SB v RB and AM & Ors

In determining arrangements for a child who had been subjected to a forced marriage, the court treated the child’s welfare as requiring close attention to her emotional and psychological needs, her vulnerability, the risk of renewed pressure, and the stability of her proposed placement. Although the child wished to return to her mother, that preference did not outweigh the substantial risk that returning her would recreate the circumstances in which the abuse occurred and undermine her recovery. A residence order in favour of relatives was therefore appropriate where the placement offered safety, continuity, emotional commitment and support for the child’s development.

The application concerned SB, aged 12, who had been taken to Bangladesh and married at the age of 11 to an adult man. The marriage was subsequently declared void. After her return to England, she lived with her paternal uncle AM and his wife EK. The mother sought SB’s return to her care, although she did not actively oppose an order for SB to remain with AM and EK.

The court considered social-work and CAFCASS reports, the child’s wishes, her divided loyalties, the history of neglect and caring responsibilities, and the risks associated with returning her to the circumstances that had led to the marriage. The central issue was the arrangement that best protected SB’s welfare and long-term emotional and psychological development.

1. The application was granted. The court approved arrangements for SB to remain living with her paternal uncle AM and his wife EK, and recommended a residence order in their favour.
2. The welfare assessment required consideration of SB’s emotional and psychological needs, her age and vulnerability, the quality and stability of the proposed care, and the risk that a change of placement would expose her to renewed pressure or undermine her progress.
3. SB’s wish to live with her mother was relevant but could not determine the outcome. She was not sufficiently mature to understand her long-term best interests and had divided loyalties arising from her concern for her mother and siblings.
4. Returning SB to her mother would have placed her back in circumstances materially connected with the unlawful marriage. It risked renewed pressure to maintain contact with the adult man involved, a return to a caring role for younger children, damage to her education, and interruption of the therapy and progress achieved in her current placement.
5. The evidence concerning AM and EK was unchallenged. They had provided a high degree of care and demonstrated sustained emotional and financial commitment, while supporting appropriate contact with SB’s mother and siblings. Remaining within that family placement offered the best prospect for SB’s emotional and psychological recovery at that time.
6. The court also noted the wider professional guidance concerning young and vulnerable people facing forced marriage, considering it of considerable assistance.