M (Children), Re (No 2)

Wardship orders should be discharged where updated evidence shows that identified risks are manageable through child in need plans and continued parental co-operation, and no further public law orders are justified. The court should assess the parents’ ability to care for the children and prioritise their needs, including where religious beliefs may affect safeguarding. A positive independent assessment, supported by the local authority and children’s guardian, may justify ending wardship and returning property held under the court’s order.

This was a final coda to the earlier judgment in Re M (Children), [2015] EWHC 1433 (Fam). The children had remained wards of court and a guardian had been appointed. The parents continued to co-operate with the authorities. The police investigation had concluded without further action, and the local authority did not consider care proceedings justified.

An independent social worker assessed whether the parents could care adequately for the children and prioritise their needs, having regard to their religious beliefs and any possible safeguarding risk. The local authority and guardian supported the assessment and recommended that wardship be discontinued.

1. Discharge of wardship. The court accepted the independent social worker’s assessment that the parents were able to care for the children and that their current beliefs did not create a safeguarding risk. The local authority’s assessment was also positive, identifying no immediate welfare concerns.
2. The identified risks were regarded as manageable under child in need plans and through the parents’ continuing co-operation with the local authority. The local authority did not seek care proceedings, and the guardian recommended that no further orders be made.
3. The court agreed that the evidence justified ending the protective orders. The wardship orders made on 4 May 2015 and renewed on 8 May 2015 were discharged. The order requiring retention of the parents’ and children’s passports was also discharged, and the passports were to be returned.
4. The court noted that its earlier judgment, Re M (Children), [2015] EWHC 1433 (Fam), had subsequently been approved by the Court of Appeal in Re B (A Child) (Habitual Residence) (Inherent Jurisdiction), [2015] EWCA Civ 886, so far as concerned the law relating to the inherent jurisdiction.
5. There was no order as to costs, subject to detailed public funding assessment of the respondents’ costs. The proceedings were thereby concluded.

The judgment describes an earlier stage of the same proceedings in Re M (Children), [2015] EWHC 1433 (Fam). It records that the earlier judgment’s discussion of the inherent jurisdiction was subsequently approved by the Court of Appeal in Re B (A Child) (Habitual Residence) (Inherent Jurisdiction), [2015] EWCA Civ 886. The present judgment was a final first-instance order ending the wardship proceedings.