M (Children) (Suspected Trafficking: Competent Authority), Re [2017] EWFC 56 (02 March 2017)

M (Children) (Suspected Trafficking: Competent Authority), Re [2017] EWFC 56 (02 March 2017)

There was a credible suspicion that the children had been brought to the UK for an unlawful purpose, possibly trafficking, and thus were at risk of significant harm under the Children Act 1989. The court could not discharge the interim care order or return the children to Namibia until further enquiries were completed by the Competent Authority and adequate safeguards were in place. The grandmother's account of the purpose of travel was not accepted as truthful, and the court found it necessary to await the outcome of the Competent Authority's conclusive grounds decision before making a final order.

Citation
[2017] EWFC 56
Parties
Local Authority: Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council; Mother: Mother of JM and EM; Father: Father of JM and EM; Grandmother: Grandmother of JM and EM; Children: JM and EM (Children); Intervenor: Competent Authority, NRM (Secretary of State for the Home Department)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings Under the Children Act 1989 / Interim and Final Hearings, With Postscript Following Further Hearing
Outcome
Interim care order continued; children to remain in foster care pending further enquiries; final decision deferred until after Competent Authority's conclusive grounds decision and further information from Namibian authorities.
Legal Topics
Child Trafficking, Jurisdiction Under Brussels II Revised, Protective Measures for Children, Return of Children to Country of Habitual Residence, Interim Care Orders, Role of Competent Authority Under Trafficking Convention
Family Law International Law Child Protection Immigration Law Child Trafficking Jurisdiction Under Brussels II Revised Protective Measures for Children Return of Children to Country of Habitual Residence +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

Local Authority

Mother of JM and EM

Mother

Father of JM and EM

Father

Grandmother of JM and EM

Grandmother

JM and EM (Children)

Children

Competent Authority, NRM (Secretary of State for the Home Department)

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings Under the Children Act 1989 / Interim and Final Hearings, With Postscript Following Further Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the children were victims of trafficking and at risk of significant harm
  2. 2 Whether the UK court should order the return of the children to Namibia before the Competent Authority's conclusive grounds decision
  3. 3 Jurisdiction and forum conveniens for care proceedings involving children habitually resident outside the UK

Ratio Decidendi

There was a credible suspicion that the children had been brought to the UK for an unlawful purpose, possibly trafficking, and thus were at risk of significant harm under the Children Act 1989. The court could not discharge the interim care order or return the children to Namibia until further enquiries were completed by the Competent Authority and adequate safeguards were in place. The grandmother's account of the purpose of travel was not accepted as truthful, and the court found it necessary to await the outcome of the Competent Authority's conclusive grounds decision before making a final order.

Court Disposition

Interim care order continued; children to remain in foster care pending further enquiries; final decision deferred until after Competent Authority's conclusive grounds decision and further information from Namibian authorities.

Orders

  • DNA testing to confirm familial relationships
  • Children to remain in interim care