B (Children), Re

When deciding arrangements for children’s transition between carers, the court must treat their welfare as the paramount consideration. Adult preferences, convenience, frustration, medical appointments and pressure for an earlier return cannot displace that requirement. A transition timetable must be sufficiently directive and must account for the practical availability of courts and support services in the receiving country. Where a residence order has been made, transition may be managed through a voluntary placement under Children Act 1989, supported by clear undertakings and judicial control over any proposed withdrawal of agreement.

The appellant grandmother appealed from proceedings in the Principal Registry Family Division before Mr Recorder Green. The Court of Appeal had previously determined that the case was not a public law case in outcome and had made a residence order directing the children’s reunification with their grandmother and return to Slovakia.

This supplemental hearing concerned three competing transition plans, the timing and practical management of the children’s move, contact with the grandmother, the legal framework pending departure, and applications for a stay and permission to appeal.

The appeal was allowed. Lord Justice Thorpe delivered the principal judgment, with Lord Justice Elias agreeing. Lady Justice Black agreed with the proposed timing but differed on the legal framework for the transition.

1. Welfare and timetable. The children’s welfare governed the choice between the rival plans. The court rejected the proposals for arrival in Slovakia around Christmas because the courts and social, psychological and medical services would have reduced availability. Transition was directed to begin immediately, by the following Monday at the latest, and to be completed so that the children arrived in Slovakia by 4 January at the latest.
2. Contact. The transition plan was to provide, at an early stage, for normal contact between the grandmother and the children in the grandmother’s home without a social worker, subject to the children’s welfare.
3. Legal framework. The residence order already made by the court was to be perfected. By majority, transition was to be managed through an agreement under Children Act 1989, section 20, treating the children’s continued accommodation with the foster carers as a voluntary placement. The parents and grandmother were required to undertake not to withdraw agreement before transition and removal to Slovakia. Any proposed withdrawal required at least 48 hours’ written notice and an application to a Family Division judge for release from the undertaking.
4. Minority view. Lady Justice Black would have made an interim care order until the family left for Slovakia. In her view, section 20 accommodation was less secure because either the parents or grandmother could withdraw agreement, and an interim care order would preserve local-authority supervision and the guardian’s involvement.
5. The court refused a stay. The judges would refuse permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, while indicating a timetable for any renewed petition.

• Principal Registry Family Division: Proceedings were heard before Mr Recorder Green. The threshold was found satisfied, and the children had been living with foster carers.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Earlier judgments on 9 and 16 November directed reunification with the grandmother and return to Slovakia. This supplemental judgment gave detailed transition directions. The appeal was allowed.