Z, Re (A Child) (Inherent Jurisdiction: Stranding: Significant Harm)

Z, Re (A Child) (Inherent Jurisdiction: Stranding: Significant Harm)

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that Z was brought to England on a false premise, her relationship with her mother was disrupted, she missed a year of formal education, and contact was severed without resolution. There is no reliable evidence that the mother sexually groomed Z or engaged her in sex work. The father and paternal family’s actions and inactions caused Z significant harm as defined by s.31 Children Act 1989.

Parties
Applicant: A; First Respondent: D; Second Respondent: Z
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Family / Fact Finding Judgment
Outcome
Findings of significant harm against father and paternal family; no finding of sexual grooming or sex work against mother.
Legal Topics
Stranded Spouse, Significant Harm, Child Welfare, Domestic Abuse, Sexual Abuse Allegations, Wardship, Supervision Order
Family Law Child Protection Inherent Jurisdiction Stranded Spouse Significant Harm Child Welfare Domestic Abuse Sexual Abuse Allegations +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 6 Authorities cited 40 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Applicant

D

First Respondent

Z

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family / Fact Finding Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Z was forcibly separated from her mother by deception and stranding
  2. 2 Whether controlling and coercive behaviour occurred
  3. 3 Whether allegations of sexual grooming and sex work are substantiated

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that Z was brought to England on a false premise, her relationship with her mother was disrupted, she missed a year of formal education, and contact was severed without resolution. There is no reliable evidence that the mother sexually groomed Z or engaged her in sex work. The father and paternal family’s actions and inactions caused Z significant harm as defined by s.31 Children Act 1989.

Court Disposition

Findings of significant harm against father and paternal family; no finding of sexual grooming or sex work against mother.

Orders

  • Wardship of Z continued
  • Interim supervision order granted