M (Children), Re

Family proceedings should be adjourned where a newly raised issue is sufficiently grave and materially overlaps with the facts already scheduled for determination. The parties must have proper notice and a fair opportunity to investigate and answer that issue before it is adjudicated. Religious upbringing, including intensive exposure to a parent’s religious practices, is not objectionable merely because it is religious. By contrast, indoctrination involving terrorism, hatred of England or hatred of another religion may constitute serious abuse and requires careful investigation. Where such an issue assumes substantial importance, consideration should be given to listing the case before a High Court judge.

The proceedings concerned seven children of married parents. The family had travelled from England to Libya, after which the mother returned with the children and commenced proceedings concerning their habitual residence, alleged ill-treatment and contact with the father. A fact-finding hearing had been listed to determine those issues.

Immediately before the hearing, the local authority indicated that it intended to issue supervision proceedings. Its draft addendum raised a new concern that the father might have influenced the children with radical fundamentalist thought associated with terrorism. The issue had not been included in the scheduled allegations, and the father had not been given notice that it would be considered.

The central questions were whether the hearing should proceed, how the overlapping factual issues should be managed, and whether the case should be heard by a High Court judge.

1. Adjournment and composite hearing. The fact-finding hearing was adjourned. The newly raised issue of alleged abusive radicalisation had not been identified as an issue for determination, and the father had not received proper notice. It would therefore have been procedurally unfair to decide it at the listed hearing.
2. Overlap of issues. The allegations concerning radicalisation overlapped substantially with the existing allegations about the family’s circumstances and treatment in Libya. The appropriate course was a single composite hearing addressing the purpose of the trip to Libya, the alleged physical treatment of the mother and children, events after their return, and any alleged radicalisation.
3. Meaning and gravity of radicalisation. The term radicalisation was vague and could describe different matters. Strong religious upbringing and exposure to Muslim beliefs and practices were not objectionable in themselves. The position was materially different if the term referred to indoctrination involving terrorism, hatred of England or hatred of Christianity. Such conduct could be seriously abusive and was an issue of the utmost gravity.
4. Further investigation and listing. Relevant evidence might be held by the children’s schools and the police. The local authority was required to formulate its proposed supervision application and threshold criteria. Given the gravity and importance of the new issue, the case should be heard by a full High Court judge. The final hearing was listed for the week beginning 23 June 2014.

First-instance directions decision. The fact-finding hearing was adjourned and the proceedings were directed towards a composite hearing before a High Court judge.