Y (Children) (Radicalisation: Interim Removal), Re

On an interim care application, the court may remove children before final fact-finding where there are reasonable grounds to believe that they face a real and significant risk of serious harm. The risk need not be more likely than not, and its significance must be assessed by weighing the likelihood and gravity of harm against the consequences of intervention and non-intervention.

Children’s wishes and feelings are important but not determinative. Their weight depends on age, understanding and the extent to which coercive influences may impair their ability to assess their circumstances objectively. Urgent protective decisions may properly be made before all assessments, representations and factual issues required for the final hearing are complete.

The local authority sought interim care orders for three children living with their father. The application followed findings concerning pervasive radicalisation, exposure to extreme pro-terrorist material and coercive attitudes within the family. The court had not yet finally determined what had occurred when the children were stopped at Harwich Ferry Port, including whether there had been an intended removal to Syria.

The central issue was whether the children should nevertheless be removed immediately, notwithstanding their wishes to remain together and the disruption to their family relationships, schooling and education, pending the resumed fact-finding and welfare decision.

1. Interim threshold and risk. The court held that, under Children Act 1989, s 38, there were reasonable grounds to believe that the father had planned to take the children to Islamic State and expose them to significant harm. This threshold could be satisfied notwithstanding that the Harwich incident had not been finally determined and notwithstanding that the court had not concluded that the alleged removal was more likely than not.
2. Assessment of risk. Risk is distinct from certainty and need not be high. The court had to assess the likelihood of the feared event, the gravity of the harm if it occurred, and the competing risks of intervening or leaving the children in their present environment. The court applied the approach stated by Patten LJ in Re R [2013] EWCA Civ 115.
3. Welfare and wishes. The court considered the welfare checklist, the children’s characteristics, their wishes and feelings, the risk of harm and the father’s capacity to care. The children’s wishes to remain together were given substantial consideration but were not determinative. Their ability to understand and express an objective view was affected by the influences and pressures to which they had been subjected.
4. Urgency and proportionality. Interim protection could be ordered before a further Guardian’s inquiry, separate representation, complete assessment of current views or final findings on every factual issue. The pervasive nature of the harmful attitudes, the high continuing risks, the flight risk and the absence of effective counter-measures outweighed the substantial disruption caused by removal.
5. Disposition. An interim care order was made for all three children on the basis of the local authority’s care plans for removal. The proceedings were to resume on the dates already fixed in October.