C, Re

C, Re

The applicants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that there is a real risk of FGM to C. The evidence was vague, inconsistent, and not supported by medical or Home Office records. The parents are protective and able to safeguard C, and there is no need for a protective order.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: F; Second Applicant: M; Subject Child: C; Respondent: X; Children's Guardian: Ms Meridy Gardner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 September 2025
Procedural Posture
FGM Protection Order Application / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Female Genital Mutilation, FGM Protection Orders, Risk Assessment, Parental Protection, Evidence Evaluation
Family Law Child Protection Immigration Female Genital Mutilation FGM Protection Orders Risk Assessment Parental Protection Evidence Evaluation

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F

Applicant

M

Second Applicant

C

Subject Child

X

Respondent

Ms Meridy Gardner

Children's Guardian

Procedural Posture

FGM Protection Order Application / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a real risk of female genital mutilation to C
  2. 2 Whether a final FGM Protection Order should be made

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that there is a real risk of FGM to C. The evidence was vague, inconsistent, and not supported by medical or Home Office records. The parents are protective and able to safeguard C, and there is no need for a protective order.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • No protective order made
  • Interim orders discharged forthwith