Ruth Cabeza in YV (No 2) (Kinship Carer; Child Arrangements Order; Kazakhstan) [2025] EWHC 2483 (Fam)
8th Oct 2025 | Cases
Ruth Cabeza was instructed by the Applicant local authority in YV (No 2) (Kinship Carer; Child Arrangements Order; Kazakhstan) [2025] EWHC 2483 (Fam); a case which concerned a 15-month-old child, YV, born in England to Kazakh parents who relinquished her at birth for adoption and requested that the extended family not be informed or contacted. The child was placed in foster care, and later with foster to adopt carers. However, prior to placing her for adoption the local authority sought a direction from the court as to whether it should proceed to place for adoption without contacting the child’s extended family. The court ruled that YV’s wider family in Kazakhstan should be notified, despite the parents’ objections. Following this, YV’s paternal grandmother came forward, supported by Kazakh authorities and the local authority. A parenting assessment by an independent social worker was positive, confirming the grandmother’s ability to provide a loving, culturally appropriate home in Kazakhstan.
In the light of the positive assessment of the paternal grandmother the local authority invited the court to consider making a child arrangements order of its own motion, and permitting the child to be removed from the jurisdiction by the paternal grandmother under s. 13 of the Children Act 1989. The parents did not actively engage with the proceedings although they were aware of them and had been served with the court papers through the Kazah Embassy. At the final hearing the Guardian supported a child arrangements order for YV to live with the grandmother. The court concluded that the grandmother could meet YV’s physical and emotional needs, and that it was in YV’s best interests to be raised within her Kazakh heritage. A transition plan was approved, involving gradual contact and a move to Kazakhstan once a UK visa has been secured. The court emphasised that the order was not for the purpose of adoption abroad. The court thanked the Kazak Embassy for its assistance in liaising with the authorities and family members in Kazakhstan, and praised the local authority for its careful care planning, and the work undertaken to bring this case to a successful conclusion for the child.
This case provides a useful example of when it is appropriate to notify family members against the wishes of a parent, and addresses some of the legal complexities of placing a child out of the jurisdiction in a country outside the 1996 and 1993 Hague Convention.
