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

Where a child’s relative is assessed as able to provide a secure and loving home, the court must determine the child’s welfare by evaluating the statutory factors and all realistic placement options. Cultural heritage, family relationships and the preservation of birth-family connections may carry significant weight. A move to a relative abroad may be authorised where the transition is carefully planned and the court is satisfied that removal serves the child’s welfare. Permission to remove may be made conditional on completion of the transition arrangements. A kinship placement under a child arrangements order must remain distinct from removal for the purpose of adoption.

The proceedings concerned a 15-month-old child of Kazakh parents. The parents had consented to adoption and the child was living with prospective adopters in England. Following an earlier decision that the wider family should be notified, the paternal grandmother in Kazakhstan came forward and was positively assessed by an independent social worker.

The local authority and the children’s guardian supported orders providing for the child to live with the grandmother and to leave the jurisdiction. The central issues were the applicable welfare checklist, the child’s best interests when comparing adoption in England with kinship care in Kazakhstan, the jurisdiction to make the orders, and the safeguards required for the child’s transition.

1. Jurisdiction. The local authority could not itself apply for a section 8 order under the Children Act 1989: [2025] EWHC 2483 (Fam) [29]. The court therefore made the child arrangements order of its own motion under section 10(1)(b).
2. Applicable welfare test. The relevant checklist was that in section 1 of the Children Act 1989, because the court was considering making a section 8 order. The adoption checklist in section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 was not engaged merely because the practical consequence was that the child would not be adopted in England and Wales: [2025] EWHC 2483 (Fam) [30]-[31]. In any event, both checklists led to the same result.
3. The child was too young for ascertainable wishes and feelings. The grandmother could provide a loving and supportive home. Placement with her would preserve the child’s Kazakh culture and enable continuing relationships with the birth family. The court recognised that moving from the current carers to a new carer, country and language would be challenging, but accepted that a carefully planned transition could reduce the distress: [2025] EWHC 2483 (Fam) [32]-[35].
4. The grandmother’s financial position and future contingency arrangements were uncertainties but did not preclude placement. She was in good health, committed to the child’s care, experienced with children and supported by her adult children. The court was satisfied that the child was not at risk of harm in either proposed placement and that welfare required a lives-with order in favour of the grandmother and permission to move permanently to Kazakhstan: [2025] EWHC 2483 (Fam) [35]-[37].
5. The court would have reached the same conclusion under the adoption checklist, including the likely lifelong effect of adoption and the value and viability of relationships with relatives: [2025] EWHC 2483 (Fam) [38]-[39]. The placement was a kinship placement, not a removal for adoption. Section 85(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 was therefore not engaged on the stated purpose of the order: [2025] EWHC 2483 (Fam) [40]-[41].
6. Permission under section 13 of the Children Act 1989 was made conditional on satisfactory completion of the transition plan and the local authority’s final written consent. The proceedings were adjourned, with permission to apply, and were to stand dismissed if no further application was made: [2025] EWHC 2483 (Fam) [42]-[46].

Not an appeal. The judgment records earlier directions and an earlier decision in the same proceedings, but no separate appellate history.