AG (Welfare: Forced Marriage Protection Order), Re [2024] EWCOP 18 (15 March 2024)

AG (Welfare: Forced Marriage Protection Order), Re [2024] EWCOP 18 (15 March 2024)

The court found that while AG is vulnerable to parental influence and there remains a risk of forced marriage, the protective factors in her current placement and her capacity to make decisions about residence and care mean a full FMPO is not justified. The care plan is in AG's best interests and does not amount to a deprivation of liberty requiring authorisation, as AG has capacity and consents to the arrangements. Short-term structured contact orders under the inherent jurisdiction are appropriate to support AG's autonomy and decision-making regarding family contact.

Citation
[2024] EWCOP 18
Parties
Applicant: Luton Borough Council; 1st Respondent: Mr G; 2nd Respondent: Mrs G; 3rd Respondent: HG; 4th Respondent: AG (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection and Forced Marriage Protection Order Applications / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
FMPO refused; care plan approved; deprivation of liberty authorisation refused; structured contact orders made under inherent jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Forced Marriage Protection, Deprivation of Liberty, Best Interests, Capacity Assessment, Inherent Jurisdiction, Article 5 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR
Mental Capacity Law Family Law Human Rights Law Forced Marriage Protection Deprivation of Liberty Best Interests Capacity Assessment Inherent Jurisdiction +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luton Borough Council

Applicant

Mr G

1st Respondent

Mrs G

2nd Respondent

HG

3rd Respondent

AG (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection and Forced Marriage Protection Order Applications / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Forced Marriage Protection Order (FMPO) should be made to protect AG from risk of forced marriage
  2. 2 Whether AG's current care arrangements amount to a deprivation of liberty requiring authorisation under the Mental Capacity Act 2005
  3. 3 Whether AG has capacity to make decisions about her residence, care, and contact

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while AG is vulnerable to parental influence and there remains a risk of forced marriage, the protective factors in her current placement and her capacity to make decisions about residence and care mean a full FMPO is not justified. The care plan is in AG's best interests and does not amount to a deprivation of liberty requiring authorisation, as AG has capacity and consents to the arrangements. Short-term structured contact orders under the inherent jurisdiction are appropriate to support AG's autonomy and decision-making regarding family contact.

Court Disposition

FMPO refused; care plan approved; deprivation of liberty authorisation refused; structured contact orders made under inherent jurisdiction

Orders

  • No Forced Marriage Protection Order to be made; interim FMPO discharged
  • Care plan for AG in shared lives placement approved as in her best interests