A (Withdrawal of Applications)

Permission to withdraw proceedings under rule 29.4 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 requires the court to survey all the circumstances and deal with the case justly, having regard to welfare issues. Welfare is not automatically paramount when deciding whether to withdraw applications for protective orders. The court should ask whether continuing the proceedings would provide a solid advantage to the person to be protected, while considering proportionality, expense, delay and any welfare consequences.

When making or discharging female genital mutilation or forced marriage protection orders, the protected person’s health, safety and wellbeing are the first and paramount consideration. In wardship, the child’s welfare is paramount. Protective orders should be discharged where the evidence shows that future risk is low and continuation serves no useful purpose.

The local authority sought permission to withdraw applications concerning five girls. The applications included female genital mutilation protection orders for all five girls, a forced marriage protection order for A, and applications under the inherent jurisdiction. A and B were also wards of court.

Interim protective orders had been made after concerns arose that A, who had remained in Somalia with her father, might face forced marriage or female genital mutilation. A subsequently returned to England. Medical evidence, professional assessments and the family’s cooperation did not establish either risk. All parties invited the court to permit withdrawal and discharge the existing orders. The central issues were the legal test for withdrawal and whether the protective and wardship orders should be discharged.

1. The court granted permission to withdraw the applications for wardship, forced marriage protection and female genital mutilation protection orders, and discharged the existing orders.
2. Rule 29.4 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, read with the overriding objective in rule 1.1, requires the court to survey all the circumstances and deal with the case justly, having regard to welfare issues. Welfare does not have automatic priority when the court decides whether proceedings under the Family Law Act 1996 or the Female Genital Mutilation Protection Act 2003 should be withdrawn.
3. In assessing whether proceedings should continue, the court should consider whether continuation offers a solid advantage to the person to be protected. That assessment includes proportionality, expense, delay, the complexity and importance of the issues, and the welfare consequences of continuing the proceedings. This approach was supported by London Borough of Southwark v B [1993] 2 FLR 559 and followed in Re N (Leave to Withdraw Care Proceedings) [2000] 1 FLR 134.
4. For the discharge applications, the health, safety and wellbeing of the protected person under section 63A(2) of the Family Law Act 1996 and section 1(2) of the Female Genital Mutilation Protection Act 2003 are the first and paramount consideration. The court reaffirmed its approach in Re M (Female Genital Mutilation Protection Order: No Order on Application) [2019] EWHC 527 (Fam). In forced marriage cases, Articles 8 and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights reinforced the importance of that consideration.
5. The evidence showed no established risk of forced marriage or female genital mutilation. The parents opposed both practices, A had returned promptly, the mother had engaged meaningfully with specialist support, and all five girls were well cared for. Continuing the proceedings would generate expense and delay, would be disproportionate, and would serve no useful purpose. The court therefore dispensed with formal notice to A and B’s father, as doing so was proportionate and consistent with dealing with the case justly.