Case No. LV21C01158

237.Miss Edmunds argues that it is unfair to criticise D for not being proactive in his communications to the standards expected of grandparents living in this jurisdiction. The geography landscape is misunderstood by the professionals. He has little access to technology. His age is a barrier to understanding the technology available to him. He has a proven track record in raising children and any concern about A’s educational needs are misplaced.238.I do accept that I must make due allowances for geography and lack of technology skills, although he was clearly able to engage in a WhatsApp video link for the hearing, and he has the assistance of J to help him. Indeed, J appears to be the prime mover in communication between the local authority and the grandfather. 239.Miss Edmunds identifies that the Court is duty bound to consider the issue of delay. She invites me to consider the decision of the Court of Appeal in P-S (Children) [2018] EWCA Civ 1407, and in particular paragraph 64 referring to the decision of Sir James Munby, the then President in Re S:“33.There will, as it seems to me, be three different forensic contexts in which an extension of the 26-week time limit in accordance with section 32(5) may be ‘necessary’:(c) cases with an international element where investigations or assessments have to be carried out abroad and …(c) cases where a realistic alternative family carer emerges late in the day.67.The first question is whether the proposed special guardian is a ‘runner’, to adopt the language of McFarlane LJ in In re W (A Child) (Adoption: Grandparents’ Competing Claim) [2016] EWCA Civ 793, [2017] 1 WLR 889, [2017] 2 FLR 31, para 70. This appraisal, to adopt the language of In re S, must be ‘evidence based, with a solid foundation, not driven by sentiment or … hope’.69.If the answer to these questions demonstrates that the process cannot be completed justly, fairly and in a manner compatible with the child's welfare within 26 weeks, then time must be extended… In relation to SGOs, as elsewhere, justice must never be sacrificed upon the altar of speed”. 240.Miss Edmunds suggests that whilst the Court is bound to factor delay into its decision and attach weight to it, it does not cause the scales to tip in favour of abandoning D as a realistic option. On the ground, the reality is an adjournment will not impact on A. He is settled in his placement and there are no evidential indicators that these proceedings are negatively impacting upon him. For the Children’s Guardians to suggest otherwise was speculation without objective evidence. 241.There are many positives for A in having the assessment completed. He will know that all options were properly and fairly considered. There is a real risk as he gets older, and the inevitable harm of his global needs not being met comes to the surface, he will ask why D has not given a chance.242.The Court has engaged in a process, the assessment of D that has not yet reached its conclusion and a safe destination. Miss Edmunds refers to an email from CFAB dated 15 June 2022, which sets out the requirements if the Court decides to commission an assessment from Gabon via their organisation. Significantly, in my judgment, the following appears:“As discussed, we have not worked with the ISS partner in Gabon, and we have not been able to find an ISS partner with previous experience of this partner. Therefore, although we generally advise a time scale of 12 to 16 weeks to receive a report back from abroad, we are unable to advise as to the likelihood this partner will be able to meet this time scale or as to the comprehensiveness of the report we receive back”. It is clear that at this stage direction for assessment via CFAB would evolve a journey into the unknown both in terms of timescale and also quality of assessment. 243.Finally, Miss Edmunds refers to K, T and U (Placement of Children with Kinship Carers Abroad) decision, again identifying the problem that assessments abroad, being of varying quality, and rarely meet the requirements of the UK assessment. Furthermore, there can be long timeframes waiting for information abroad, misunderstandings in communication and oversees social workers not necessarily understanding the assessment requirements of the UK. 244.CFAB have made a number of recommendations to try to assist Local Authorities in resolving this conundrum, which includes inviting the prospective carer to the UK for further assessment and the social worker here working in partnership with the social worker in the foreign country. This sort of issue, late assessment of family member abroad, was grappled with by Hayden J in the case of Cheshire West and Chester Council v LM (A Child) [2022] EWFC 32. At paragraph 56, Hayden J said this:“Very late in the day, paternal relatives have come forward. N, is the half sibling of F and K, is his partner. They have never met LM. They have told the social services, and I accept, that they have only known about LM’s current situation for the past month. I do not know what this signals in terms of the family’s communications with each other, nor do I speculate. It is self-evident that an application made at a final hearing, in a case that has been before the Court for over 12 months, presents real challenges. The pace of proceedings must always be set by the needs of the child and not the exigencies of the litigation. Children’s lives cannot be ‘freeze framed’ or kept in suspended animation whilst the adults organise their options. In this sphere of law, it cannot be repeated too often that the child is the paramount consideration. I touch upon the difficulties that such applications present in: Tower Hamlets London Borough Council v (1) D (2) E (3) F [2015] 2 FLR 535:‘Before turning to the respective arguments, I should observe that, to my mind, even the prescient architects of the Children Act 1989 could not have envisaged the considerable cultural changes that were to take place in the United Kingdom in the 23 years that followed the implementation of that Act. British society is now multicultural. Assessing parents and family members may, quite frequently does, involve considering individuals based anywhere in the world. I do not believe that the obligation to explore the family option for a child is weakened in any way by geography, although it can provide real challenges to already overstretched resources. The viability of these options must, from the outset, be evaluated rigorously and reviewed regularly. The need for such assessments must be addressed at the very beginning of proceedings. Late identification of potential family carers abroad may bring two fundamental principles of the Children Act into conflict, namely the desirability, if possible, of a child being brought up in its extended family (where parents are for some reason unable to care for the child themselves) and the need to avoid delay in planning for a child’s future. Neither principle should be regarded as having greater weight. The recent reforms to the family justice system have sought to emphasise why it was that the avoidance of delay was given statutory force by the Children Act and the real and lasting harm delay causes to children, particularly in public law care proceedings. There will, in my judgement, be occasions when the obstacles to assessment of family members abroad create such delays that to pursue the option will be inconsistent with the child’s own timescales. These are taxing and exacting decisions, but they require to be confronted with integrity and without sentimentality’”.245.This is such a decision for this Court now. I remind myself that my paramount consideration in making decisions relating to A’s upbringing is his welfare. Also, that any delay in making that decision is likely to prejudice his welfare; section 1 of the Children Act.