Child entry clearance applications can look straight forward on paper, but in practice, they are among the most closely scrutinised family routes. The Home Office is deciding whether a child should relocate countries, change their primary care arrangements, and join a parent in the UK. That is why evidence, consistency, and child welfare analysis matter just as much as the form itself.

Which rule applies: Appendix FM or Part 8

Many child settlement cases are still assessed under Part 8 of the Immigration Rules (for example, where aparent is present and settled). Appendix FM is commonly used where the parentin the UK has limited permission under the family route, or where the child is applying as a dependant child connected to an Appendix FM parent application. What matters is choosing the correct legal framework at the outset, because the Home Office will assess your case against the specific wording of the route you apply under.

The starting point under Appendix FM

Under Appendix FM, a child applying for entry clearance must be outside the UK and must meet the child eligibility requirements, including that they are under 18 at the date of application, not married or in a civil partnership, have not formed an independent family unit, and are not leading an independent life.

The “independent life” concept is not just a feeling or a label. Home Office guidance explains it with practical indicators, such as whether the child has a partner and whether they live with their parent (allowing for boarding school or full-time education situations).

Once those basics are satisfied, the application usually turns on the core relationship and care pathway:whether the UK-based parent’s partner is also a parent, whether the UK-based parent has sole responsibility, or whether there are serious and compelling family or other considerations making exclusion undesirable with suitable care arrangements in place.

Section 55 and “bestinterests”: what it really means in a child entry clearance case

In child cases, UKVI must treat the child’s welfare as a primary consideration. The children's guidance links this directly to Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act2009 and explains that decision makers must have due regard to safeguarding and promoting children’s welfare.

It is important to be clear about what this does and does not do. In practice, “best interests” is not a short cutthat replaces the Immigration Rules. It is a required welfare lens through which the evidence is assessed. The guidance also makes a point that a child being “better off” in the UK is not, by itself, a reason to grant.

A well-prepared application,therefore, does two things at once. It meets the Immigration Rules, and it explains, in a child-focused way, why the proposed arrangements support the child’s welfare and stability.

Sole responsibility: one of the most argued and most misunderstood issues

Where only one parent is in the UK, many families assume that financial support or a court order will automatically prove the case. UKVI takes a much more detailed approach.

Home Office guidance describes sole responsibility as a situation where parental responsibility rests chiefly with one parent, and the parent must show they have been the chief person exercising parental responsibility, including ultimate responsibility for major decisions, alongside most of the financial and emotional support.

The guidance also gives examples that mirror what we see in real cases. If a child remained abroad with the other parent for years and the UK-based parent later wants the child to come mainly to benefit from the UK education system, UKVI is unlikely to accept that the UK-based parent had sole responsibility.

A practical example of a“stronger” sole responsibility case

A parent relocates to the UK, but continues to make the key decisions about schooling, healthcare, where the child lives, and day-to-day welfare planning. The child’s routine care abroad is delegated to the UK parent’s relatives, with clear evidence that the UK parent directs and controls the arrangements, and the other parent does not play a real parental decision-making role. This is the type of fact pattern the Home Office guidance recognises as capable of meeting sole responsibility, depending on the evidence.

A practical example of a“higher risk” sole responsibility case

A child lives with the other parent abroad, that parent remains actively involved in schooling and medical decisions, and the UK-based parent’s role is primarily money plus regular calls. Even if the UK-based parent pays for everything, UKVI may view this as shared responsibility rather than sole responsibility, and refuse under the Rules.

“Serious and compelling”considerations

If sole responsibility cannot beshown, Appendix FM allows a different pathway where there are serious andcompelling family or other considerations making exclusion undesirable, and suitable arrangements have been made for the child’s care.

The Home Office guidance frames the policy objective in plain terms: the Rules are designed to allow a child to join a parent or relative in the UK only where the child could not be adequately cared for by parents or relatives in their own country.

A practical example of when “serious and compelling” can arise

A child’s primary carer abroad has become unable to provide safe care due to serious illness, safeguarding concerns, or a breakdown of care arrangements, and there is credible evidence that there is no realistic alternative family care available locally. In these cases, the focus is less on the UK being a “better” option, and more on the child’s care needs and the absence of a viable care solution abroad.

This is exactly where evidence quality matters most, because UKVI will test whether care truly cannot be provided abroad, rather than whether the UK option is preferable.

Financial and care planning

Appendix FM child entry clearance includes financial requirements and suitability considerations.  In practice, UKVI also looks closely at whether the proposed UK living arrangements are credible and stable for the child. A strong application usually includes a joined-up care plan that explains who the child will live with, who will take them to school, how medical needs will be handled, and how the household will manage day-to-day costs without relying on public funds where this is relevant.

If the child turns 18 duringthe process

A common worry is timing. Home Office child guidance recognises that some applicants apply before 18 but turn 18 before a decision. In the right circumstances, the application can still be assessed as a child application, so long as it was properly made in time and the child continues to meet the relevant “child” criteria.

Article 8 and GEN. 3.2

Even if a child's application does not meet the strict wording of Appendix FM, UKVI must consider whether there are exceptional circumstances where refusal would breach Article 8 because it would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant or a relevant child.

Appendix FM also confirms that, in this assessment, the decision maker must treat the best interests of any relevant child as a primary consideration.

In real terms, Article 8 arguments succeed when they are evidence-led, child-focused, and specific. Generic statements about love, separation, or better opportunities rarely move the needle without a clear explanation of what the child’s lived reality is abroad and why refusal would produce genuinely harsh consequences, not simply disappointing.

Polygamy-related refusals

There are specific refusal rules in the Immigration Rules concerning children of polygamous marriages. The children guidance explains that, in certain circumstances, these rules can override other provisions relating to children. If your family circumstances could touch on this area, it is worth getting tailored legal advice early, because it can change the strategy and the supporting evidence needed.

How GigaLegal Solicitors can help

At GigaLegal Solicitors in London, we support families with child entry clearance applications under Appendix FM by stress testing the legal route before you apply, building an evidence plan that fits the Home Office framework, and preparing representations that address sole responsibility, serious and compelling factors, Section 55 welfare duties, and Article 8 where required. We also advise on refusals and re-applications, where the key is understanding exactly why the Home Office was not satisfied and fixing the evidential gaps rather than repeating the same narrative.

Speak to GigaLegal before youapply

If you are planning a child entry clearance application, the best time to get advice is before the application is submitted, when evidence can still be shaped and risks can be managed. Contact GigaLegal Solicitors for a confidential assessment and a clear plan of action.

Disclaimer

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law and Home Office policy can change, and outcomes depend on the specific facts and evidence in each case. For advice tailored to your circumstances, you should speak to a qualified immigration solicitor.