Court of Appeal upholds plan for adoption for 18-month-old boy as placement with extended family in Pakistan “not achievable within his timescales”

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against a placement order made in respect of an 18-month-old boy, finding that the aspiration to place him with extended family in Pakistan was “not achievable” within the timescales, and that the child’s best interests could only be served by the making of a placement order with a view to him being adopted in the UK.

In M (A Child) (Placement Order) [2025] EWCA Civ 214 (06 March 2025), Lady Justice King concluded: “The judge's careful and sympathetic analysis of the application for an adjournment for further assessments of the aunt and uncle cannot be faulted and in my judgement, she reached the right decision given the uncertainties inherent in the proposed plan for placement in Pakistan and the urgency of achieving permanency for M.”

The case concerned M, an 18-month-old boy, who has been in foster care since October 2023 due to findings related to the father's drugs and alcohol misuse, and the mother's significant mental health issues.

During the care proceedings process, M’s parents had been asked to put forward alternative potential family placements. The mother proposed her sister and brother-in-law (the aunt and the uncle), who live in Pakistan with their three children.

The aunt and uncle were given party status and were represented at the final hearing.

King LJ noted: “They did not at that stage put themselves forward as a realistic option for the immediate placement of M with them, rather they too sought a significant adjournment for further assessments of them to be carried out in this country.”

The judge refused that application and made a care order and a placement order.

The aunt and uncle appealed against the making of the placement order, and the mother was given late permission to file two additional grounds in support of the appeal.

Outlining the background to the case, King LJ noted that in February 2024, the local authority, having conducted a positive viability assessment of the aunt and uncle, commissioned a CFAB [Children and Families Across Borders] assessment of them, conducted in Pakistan by an experienced social worker.

In her conclusions, the social worker recorded a number of positives for M were he to be placed with his aunt and uncle, which included the cultural "fit".

She however highlighted the basic level of education which would be available to M, the family's financial insecurity and the negative impact on the whole family if the uncle worked extended hours or moved abroad.

The social worker's ultimate recommendation was that the aunt and uncle "are suitable to be considered to care for the children (sic) if they are provided with financial support.”

In the light of the social worker's report, advice was sought from a dually qualified expert experienced in Pakistan's courts and with Pakistan's family law.

The expert informed the Court that there is no automatic procedure for a mirror order in Pakistan, so it would be necessary to obtain an order conferring rights of guardianship under section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890.

Under Pakistan's law, the family courts, he explained, are bound to decide cases within a period of six months and the procedure is extremely expensive. A Special Guardianship Order would be the most likely order to be most compatible with Pakistan law and provide the best protection in terms of being enforceable.

Turning to the judgment under appeal, King LJ noted the judge said at paragraph [76] that the plan to place M with his aunt and uncle was "fraught with uncertainties". She particularised issues such as the need to obtain visas, that the local authority was no longer willing to fund a UK assessment, the further delay occasioned by the assessment itself, followed by further court proceedings and the need for a mirror order.

The judge held that the adjournment would have to be at least three to four months to complete the assessment and return to court, and probably "more akin to six to twelve months before successful placement could be achieved if the assessment were positive".

Concluding the case, the judge ruled it was not in M's best interests to continue the process of assessment with the aunt and uncle, "despite all the detrimental consequences that flow from such a decision".

Appealing the decision, the aunt and uncle submitted the judge was wrong to:

1. accept that a plan to place M with his aunt and uncle was "fraught with uncertainties"
2. conclude that it would be akin to 6–12 months before a successful placement could be achieved if an assessment of the aunt and uncle were positive
3. conclude that there was a real possibility that the assessment would be negative
4. conclude that an adjournment was not within M's reasonable timescales for achieving a permanent placement absent direct evidence as to timescales to place M for adoption
5. fail to consider if a "robust and focused timescale" could have been imposed to lead to an expeditious resolution of proceedings following further assessment of the aunt and uncle.

Considering the claim, King LJ said: “Notwithstanding the commitment shown by the aunt and uncle to offering M a home and the undoubted advantages if it can be achieved, and that it is in a child's best interests to have a family placement, in my judgment there were a myriad of reasons why the plan to place M in Pakistan might fail.

“[…] M has been in care all his life. At the date of the trial he was 14 months old and the aunt and uncle, through no fault of their own, were not in a position to say that they could, as of that date, be regarded as a realistic option for the placement for M with them.”

Dismissing the appeal, she concluded: “I would endorse the judge's observation that the decision was a difficult one but not a finely balanced one. What made it difficult was that the hopes of the family, and particularly the aunt and uncle, had been raised and then maintained long after a decision should have been reached that, for many reasons in addition to delay, the aspiration to place M with his extended family in Pakistan was not achievable within his timescales and that M's best interests could only be served by the making of a placement order with a view to his being adopted in the UK.”

Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice William Davis agreed.

Lottie Winson