M (Female Genital Mutilation Protection Order: No Order on Application), Re

M (Female Genital Mutilation Protection Order: No Order on Application), Re

Given the evidence that M has not been subjected to FGM, the strong and consistent opposition to FGM by both parents and the paternal family, positive expert assessments, and the absence of risk factors within the family, it is neither necessary nor proportionate to continue or make an FGM Protection Order. M's Article 3 rights are unlikely to be breached in these circumstances.

Parties
Applicant: Local Authority; First Respondent: M's Mother; Second Respondent: M's Father; Third Respondent: M (a child, by Children's Guardian Dionne Roberts)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Female Genital Mutilation Protection Order Application / Final Judgment on Whether to Continue, Discharge, or Make No Order on the FGM Protection Order
Outcome
No order made on the local authority's application; existing FGM Protection Order and associated travel restrictions discharged.
Legal Topics
Female Genital Mutilation, FGM Protection Orders, Article 3 ECHR, Children Act 1989, Risk Assessment, State Positive Obligations
Family Law Child Protection Human Rights Female Genital Mutilation FGM Protection Orders Article 3 ECHR Children Act 1989 Risk Assessment +1 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Local Authority

Applicant

M's Mother

First Respondent

M's Father

Second Respondent

M (a child, by Children's Guardian Dionne Roberts)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Female Genital Mutilation Protection Order Application / Final Judgment on Whether to Continue, Discharge, or Make No Order on the FGM Protection Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Female Genital Mutilation Protection Order should continue, be discharged, or no order made for M
  2. 2 Whether M is at real and immediate risk of FGM justifying continued protection under the 2003 Act

Ratio Decidendi

Given the evidence that M has not been subjected to FGM, the strong and consistent opposition to FGM by both parents and the paternal family, positive expert assessments, and the absence of risk factors within the family, it is neither necessary nor proportionate to continue or make an FGM Protection Order. M's Article 3 rights are unlikely to be breached in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

No order made on the local authority's application; existing FGM Protection Order and associated travel restrictions discharged.

Orders

  • Discharge of the Female Genital Mutilation Protection Order in respect of M
  • Discharge of orders restricting M's travel and requiring surrender of her passport