J (Care Proceedings: Placement in Bangladesh), Re

In care proceedings, a child may be placed abroad with wider family members where the placement best serves the child’s welfare and adequately protects the child from identified risks. A suitable legal framework in the receiving country is vital, but it must be supported by confidence in the proposed carer’s ability and commitment to provide safe, permanent care. The court may approve the child leaving the jurisdiction under paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989, with an interim care order expiring on departure, where no continuing order in England and Wales is required.

These were care proceedings concerning J, a three-and-a-half-year-old child whose parents were Bangladeshi nationals. A fact-finding hearing had established that J’s burns were inflicted by one of his parents and that he would remain at risk in either parent’s unsupervised care.

The issue was whether J should be placed with his paternal aunt in Bangladesh. Assessments of the aunt and wider paternal family were positive. A Bangladeshi court had made a Compromise Decree appointing the aunt as J’s guardian, although it had also made an unsuitable contact order. The central question was whether the placement could proceed with adequate protection for J.

1. Placement approved. It was in J’s best interests to be placed with his paternal aunt in Bangladesh. The placement would allow him to grow up within his wider family and culture while providing stability and security.
2. The established findings of inflicted injury meant that J could not safely return to either parent’s care, and any unsupervised parental contact would place him at physical and emotional risk.
3. The aunt’s assessment was exceptionally positive. She had demonstrated the ability to care for J, understood the risks posed by unsupervised parental contact, and had shown substantial commitment by travelling to England and developing a relationship with him before the move.
4. The Compromise Decree provided the necessary legal framework in Bangladesh by appointing the aunt as J’s guardian. The Bangladeshi court’s contact order, providing for twice-weekly supervised contact, was inconsistent with J’s welfare. The parties’ agreement and undertakings, and the order made by this court, clearly limited contact to once a month under supervision pending variation in Bangladesh.
5. The legal framework was important, but it could not substitute for the trust placed in the aunt as the person responsible for J’s care throughout his childhood.
6. Under paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989, the court approved the plan for J to leave the jurisdiction and be placed with his aunt. No further order was required in England and Wales once J departed, and the interim care order was to expire upon his departure.