S (A Child), Re (Guidance in cases of stranded spouses)

Where a parent is alleged to have been deliberately stranded abroad and separated from a child, the Family Division should consider urgent protective and procedural measures. Wardship is generally the appropriate vehicle. The court should consider passport and location orders, immigration disclosure, an early fact-finding hearing, assistance with the stranded parent’s return, and interim arrangements for the child’s care and contact.

The court must secure a fair determination of the factual allegations and protect the parties’ Article 6 and Article 8 rights. It should also consider joinder of the child, appointment of a guardian, safeguarding investigations, and an urgent welfare hearing after the parent’s return.

The proceedings concerned a baby born in England whose mother was taken to Pakistan by the father and paternal grandparents and left there without her passport or identity card. The child remained in England with the father and paternal family. The mother alleged that she had been deliberately drugged or tranquillised, abandoned, and separated from her child as part of a plan to retain the child in England.

The court conducted a fact-finding hearing within wardship proceedings. Mrs Justice Hogg found that the separation had been deliberate and that the father, grandfather and grandmother had been involved. Following the mother’s return to England and interim welfare orders, the court issued guidance for similar cases. The central issue was how such proceedings should be managed at an early stage while ensuring a fair trial and protecting the child’s relationship with both parents.

1. Fact-finding outcome. The court found that the father had deliberately arranged for the mother to be taken to Pakistan, left her there without her passport and identity card, and retained their child in England. The grandfather and grandmother were found to have been involved. The mother had therefore established her case that she had been deliberately separated from her young child and abandoned abroad.
2. Harm and welfare context. Deliberately separating a mother and child in this manner was described as emotionally harmful to the child for so long as the deprivation continued. The finding was relevant to subsequent welfare decisions, although the welfare determination itself was reserved for a later hearing.
3. Procedural guidance. In cases involving a potentially stranded spouse, wardship should ordinarily be considered, preferably before a Family Division judge. At the first ex parte hearing the court should consider an amended Tipstaff passport order and, where appropriate, a location order. A collection order should be reserved for exceptional cases.
4. The court should seek immigration information from the Home Office using form EX660, consider expert immigration advice, and assess whether an urgent fact-finding hearing is required. Directions and recitals may assist the stranded parent’s application for a visa or permission to enter the jurisdiction. Publicity, funding of travel costs, and assistance from the British High Commission, embassy or Foreign and Commonwealth Office should also be considered where appropriate.
5. The court should consider a Children Act 1989 section 37 investigation where the evidence indicates that the child may be suffering, or may be at risk of suffering, significant harm. Joinder of the child and appointment of a guardian should also be considered. On the parent’s return, an urgent interlocutory hearing should address interim care, contact and managed reunification.
6. The guidance was intended to uphold the parties’ Article 6 and Article 8 rights, secure a fair trial of the factual allegations, and enable contact between the child and both parents pending final welfare decisions.

Not an appeal. The proceedings were commenced in the High Court and the child became a ward of court following an ex parte order made by Parker J. The judgment records several subsequent directions hearings before Mrs Justice Hogg.