A Borough Council v C & Ors

In care proceedings, a special guardianship order may be made where placement with relatives is demonstrably in the children’s welfare best interests and is necessary without further delay. The court must assess the totality of the evidence, including the proposed carers’ ability to meet complex emotional and psychological needs, the availability of ongoing therapeutic and practical support, and the benefits of family, cultural and national belonging. The order may also be appropriate where it facilitates necessary citizenship applications and the children’s lawful relocation, provided the welfare consequences of delay are addressed.

These care proceedings concerned two children who had been repatriated to the United Kingdom from a displacement camp in Country D and placed in foster care. Their paternal grandparents, resident in Country E, sought to care for them there. Initial viability assessments were negative, but the grandparents challenged those assessments and were subsequently assessed positively by an independent social worker in Country E.

The local authority, the grandparents and the children’s guardian ultimately agreed that the children should be placed with the grandparents. The final issue was whether special guardianship orders should be made, taking account of the children’s welfare, their trauma and support needs, the proposed transition to Country E, and the need to progress citizenship applications.

1. Special guardianship orders made. With the consent of all parties, the court made special guardianship orders in favour of the paternal grandparents. The orders were made to secure the children’s placement with them and to enable citizenship applications in Country E.
2. The welfare decision had to be determined on the totality of the evidence. The grandparents had demonstrated sustained commitment, had engaged fully with assessments and professionals, and had developed close, warm and trusting relationships with the children.
3. The independent social worker’s comprehensive assessment established that the grandparents had the capacity to meet the children’s basic, emotional and psychological needs. They understood the children’s traumatic experiences, were open to professional guidance, and could provide loving, consistent care with support from the wider paternal family.
4. The court had regard to the recommendations and best-practice guidance in the President’s Public Law Working Group’s Special Guardianship Order Report of June 2020. The children would require continuing therapy and support, and those needs were adequately addressed by the local authority’s Special Guardianship Support Plan.
5. Delay in making the orders would be inimical to the children’s welfare because it would delay the grandparents’ citizenship applications. The grandparents would remain in the United Kingdom with the children if necessary while the applications were determined. Adoption, long-term foster care and placement with the maternal family were not realistic welfare options.
6. The court also approved the children’s change of surname to the grandparents’ family name.