Family Court approves care plan entailing move to Jamaica amid concerns over immigration application risks

In D, Re (Placement in Jamaica) (Rev1) [2025] EWFC 306 (B) (26 September 2025), Her Honour Judge Reardon concluded that when taking a “long-term view”, the benefits to the child of a placement in Jamaica “outweigh the risks, which are most acute in the short-term but will largely dissipate if, as is hoped, D's legal and immigration status is secured”.

The case concerned D, aged 1, who is her mother’s fourth child.

The mother has two adult sons who live in country Y (a European country). E, her third child, is aged three.

HHJ Reardon noted: “Sadly, although she clearly has the capacity to be a loving and devoted parent, the mother suffers from a serious substance misuse problem and the chaotic lifestyle that often accompanies it. She managed to achieve relative stability for a period following E's birth, and cared for him until April 2023 when he was removed, after drug tests indicated that she was continuing to use both cocaine and cannabis.

“E was made subject to a special guardianship order in favour of Ms L, his father's sister, in October 2023, and moved to live in Jamaica shortly thereafter.”

The mother became pregnant with D during the course of E's care proceedings. Shortly after D’s birth, an interim care order was made, and D was placed in foster care.

Early in the proceedings, Ms L put herself forward to care for D, together with her partner, Mr M.

HHJ Reardon said: “A special guardianship assessment, carried out by an independent social worker with the full support and cooperation of the Jamaican authorities, concluded that Ms L and Mr M were well-placed to offer D a permanent home and that this placement would have a number of advantages. D would have the opportunity to grow up together with a sibling close in age, and the chance to maintain a relationship with her mother and other maternal relatives through indirect, and possibly in future direct, contact.”

The local authority first sought advice on the possibility of D emigrating to Jamaica in October 2024. That advice was to the effect that because D did not have a biological connection with Ms L, it would not be possible for her to achieve secure immigration status in Jamaica.

An IRH took place in January 2025 before District Judge Coupland. The judge considered the immigration advice obtained by the local authority and was not satisfied that the option of a placement in Jamaica had been “fully explored”. He directed the local authority to obtain further advice.

In the lead up to the final hearing, the local authority continued its discussions with the Jamaican child protection authorities and obtained further information about potential routes to a placement in Jamaica. It therefore sought and was granted permission to rely on a further expert opinion from a legal officer at the Jamaican Child Protection and Family Services Agency (CPFSA).

Over the course of the proceedings, the court received evidence from four expert witnesses on the legal implications of a potential placement in Jamaica.

At the present hearing, all parties to the proceedings asked the judge to make an order to set D on a path to a permanent move to Jamaica - where she will live with her maternal half-brother, E, in the care of E's paternal aunt Ms L.

HHJ Reardon noted: “The issue which I have to decide is whether to approve that plan as being in D's best interests, taking into account the legal and practical complexities of her proposed emigration.”

Considering the case, looking first at the issue of placement with Ms L, HHJ Reardon observed a “considerable degree of overlap” between the experts' opinions.

She said: “All agree that the only realistic route by which D can be cared for in Jamaica by a non-relative is under a guardianship order pursuant to the Children (Guardianship and Custody) Act, s4.

“Case law has established that the Supreme Court has power under this provision to appoint a guardian who is not biologically related to the child. The approach is welfare-based, and the Act sets out a list of factors to be taken into consideration, a number of which overlap with the factors in the welfare checklist in CA 1989, s1(3). Once made, the effect of a guardianship order is largely to mirror the provisions of an English special guardianship order.”

Turning to immigration issues, HHJ Reardon noted that the “uncertainty” around D's immigration status if she travels to Jamaica under a special guardianship order, was the issue causing her “the most concern”.

It was agreed between the experts that the only way in which D will be permitted to enter Jamaica initially is as a visitor.

As a British national she will be granted leave to remain for an initial period of at least three months, which may be extended up to a maximum of 12 months. The evidence was that this maximum extension is likely to be granted, particularly in circumstances where there is an ongoing court application.

