C, D & E (Radicalisation: Welfare)

In public-law children proceedings, the court must determine welfare by applying the paramountcy principle and the statutory welfare checklist. An order should be made only where it would better serve the children than making no order. Evidence that parents have genuinely changed their attitudes, engaged with specialist intervention, and can meet the children’s needs may justify ending statutory intervention. A child-in-need plan can provide continuing support without a care order. Publication of a family judgment may be authorised in the public interest, subject to strict anonymisation where publication would otherwise risk identifying the children or family.

The proceedings concerned three children, C, D and E, who had been the subject of public-law proceedings following earlier findings about their parents’ radical views. After the fact-finding judgment, the parents undertook specialist work concerning radicalisation and their attitudes towards Islam. The final hearing considered whether the children should remain at home under statutory orders or whether the interim care orders should be discharged. The court also considered publication of the earlier fact-finding judgment and this concluding judgment, while preserving anonymity.

1. Welfare and final orders. The court approved a consent order discharging the interim care orders and making no further statutory order. The children, including their baby sibling, were to remain at home with their parents, supported by an agreed Child in Need plan.
2. The parents had accepted the earlier findings and engaged cooperatively with the local authority. Specialist assessment and intervention provided sufficient evidence that they genuinely rejected their former extremist ideological beliefs, had not indoctrinated the children, and showed greater resilience to extremist ideology. The court acknowledged the risk of superficial compliance, but accepted the expert evidence and the overall pattern of change.
3. Applying the paramountcy principle in Children Act 1989, section 1, and considering the checklist in section 1(3), the court concluded that the parents were meeting, and would continue to meet, the needs of all four children. Their welfare was best served by remaining at home.
4. Under section 1(5), the court was not satisfied that making an order would be better for the children than making no order. The existing orders were therefore discharged.
5. Publication. Publication was authorised in anonymised terms. The public interest in publishing the fact-finding judgment was sufficient, and there was no compelling reason against publication, provided the anonymity of the children and family members was strictly preserved.

This was a first-instance decision. The judgment records that an earlier fact-finding judgment in the same proceedings was reported as [2016] EWHC 3087 (Fam).