FD25F00014 - [2025] EWHC 2483 (Fam)

These proceedings relate to a young child, YV, who at the date of this judgment is 15 months old. YV’s parents are Kazakh nationals who were living in the UK at the time of the child’s birth. They had entered the UK on temporary six-month worker visas and subsequently submitted asylum applications which entitled them to remain in the UK pending the determination of those applications.

Whilst in the UK the mother became pregnant with YV. Both parents wished for YV to be placed for adoption, and prior to the birth met with social workers from the local authority (the London Borough of Tower Hamlets) to discuss relinquishing care of their child from birth.

YV was born in June 2024 and two days after the birth, the parents placed YV in the care of the local authority under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. YV went to live with temporary foster carers. The parents subsequently provided signed consent to YV being placed for adoption under section 19 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and advance consent to adoption under section 20 of the same statute. In February 2025 YV moved to live with prospective adoptive parents. I am told that YV is developing well and appears to have a secure attachment to their current carers, and they have confirmed their wish to adopt YV. YV’s family are of Muslim heritage, as are the current carers.

From the outset, the parents objected to any of their relatives (all of whom live in Kazakhstan) being informed of YV’s birth or being considered by the local authority as prospective carers for YV. Their contention was that there was no one in their immediate families would be able to take care of YV. The mother also expressed some concern what might happen if her family was notified.

The local authority therefore made an application to Court for directions under the inherent jurisdiction (having regard to the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Re A, B and C (Adoption: Notification of Fathers and Relatives) [2020] EWCA (Civ) 41) as to whether YV’s wider maternal and paternal family should be notified of the birth with a view to exploring the possibility of the child being placed with a member of their extended family.

Although the local authority had taken steps to put both parents in touch with independent solicitors to represent them in relation to this application, the parents had limited engagement with their respective solicitors and neither filed any formal evidence in response to the local authority’s application.

A guardian was appointed for YV by an order of Morgan J on 20 February 2025. Following further directions, including the obtaining of expert evidence from a Kazakh lawyer, the local authority’s application came before me for determination on 8 May 2025. On that occasion neither parent was present or represented. Documents from the Home Office established that by the time of this hearing both parents had withdrawn their asylum applications and had returned to Kazakhstan under the Government’s voluntary return scheme. Nonetheless, I was satisfied that the parents had been properly notified of the hearing and was content to proceed in their absence.

At that hearing both the local authority and YV’s Guardian had formed the view that attempts should be made to notify the wider family of the birth. Having considered the evidence filed by the local authority, the submissions of both counsel and the guidance of the Court of Appeal in Re A, B and C (Adoption: Notification of Fathers and Relatives) I concluded that this was not a case where notification of relatives should be dispensed with and made a declaration that it was appropriate for the local authority to notify YV’s extended family with a view to exploring the possibility of the child being placed with family members. I delivered an ex tempore judgment setting out my reasons for this decision which has subsequently been transcribed and which I am publishing on the National Archives alongside this judgment (as Re YV (No 1)(Adoption; Notification of Relatives; Kazakhstan) (No 1) [2025] EWHC 2482 (Fam)).

As a consequence of that decision, I gave directions to lead to the location and notification of the wider family. My order provided for the parents to have an opportunity to tell their families about YV themselves, failing which the local authority was permitted to notify the families itself. Mindful that YV (although not currently in possession of any passport) is a child of Kazakh parents and entitled to Kazakh citizenship, my order also provided for a copy of the order to be provided to the Kazakhstan Central Authority and to its UK embassy. The order contained an invitation to the Kazakh authorities to attend the next hearing and to (a) set out their position in relation to the application generally and (b) the fact that if no suitable family members could be identified to care for YV, it was likely that they would be placed for adoption in England and Wales.

The matter came back before me for further directions on 3 June 2025. By that stage there had been a number of significant developments.

The paternal grandmother also attended the hearing on 3 June and confirmed to me, through a video link and interpreter, her willingness to look after YV.

I therefore gave directions for the instruction of an independent social worker to conduct a parenting assessment of the paternal grandmother with the matter then being restored for a final hearing before me on 9 September.

At the final hearing the local authority was represented by Ms Cabeza of counsel, and the Guardian by Ms Cheetham of counsel. Neither parent attended or was represented. The grandmother was again in attendance and addressed the Court through a video link and interpreter. On this occasion the staff from the Kazakh Embassy where unable to attend, but made themselves available by telephone to answer any further queries that might arise.

The report of the social worker was extremely positive and at the final hearing both the local authority and Guardian supported my making a child arrangements order in favour of the grandmother. At the conclusion of that hearing I announced that I would make the orders proposed and indicated that I would give my reasons for doing so in a reserved judgment.