the UK to be removed from the UK for the purposes of an adoption unless certain conditions have been met. So far as this Court and the parties to this application are concerned, YV is being placed with the grandmother as a kinship carer under a child arrangements order and the order that I am making under section 13 of the Children Act 1989 permitting YV’s removal from the jurisdiction is for that purpose alone.

I recognise that once YV is in Kazakhstan they are likely to become habitually resident in that jurisdiction very quickly, and that ultimately, should the grandmother seek to adopt YV, that would be a matter for the courts of Kazakhstan. However, for the avoidance of all doubt, my order will record the position of the local authority and the children’s guardian that neither intend for the grandmother to adopt YV and that my order is not intended to be for the purpose of facilitating YV’s adoption outside the jurisdiction.

The local authority has put forward a plan for YV to transition to the grandmother’s care, which I am happy to approve. The proposal (subject to the grandmother securing a visa to travel to the UK) is for there to be a fortnight of video contact between YV and the grandmother, with the contact sessions becoming more regular and of increased duration. The grandmother would then travel to the UK for a period of a fortnight. Her costs of travel and her reasonable costs whilst in the UK will be met by the local authority. The grandmother will have direct contact with YV, initially every other day, during which she will observe the care that YV is currently receiving from the current carers. As the fortnight progresses, contact will become daily, and the grandmother will take on aspects of YV’s care.

The plan is that by the end of the fortnight YV should be ready to transition into the sole care of the grandmother and to travel back with her to Kazakhstan. The order that I have made under section 13 of the Children Act 1989 provides that the permission for YV’s removal from the jurisdiction is contingent upon the transition plan being satisfactorily completed and the local authority providing final written consent to the removal at the end of those arrangements. This condition has been attached to ensure that the transition takes place at YV’s pace and if the local authority considers at the end of the planned transition period that YV requires additional time before transitioning to the grandmother’s sole care this can be provided.

I have approved the transition plan on the basis that although the child arrangements order that I have made will take effect immediately, the grandmother will co-operate with the local authority and the approved transition plan and YV will continue to be accommodated by the local authority with the current foster carers under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 until YV is ready to transition into the grandmother’s sole care.

My order will include a request to the UK agencies to take all steps necessary to expedite the grandmother’s request for a UK visa, to enable the transition plan to take effect. With a view to assisting with that process I make clear that the purpose of the transition period is not to assess the grandmother’s suitability to care for YV. That assessment has already taken effect and for the reasons that I have already set out, I am satisfied that the grandmother is able to care for YV and that it is in YV’s best interests that she should do so. The purpose of the transition period is to give time and space for YV to become familiar with the grandmother before moving to her full-time care.

Although I have made an immediate child arrangements order, I recognise the possibility that the Court’s assistance may be required again before YV leaves the jurisdiction. I have therefore adjourned this matter until 9 December 2025 (or until such earlier date as YV travels to Kazakhstan) with permission to the parties to apply on 48 hours’ notice in the meantime. If no application is made before that date, the proceedings are to stand dismissed.

The parties have permission to disclose my judgments and my order of 9 September to the Kazakh Embassy and to the grandmother. She has permission to disclose the judgment to social services and government agencies in Kazakhstan and to any court in Kazakhstan considering issues concerning YV.

My final task in this judgment is to record the Court’s thanks to a number of bodies and individuals. The international element in this case has inevitably made the task of notifying and assessing the suitability of wider members of YV’s family longer and more complex than would have been the case if everyone had been located in England and Wales, and I am extremely grateful for the considerable assistance that has been provided by the Kazakh authorities, both on the ground in Kazakhstan and also through the offices of their embassy in London. In particular, I should mention that the embassy provided assistance in ensuring that the social work assessment ordered by this Court could lawfully take place in Kazakhstan, and has committed to ensuring that a Kazakh passport and travel documents will be available for YV as swiftly as possible.

I must acknowledge the Court’s thanks to the local authority for the steps that it has taken in this case. I recognise that these proceedings have not been straightforward and have had considerable resource implications for the local authority. They are to be commended for the care and effort that has been put into seeking and implementing the Court’s directions to secure YV’s welfare. I am grateful also to the Guardian and to all the counsel who have appeared for both the local authority and Guardian at various hearings during the course of these proceedings, who have provided helpful submissions at every stage; in particular to Ms Cabeza and Ms Cheetham who appeared at the most recent hearing.

I also wish to place on record the Court’s thanks to YV’s current carers for the love and support that they have clearly provided to YV over the past months. I am extremely conscious that the outcome of these proceedings will be profoundly disappointing for them and thank them for all that they have done for YV whilst these proceedings have been ongoing.

Finally, it remains to me to thank YV’s grandmother for the selfless manner in which she has committed herself to take on the care of YV at a time when the responsibilities of parenthood might have been thought to be behind her, and to wish her and YV well as YV embarks on this new stage of life in Kazakhstan.