Case No. LV21C01158

222.Miss Edmunds, on behalf of the mother, argues that there is no confusion as to who this man is. He is the mother’s paternal uncle, the brother of her father. In addition, because he is the oldest child, he assumes the role of father and by default to the next generation grandfather.223.If A cannot be returned to the mother, then Miss Edmunds argues for A to be placed with D. She argues that this is a realistic option on the current available evidence, and a full assessment is now mandated in accordance with Article 6 and 8 of the mother, A and D. Miss Edmunds relies upon the following passage from K, T and U (Placement of Children with Kinship Carers Abroad) [2019] EWFC 59:“My narrative account as to the background in this case raises two more points of general importance. First, professionals working within a foreign jurisdiction may not understand the concept of a ‘viability’ report. Indeed, I am not currently convinced that the professionals working within this jurisdiction did. Such an assessment may take many forms, but it best described perhaps by reference to paragraph 67 of Re P-S where Sir James Munby said that the question to be answered is whether the proposed carer is ‘a runner’. That appraisal will need a solid foundation, ‘But the appraisal, assessment or evaluation (call it what you will) need not necessarily be too lengthy or too searching at this stage; what is sometimes referred to as a viability assessment or something similar may well suffice’. The positive assessment from the local social worker took almost 4 months to prepare (5 months if one includes the answers to the supplemental questions) and was highly detailed as I have said. It was plainly not a ‘viability' assessment’”.224.Miss Edmunds argues that screening assessment does not reveal any reason why there should not be a full assessment. The evidence pulls in favour of a full assessment. The screening assessment does not raise any barriers to full assessment. It simply identifies what needs to be further investigated. The social worker confirmed on oath that the preferred placement for A would be in Gabon with D subject to assessment. 225.D was impressive in the witness box argues Miss Edmunds. He was parachuted into proceedings with little warning and no support. He engaged with the process and was a fundamentally credible and honest witness who wants to step up and do the right thing by A. He is a man of his word and one who unconditionally and fundamentally respects authority.226.Miss Edmunds argues that whilst the Children’s Guardian said that there were more unknowns as a result of the screening assessment, which would not justify full assessment, that argument does not withstand scrutiny. The approach of the Children’s Guardian has fallen into error as she is looking for something more comprehensive. 227.Miss Edmunds also relies upon Re CB (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 888:i) local authorities and the courts must be appropriately pro-active in bringing to the attention of the relevant consular authorities at the earliest possible opportunity the fact that care proceedings involving foreign nationals are on foot or in contemplation [and this was done in this case];ii) the court must, whether or not any of the parties have raised the point, consider at the outset of the proceedings whether the case is one for a transfer in accordance with Article 15 of BIIA [not relevant here as jurisdiction was dealt with by MacDonald J];iii) if there is no transfer in accordance with Article 15, the court, if the local authority’s plan is for adoption, must rigorously apply the principle that adoption is ‘the last resort’ and only permissible ‘if nothing else will do’ [that is not relevant here, in my judgment];iv) the court must adopt an appropriately rigorous approach to the consideration of the ‘welfare checklist’ in section 1(4) of the 2002 Act [that is not relevant here, in my judgment]”.228.Miss Edmunds argues that whilst the Local Authority’s application does not require the application of the Welfare Checklist under the Act of 2002, it does mandate the evidence to be considered through the lens of the Welfare Checklist under the Children Act 1989, and to that extent A’s national cultural, linguistic, ethnic and religious background are relevant considerations. I wholly agree with this submission and clearly these are all factors which support further assessment of a family member in Gabon.229.I do not agree with the suggestion that while this is not an adoption case, it has all the hallmarks of it. The Local Authority are very clear that it needs to do more to maintain A’s link with all of those factors and in particular his family in Gabon, and that it needs to do more to encourage an ongoing relationship with extended family members. 230.Indeed, the Local Authority has tried time and time again, and repeatedly done so during this hearing, to encourage the mother to sign the contract of expectations or undertakings as directed by MacDonald J to enable direct contact to take place with A. The mother has chosen to refuse and maintain that refusal before the Court. That, in my judgment, is reprehensible conduct on her part. 231.Miss Edmunds suggests that the screening assessment and the evidence of the Children’s Guardian do not take into account the many positives that such a placement could offer A and are focused on the here and now rather than his medium and longer-term needs. Miss Edmunds goes on to argue that there will be consequential harm to A by not having his welfare needs met if the Court does not delay the proceedings to allow for a full assessment. 232.Miss Edmunds then deals with the arguments advanced against adjourning for a full assessment. She argues that A’s purported wishes and feelings should not be a factor that the Court attaches weight to and certainly should not be the determinant factor. In my judgment, the Court should attach some weight to A’s wishes and feelings, but obviously it is not a determinative factor and bearing in mind his age, it will not even be one of the magnetic factors.