MB v GK & Ors (No 2) Wardship (Welfare)

In determining a child’s welfare, the court must assess the whole of the child’s circumstances, giving proper weight to emotional needs and significant relationships as well as physical care, education and settled surroundings. A child’s settlement in a particular environment is not determinative where remaining there would substantially impair an important relationship with a parent. The court may proceed with a welfare enquiry despite a party’s non-participation where that party has been given a fair and effective opportunity to participate and the court has sufficient evidence to conduct the assessment. The court must make its own independent welfare evaluation, while taking account of professional recommendations and the parties’ proposals.

The proceedings concerned M, a young child who had remained in Singapore with his paternal grandparents after being taken there from England. The mother sought orders that M return to England and live with her. The father and paternal grandparents declined to participate in the English welfare enquiry, maintaining that the English court had no jurisdiction, although they continued to pursue related proceedings in Singapore and had been invited repeatedly to participate.

England had previously been held to be the appropriate forum for decisions about M’s welfare. The court therefore had to decide whether to adjourn pending the father’s Singapore appeal and, substantively, where M’s best interests lay.

1. Adjournment and participation. The welfare hearing should proceed. The paternal family had received repeated invitations to participate, had been given opportunities to attend or give evidence by video link, and had placed substantial written material before the Singapore court. That material was available to the English court and the Guardian. A further delay would not serve M’s welfare, particularly given the length of his separation from his mother and the emotional harm identified by the Guardian.
2. Welfare assessment. The court conducted an independent assessment of M’s best interests. His physical care and early education in Singapore were satisfactory, and he was settled there and attached to his grandparents. Those considerations were outweighed by the importance of his relationship with his mother and the likely loss of that relationship if he remained in the primary care of the paternal family. The evidence, including recordings of contact, demonstrated a strong and secure attachment between M and his mother.
3. The mother was found to have been M’s primary carer during the first year of his life and to have provided appropriate care. Her previous attempt to secure M’s return outside lawful processes was not condoned, but it did not disentitle her from caring for him. The court was satisfied that she could meet M’s needs and would support appropriate relationships with his father and paternal grandparents.
4. The court concluded that it was overwhelmingly in M’s best interests to return to England and live in the full-time care of his mother. Wardship was continued temporarily. The mother was directed to facilitate telephone and Skype contact with the paternal family at least twice weekly. Further consideration of contact and the future of wardship was adjourned for review after M’s return.

The judgment records earlier stages of the same wardship litigation, including findings concerning habitual residence and return orders, and an earlier decision that England was the appropriate forum for M’s welfare. Those decisions are described as having been upheld or left undisturbed on appeal. The present judgment was a first-instance welfare determination.