London Borough of Camden v RZ & Ors

An interim care order and the removal of children from parental care involve separate questions. Satisfying the interim threshold does not itself justify removal. Removal is permissible only where the children’s safety, including their psychological welfare, requires it and the measure is proportionate to the identified risk.

A forced marriage protection order will ordinarily provide effective protection against forced marriage and attempted removal from the jurisdiction. It does not offer certainty, but the court manages risk rather than demanding a guarantee. Additional intervention under the Children Act 1989 may be justified where clear and cogent evidence shows that the protection order is likely to be circumvented, or where other risks independently require removal.

The local authority sought interim care orders concerning two children aged ten and six. The children had been removed from their father’s care after a forced marriage protection order was made following allegations that the father intended to take the elder child to Afghanistan for marriage and might arrange the younger child’s adoption there.

The mother, who remained in Afghanistan, supported continued removal until she could return to give evidence. The father denied the allegations. The central issues were whether the interim threshold was met and whether continued removal was necessary and proportionate despite the existing forced marriage protection order.

1. Outcome. The interim care orders were discharged. The children were to return to their father’s care pending determination of the local authority’s substantive applications. The forced marriage protection order remained in force and was amended to permit disclosure to the police and the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, with a request that no passports or travel documents be issued to the children.
2. Separate legal questions. Under section 38(2) of the Children Act 1989, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the circumstances in section 31(2) exist. That threshold question is distinct from whether removal from parental care is justified. Removal requires a further assessment of whether the children’s safety, broadly understood to include psychological welfare, requires it and whether removal is proportionate: [2010] 1 FLR 1211; [2011] 2 FLR 955; [2010] 2 FLR 283; [2012] 2 FLR 209.
3. Forced marriage protection. The statutory scheme under sections 63A, 63B and 63R of the Family Law Act 1996, as amended by the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007, is specifically directed to protection against forced marriage. It does not exclude other protective measures, but it must be treated as an effective form of protection unless the evidence demonstrates that it will not adequately address the particular risk.
4. Risk assessment. The court manages risk and cannot provide certainty. General anecdotal evidence that border alerts may fail was insufficient to establish that forced marriage protection orders were generally ineffective. An additional interim care order may nevertheless be required where clear and cogent evidence shows likely circumvention, such as trafficking, smuggling or prior successful evasion of border controls, or where separate risks independently justify removal.
5. Application. The evidence indicated an elevated risk concerning removal of the elder child for forced marriage, but the local authority had not shown that the existing order was inadequate or likely to be circumvented. Its other concerns did not independently justify continued removal. Keeping the children in foster care for an indefinite period pending the mother’s return would therefore be neither necessary nor proportionate.