M (A Child) (Placement Order), Re

In public-law care and adoption proceedings, there is no right or presumption that a child must be raised by the natural family. Once the threshold is crossed, welfare throughout the child’s life must be assessed proportionately against every realistic option. Adoption is permissible only where necessary to meet welfare needs. An extension beyond the 26-week timetable is available only where necessary to resolve proceedings justly. International assessment may justify an extension, but the court must use a hard-edged evidential approach, weigh information against delay, calculate time from the issue of proceedings and account for matters outside its control. Here, the uncertain overseas kinship plan and prolonged delay justified refusing an adjournment.

M had been in care since birth and the care proceedings had lasted 62 weeks by the appeal. The Family Court sitting at Leeds found the threshold established in relation to the parents. It refused an adjournment to allow further assessment of M’s aunt and uncle in Pakistan and made Care and Placement Orders.

The aunt and uncle appealed, with the mother advancing additional grounds. The central issue was whether further assessment and an overseas placement could properly be pursued within M’s welfare timescales and under section 32(5) of the Children Act 1989.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. Lady Justice King gave the reasons, with Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice William Davis agreeing.

1. Natural family and adoption. There is no right or presumption that a child must be brought up by a natural family member. After the statutory threshold is crossed, the court must determine welfare throughout the child’s life by a proportionate evaluation of the realistic options. The phrase “nothing else will do” requires adoption to be selected only where it is necessary to meet the child’s welfare needs and is proportionate. The approach in Re W (A Child) (Adoption: Grandparents Competing Claims) [2016] EWCA Civ 793, including its discussion of Re H (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 1284, supported that conclusion.
2. Evaluation of the proposed placement. The judge was entitled to adopt a hard-edged evidential approach. The cultural and family advantages of placement in Pakistan did not overcome the uncertainties concerning funding, visas, accommodation, schooling, language, the assessment itself, guardianship proceedings and the possible position of the Pakistani courts. There was a real possibility that the plan would fail and that a further six to twelve months would be lost, whereas adoption was expected to provide permanence within about three months.
3. Extension of the statutory timetable. Section 32(5) of the Children Act 1989 permits an extension beyond 26 weeks only where it is necessary to resolve the proceedings justly. International assessments may be a relevant reason, but only imperative demands of justice, fair process or the child’s welfare justify an extension. Re S (a child) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment) [2015] 1 WLR 925 was applied.
4. An adjournment is a positive and purposeful decision. The court must weigh the need for further information against the prejudice caused by delay, remain alert to the significance of time for babies and young children, treat the issue of proceedings as the starting point, and account for matters outside judicial control. The guidance in Re S-L (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 1571; [2020] 4 WLR 102 was applied. The judge’s refusal to adjourn and her making of the Placement Order could not be faulted.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 6 March 2025, dismissed the appeal against the Placement Order. [2025] EWCA Civ 214.
• Family Court sitting at Leeds: HHJ Astbury refused a further adjournment for assessment of the aunt and uncle, and on 24 October 2024 made Care and Placement Orders.