C, D & E (Radicalisation: Fact-Finding)

C, D & E (Radicalisation: Fact-Finding)

The parents embarked on their journey with the intention of leaving the UK for a significant period, not for a short family holiday as claimed. While the evidence does not prove they were immediately destined for ISIS-controlled territory, their conduct, associations, and social media activity demonstrate that both parents held and promulgated extremist and radicalised beliefs. However, there is no evidence that these beliefs were directly imparted to the children, who have not been radicalised. The parents' actions placed the children at risk of significant harm, justifying continued intervention and safeguards.

Parties
Applicant: Z Local Authority; First Respondent: Mother (A); Second Respondent: Father (B); Guardian: Children’s Guardian (C, D, E)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (children Act 1989) / Fact Finding Judgment
Outcome
Findings of fact made against the parents; children to remain at home under interim care orders with electronic tagging and safeguards in place; further welfare hearing to follow.
Legal Topics
Radicalisation, Extremism, Care Orders, Threshold Criteria, Electronic Tagging, Disclosure, Public Interest Immunity
Family Law Child Protection Public Law Radicalisation Extremism Care Orders Threshold Criteria Electronic Tagging +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 7 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Z Local Authority

Applicant

Mother (A)

First Respondent

Father (B)

Second Respondent

Children’s Guardian (C, D, E)

Guardian

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (children Act 1989) / Fact Finding Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Purpose of parents' aborted trip abroad with children
  2. 2 Whether parents hold extremist or radicalised beliefs
  3. 3 Whether parents exposed children to risk of harm from radicalisation

Ratio Decidendi

The parents embarked on their journey with the intention of leaving the UK for a significant period, not for a short family holiday as claimed. While the evidence does not prove they were immediately destined for ISIS-controlled territory, their conduct, associations, and social media activity demonstrate that both parents held and promulgated extremist and radicalised beliefs. However, there is no evidence that these beliefs were directly imparted to the children, who have not been radicalised. The parents' actions placed the children at risk of significant harm, justifying continued intervention and safeguards.

Court Disposition

Findings of fact made against the parents; children to remain at home under interim care orders with electronic tagging and safeguards in place; further welfare hearing to follow.

Orders

  • Electronic tagging of both parents to continue
  • Case management directions for welfare hearing