M (A Child) (Placement Order)

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns a Placement Order made in respect of a male child ("M"), aged 18 months, who is a British citizen. The appeal was dismissed on 30 January 2025 against the Placement Order issued by HHJ Astbury. The statutory requirement under section 32(1)(a)(ii) of the Children Act 1989 is that care proceedings should be disposed of within 26 weeks from issuance of the application, but in this case, the proceedings had lasted 62 weeks, covering the child's entire life.

M's mother has four older children from a previous relationship, all accommodated by the local authority since October 2022. Shortly after the mother entered a relationship with M's father, the mother and father travelled to Pakistan against advice, returning in December 2022, when care proceedings commenced. The father's background includes five children from a prior marriage and untested allegations of domestic abuse.

The care proceedings for the mother's older children concluded in December 2023, with some children returning to parental or familial care and others placed with foster carers. Pre-birth assessments were conducted for M, who was initially placed with the mother under an interim care order excluding the father. Due to breaches of safety plans, M was placed in foster care in October 2023 and remained there.

The final hearing for M took place in October 2024. The mother, pregnant again by the father, sought an adjournment for further assessments, which was refused. The judge found threshold criteria satisfied, citing concerns about the father's substance misuse and the mother's mental health issues and neglect history. The judge ruled that returning M to the mother posed an unacceptable risk. No appeal was made against this decision.

Family placement options were explored, including a proposal by the mother for M to be placed with her sister and brother-in-law ("the aunt and uncle") in Pakistan. Initially pursued by the local authority, the plan shifted in August 2024 to seek a Placement Order for adoption in the UK. The aunt and uncle were party to the proceedings but did not present themselves as an immediate placement option, requesting further assessments in the UK, which the judge refused. Two culturally appropriate families in the UK had expressed interest in adopting M.

The aunt and uncle appealed the Placement Order decision, with the mother granted late permission to add two additional grounds supporting the appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in refusing a further adjournment to allow for additional assessment of the aunt and uncle as potential carers for M.
2. Whether the judge correctly applied the welfare checklists under the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
3. Whether the judge properly considered the timescales and feasibility of placing M with the aunt and uncle in Pakistan, including the impact of delay on M's welfare.
4. Whether the judge failed to consider imposing a "robust and focused timescale" for the assessment and resolution of placement proceedings.
5. Whether the judge's decision to dismiss the appeal was justified given the statutory imperative to dispose of care proceedings within 26 weeks and the exceptional circumstances of this case.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Aunt and Uncle)

• The judge was wrong to characterize the plan to place M with them as "fraught with uncertainties".
• The judge erred in concluding that a successful placement would take 6 to 12 months if the assessment were positive.
• The judge wrongly concluded there was a real possibility the assessment would be negative.
• The judge erred in concluding an adjournment was not within M's reasonable timescales absent direct evidence on adoption timescales.
• The judge failed to consider whether a "robust and focused timescale" could be imposed to expedite the proceedings following further assessment.
• The court should have granted an extension under section 32(5) Children Act 1989 to allow the assessment to proceed.

Additional Grounds by the Mother

• The judge failed to properly apply the welfare checklists under the Children Act 1989 and Adoption and Children Act 2002, leading to flawed balancing.
• The decision deprived the mother of the opportunity to adduce further welfare evidence through additional assessments.

Respondent's Arguments (Local Authority and Guardian)

• The ongoing delay was deeply harmful to M and further delay for assessment was not in his best interests.
• The plan to place M with the aunt and uncle was uncertain and likely to fail due to financial, logistical, legal, and relational difficulties.
• Adoption within the UK was a more certain and timely route to permanency, with culturally appropriate families available within months.
• The statutory timetable and the imperative to resolve proceedings justly and promptly favored refusal of the adjournment.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Re W (A Child) (Adoption: Grandparents Competing Claims) [2016] EWCA Civ 793	Clarification that there is no presumption or right for a child to be brought up by natural family in public law adoption proceedings; paramount consideration is the child's welfare.	The court relied on this precedent to reject any presumption in favor of family placement and to emphasize that adoption is only chosen if necessary and proportionate to meet the child's welfare needs.
Re S (a child) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment) [2015] 1 WLR 925	Criteria for extending the 26-week timetable under section 32(5) Children Act 1989; extension only permitted if necessary to resolve proceedings justly.	The court applied this principle to conclude that extension of the timetable was not justified given the harm from delay and uncertainties surrounding the proposed placement.
Re S-L (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 1571; [2020] 4 WLR 102	Emphasizes the balancing of need for information against prejudice to the child from delay; adjournments require careful justification and cannot be treated as mere pauses.	The court cited this case to support the importance of timeliness and the judge’s obligation to weigh advantages and disadvantages of adjournments.
Re H (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 1284	Supports the absence of presumption in favor of natural family in public law cases and highlights welfare as paramount consideration.	Referenced to reinforce the welfare principle and absence of familial presumption in adoption decisions.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the extensive factual background, including the history of care proceedings concerning M and his siblings, the assessments of potential family placements, and the statutory framework governing care proceedings and placement orders. The judge's refusal to grant a further adjournment for assessment of the aunt and uncle was central to the appeal.

The court acknowledged the positive aspects of the CFAB assessment and the cultural advantages of placement with the aunt and uncle. However, it emphasized the significant uncertainties and risks inherent in the proposed plan: financial instability, inadequate housing, lack of statutory support in Pakistan, complexities of obtaining visas and legal orders abroad, language barriers, and the absence of a current relationship between M and the aunt and uncle.

The court highlighted the importance of timeliness under the Children Act 1989, noting the statutory imperative to dispose of care proceedings within 26 weeks and the exceptional nature of any extension. It recognized that M was at a critical developmental stage where delay could cause harm, and that permanency was urgent.

The court accepted the local authority’s evidence that adoption within the UK was achievable within a shorter and more certain timeframe. It found that the judge’s conclusion—that further delay was not in M’s best interests and that the assessment might not be successful—was justified and supported by evidence.

The court further analyzed the legal principle that there is no presumption or right for a child to be placed with the natural family in public law adoption cases. Instead, welfare is paramount and decisions must be proportionate. The judge’s balancing exercise was thorough and well-reasoned, weighing the benefits of family placement against the harm of delay and uncertainty.

Regarding the statutory provision allowing extension of the 26-week timetable, the court found that an extension was not necessary to resolve the proceedings justly, given the multiple factors outside the court’s control and the absence of a clear, achievable timetable for placement with the aunt and uncle.

The court also noted the judge’s empathy for the aunt and uncle but concluded that the decision to refuse further delay was correct and that the appeal did not demonstrate any error in the judge’s evaluation of the evidence or application of the law.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL against the making of the Placement Order for M.

The direct effect of this decision is that M will proceed to adoption in the UK within a timely and certain framework, rather than facing further delay and uncertainty associated with a potential placement in Pakistan with extended family. The court emphasized the paramount importance of the child's welfare and the statutory imperative to avoid delay in care proceedings. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the decision reaffirmed established principles regarding welfare prioritization, the absence of familial presumptions in adoption cases, and strict adherence to statutory timetables.