Concluding on this issue, HHJ Reardon said: “This is not a case where there is any guarantee that D's immigration status will be secured within a short period of her arrival in Jamaica. It may be a lengthy and complex process. There is a risk that one or both applications (for registration as a Jamaican citizen, or for Unconditional Landing) will be refused. At best this will lead to a period of uncertainty and stress for D's carers and at worst it is possible, although I hope unlikely, that she will be deported.”

She continued: “There are, however, a number of grounds on which the court can be cautiously optimistic about the viability of this option.

“Ms Chambers, whose expert opinion was positive in terms of the prospects of D being permitted to remain in Jamaica, and ultimately to achieve Jamaican citizenship, works within the CPFSA and closely with PICA. These are the two agencies which will be charged with making recommendations and decisions for D. To the extent that any decisions involve the exercise of discretion, it is clear that the CPFSA will be prepared to lend its support to the application.

“This local authority has worked tirelessly to achieve a placement for D in Jamaica. […] The working relationships that the local authority has made with relevant personnel in Jamaica, together with the local authority's commitment to provide D with an allocated social worker until her status in Jamaica is secured, are likely to assist if difficulties arise along the way.”

HHJ Reardon observed that once a special guardianship order is made in this jurisdiction, D will have no other carer available to look after her, other than Ms L.

She said: “If Unconditional Landing (or another secure status) is refused, her situation will be precarious in the extreme. That distinguishes her from some of the other cases, involving adults, which Ms Cummings [another expert] referred to in her evidence and will, I hope, improve the prospects of a successful application.”

Conducting a welfare evaluation, HHJ Reardon acknowledged that D is a British child with mixed, part-European heritage. Therefore, she has no genetic or cultural links to Jamaica.

She said: “According to Ms Cummings, 92% of the population of Jamaica is of African heritage (although that figure relates to the Island as a whole, and the city where Ms L lives is perhaps likely to be more diverse). D may feel out of place in a community where most people do not share her ethnicity or cultural background.”

However, the judge also considered the commitment of Ms L to the assessment process and proceedings, and noted that the special guardianship assessment highlighted the quality of Ms L's parenting of E, jointly with her partner, Mr M.

She said: “E is, plainly, a treasured child who is the focus of their home; they have high aspirations for him and have developed a warm, loving and confident parenting style.”

The judge added: “I have been struck by the fact that Ms L has, at least since I have been allocated this case, attended every hearing in these proceedings, some of which have taken place when it is the middle of the night in Jamaica. She has followed the evidence closely, asked questions and made thoughtful points. This matters for D, who will have to come to terms in the future with the knowledge that her mother was unable to overcome her addiction in order to care for her.

“For such a child, the knowledge that there was someone in her early years who wanted her enough to come forward and claim her can be a powerful factor supporting the child's sense of identity and self-esteem.”

Conducting a balancing exercise, HHJ Reardon observed the “number of advantages” of adoption in the UK. She said: “D is a baby girl with no identified additional needs. She is likely to be matched and placed relatively swiftly with a family who will be able to offer her a stable and permanent home. Their capacity to care for her is likely to be very good.”

In the alternative, the judge acknowledged the main advantage of a placement with Ms L to be that D would grow up with a sibling, which is likely to “foster her understanding of who she is and to provide her with a sense of belonging”.

Concluding the case, she said: “I acknowledge that a placement in Jamaica carries risks. The likelihood of an immigration application being refused is not as low as I would like, and the consequences of this happening are very serious.

“The safer option in the short term is undoubtedly adoption. However that option will take away D's only chance of growing up with a blood relative, a sibling who has the potential to become one of her most significant adult relationships.

“I remind myself that I must take a long-term view and consider D's welfare not just now but for many decades into the future. From that perspective I have concluded that the benefits to D of a placement in Jamaica outweigh the risks, which are most acute in the short term but will largely dissipate if, as is hoped, D's legal and immigration status is secured.”

HHJ Reardon approved the plan for D to move to Jamaica to live with her brother, Mr M and Ms L.

Finally, she said: “The local authority has prepared a transition plan under which Ms L and Mr M will travel to the UK, together with E, to meet D before she moves into their care and returns to Jamaica with them. The transition will be fully supported by social workers in both jurisdictions.

“It is intended that a hearing should be listed at an appropriate point in that process, and a special guardianship order made before D leaves the jurisdiction.”

Lottie Winson