London Borough of Croydon v S & Anor

On an urgent without-notice application for protective relief, the court may continue an interim order where the available material discloses a serious potential risk to vulnerable children and immediate protection is required. This remains appropriate where the evidence is incomplete, the respondents have had little or no opportunity to obtain legal advice or answer the allegations, and a fuller hearing can be arranged promptly. The court must distinguish protection pending investigation from adjudication of the underlying allegations. Restrictions should be maintained only for the short period necessary to permit proper investigation and participation by the parties and children.

The London Borough of Croydon applied without notice for a Forced Marriage Protection Order concerning a family with three young children. An order made on 7 October 2014 substantially restricted the parents and children from leaving England and Wales. At the return hearing, the parents had only recently been served, had no lawyers or evidence in answer, and attended with Pashto interpreters. The local authority relied principally on a Norwegian document concerning alleged historic threats and pressure directed towards the adult daughter, together with current concerns about the younger children. The issue was whether the protective order should continue pending a fuller hearing.

1. Interim order continued. The court continued the existing order for approximately 10 days. The material before the court disclosed a serious situation requiring fuller investigation, and there was real urgency because the adult daughter intended to marry in Afghanistan on 26 October 2014.
2. The Norwegian document was treated only at face value. The judge expressly had no means at this short hearing of assessing its reliability, and recognised that it was second- or third-hand material relating principally to the adult daughter, who was no longer living with the family.
3. The court could not adjudicate the underlying allegations at the return hearing. The parents had been served only the previous day, had no opportunity to instruct lawyers or file answering evidence, and the hearing was listed for only one hour.
4. Nevertheless, the protective duty owed towards vulnerable young children required continuation of the restrictions. The local authority had a substantial concern that permitting a parent to leave England and Wales might enable the children to be removed by some means.
5. A fuller hearing was fixed for 20 October 2014. That hearing was intended to allow further evidence, participation by CAFCASS Legal as guardian if possible, and legal advice and evidence for the children. The adult daughter was not a respondent and remained free to travel and marry whom she wished.