How to Place Children Abroad After Re M

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Re M (A Child) (Placement Order) [2025] EWCA Civ 214 is a cautionary tale about how even well-intentioned attempts to secure a family placement abroad can unravel when delay and uncertainty dominate proceedings. The judgment, and those which have followed citing Re M, expose recurring procedural and strategic pitfalls in how practitioners, local authorities, and guardians approach international family placements and show that Re M is a clear precedent capable of being relied upon to stop late or fanciful plans for international placements.

For those acting in public law cases, Re M is not a rejection of international kinship care, rather it is a simple warning that such placements can only succeed when planned, evidenced, and actioned early. Put simply, delay will be the enemy of such placements.

Background

In Re M, a child born during ongoing care proceedings was just 18 months old by the time his own case reached final hearing. A CFAB assessment of the aunt and uncle in Pakistan was broadly positive, but uncertainties remained. The Local Authority, having initially supported the placement, withdrew that support before the final hearing, citing timescales and unresolved issues about feasibility.

By that stage, the proceedings had already run for a year and a half. The court declined to adjourn for further assessment, holding that a six-to-twelve-month delay would be wholly incompatible with the child’s welfare timetable. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, with King LJ emphasising that professionals had allowed optimism to override realism the case should have been recognised as unviable much earlier, the Court noting at [66] that:

“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.”

Post-Re M, the courts have made clear that delay, not the geography, is a decisive issue in international placements. The judgment draws upon Re S (A Child) [2015] 1 WLR 925 and Re S-L (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 1571, reaffirming that extensions beyond 26 weeks are permissible only where necessary for justice, and even weeks, let alone months, are significant for a baby or young child.

The cases which have followed Re M emphasise this point:

• In London Borough of Barnet v DI [2025] EWFC 168, Mr Justice MacDonald criticised the Guardian’s late support for an international placement, citing a lack of timetable, lack of contingency, and lack of understanding about how the move would look. The court cited Re M as follows: “All this demonstrates, as the Court of Appeal recently observed in M (A Child) (Placement Order) [2025] EWCA Civ 214 that there are very considerable disadvantages to commencing an uncertain and potentially protracted assessment process in proceedings that have already been in train for over a year.”

• In Leeds CC v The Mother and Another [2025] EWFC 202, a case which was almost three years old at the time of conclusion, addressed the issues of delay and, again citing Re M, the Court held that: “A similar example is found in Re M (A Child) (Placement Order) [2025] EWCA Civ, in which the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the court at first instance effectively to abandon efforts to assess family members of the subject child in Pakistan in circumstances in which many months had already been spent trying to achieve a robust assessment but that, on any realistic view, real obstacles and a significant further delay remained.”

• And, in Re W (A Child) (Finalisation at IRH) [2025] EWFC 266 (B), the court confirmed that, while fairness demands the opportunity to explore family options, it does not demand indefinite patience in the face of uncertainty.

These judgments illustrate that delay has become a fault line upon which international placement cases will succeed or fail.

‘Right’ to a Family Placement

A recurring issue in these cases is the mischaracterisation of family placement as a right. In Re W (A Child) (Adoption: Grandparents’ Competing Claim) [2016] EWCA Civ 793, the Court of Appeal firmly rejected the notion that a child holds a right, or that there exists a presumption, to be raised by their birth family. The only “right” is for decisions about their upbringing to be made with their welfare as the paramount consideration, in a manner that is proportionate and compatible with their rights.

This does not, however, negate the strong welfare principle that children’s best interests do often include being raised within their natural family (a principle which must logically exist given the emphasis on family and connected carer viabilities and assessments). The difficulty is one of balance, a viable family placement must be realistic and timely. There must be caution against sentimental reliance on biological connection at the expense of a child’s welfare timescales, a tension which Re M grappled with.

Re M and its aftermath demonstrate that the question of international placements is one of whether they are workable within the child’s timescales. The following may prove useful things to consider with these types of cases.

Re M and its aftermath demonstrate that the central question is not whether international placements are desirable, but whether they are workable within the child’s timescales.

Practical Takeaways

1 – Identify International Carers Early

Parents must be advised from the outset to disclose all potential family carers, even if located abroad. Late identification is now the single most common cause of failure in international placement cases.

2 – Treat Viability as a Process

The existence of a willing relative abroad is not enough. Practitioners should ensure that viability assessments, CFAB referrals, and liaison with Central Authorities begin immediately once a carer is identified and not at a point where the prospects of reunification are faltering away.

Where a CFAB assessment raises uncertainties, those issues must be addressed quickly.

3 – Manage Timescales Transparently

Courts are less concerned with whether an international placement will exceed 26 weeks generally, more so the concern comes around the timeliness of raising the placement and the information around this.

At week two, an honest projection of a 50-week process may still be consistent with the child’s welfare. At week 34, speculation about a possible overseas carer is unlikely to be.

4 – Obtain Specialist Advice Early

International placements can engage several legal frameworks, including the 1993 or 1996 Hague Conventions (depending on the type of placement), domestic adoption law, and immigration law. Local Authorities who are embarking on international placements and exploring the same must obtain swift advice on such placements, including advice from the proposed placement country. Once received, such advice must be implemented without any delay.

5 – Plan for Contingency

Courts are increasingly critical where international options are advanced without a fallback plan, thankfully, however, courts are very used to double or triple tracking cases. Such contingency proposals must be part of the process of an international placement, this is not to suggest the placement will fail, but to show what the plan is should it.

6 – Know When to Stop

“Enough is enough” moments must be recognised. Where assessments remain uncertain or logistically implausible after months of delay, the child’s welfare timescales will take priority and there has to come a point where the nettle is grasped, and the plan abandoned. In short, Local Authorities cannot get sucked in with a gamblers fallacy to just keep going.

Conclusion

It bears repeating that Re M does not prohibit international placements, and it should not be allowed to be used as an authority by Local Authorities to dismiss early and realistic proposals for such placements. Rather, it highlights proportionality and discipline to how they are pursued. The law continues to recognise the value of children growing up within their family, culture, and community, notwithstanding the courts reigniting the principle that there is no right to a family placement, but that aspiration cannot come at the expense of permanence or stability.

When properly managed from day one, cross-border placements remain both possible and desirable. The challenge for practitioners is ensuring that the planning and progress of these placements meets the nebulous concept of the child’s timescales.

Avaia is a specialist children and Court of Protection barrister at Parklane Plowden Chambers.