West Sussex County Council & Anor v F & Ors

The statutory threshold for a care order is assessed at the date of the application. Later events may be considered only so far as they illuminate the position at that date. Fact-finding requires proof on the balance of probabilities, assessed against the whole evidential picture and not speculation. Hearsay and evidence from ABE interviews are admissible, but their reliability must be evaluated carefully.

A forced marriage protection order is a broad protective jurisdiction. However, a mandatory order requiring the immediate return of children from abroad is a serious interference with family life. The court must therefore be satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate on appropriate evidence. The threshold may be crossed by the cumulative effect of several matters even where no individual finding would suffice.

The local authority brought care proceedings concerning three children after two had remained in Pakistan for approximately 16 months. The police also sought a forced marriage protection order after allegations that the eldest child had been engaged to a cousin and was at risk of an imminent forced marriage.

The court conducted a fact-finding hearing addressing domestic abuse, physical and verbal abuse, educational neglect, the children’s separation and the alleged engagement. The central issues were whether the care threshold was met, whether the forced marriage allegations were proved, and how the evidence, including retractions and ABE interviews, should be evaluated.

1. The court found that the statutory threshold in section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 was crossed. The relevant date was 22 December 2017, when the care proceedings were issued. Later events could be considered only where they demonstrated the position at that date.

2. Fact-finding required the local authority to prove the alleged facts on the balance of probabilities and then establish the link between those facts and significant harm attributable to unreasonable parental care. The court had to consider the evidence as a whole, distinguish evidence from suspicion or speculation, assess credibility and reliability, and take account of the possibility that witnesses might lie for different reasons.

3. Hearsay evidence, including social-work records and chronologies, was admissible. Its weight depended on the circumstances. Evidence contained in ABE interviews was also admissible. Departures from interview guidance affected reliability and required careful analysis; they did not automatically render the evidence inadmissible.

4. The jurisdiction under Part 4A of the Family Law Act 1996 was broadly protective. Section 63A did not impose a conventional evidential threshold requiring proof on the balance of probabilities that a forced marriage had occurred or was imminent. The court had to consider all the circumstances, including the protected person’s health, safety, well-being, wishes and feelings.

5. That approach required qualification where a forced marriage protection order imposed a mandatory obligation, such as returning children from abroad at short notice. Such an order positively interfered with family life and could expose respondents to penal consequences before they could obtain legal advice or return the matter to court. The applicant and court therefore had to adopt a robust approach and be satisfied that the order was necessary and proportionate.

6. The court found a loose family commitment linking N with her cousin, but not a formal engagement carrying an imminent obligation to marry. The central forced-marriage allegation was therefore not proved. The children had nevertheless suffered significant harm through the cumulative impact of domestic abuse, excessive discipline, educational neglect, enforced separation and pressure to retract true allegations.

7. Meeting the threshold did not determine the children’s best interests. A return to parental care would require the parents to recognise their responsibility for the situation and create conditions in which the children could return without being blamed.