Manchester City Council v D (Application for Permission Withdraw Proceedings after Abduction)

Where a local authority seeks permission to withdraw care proceedings, the court must consider whether the threshold criteria are met and, if they are or may be met, whether withdrawal promotes the child’s welfare and accords with the overriding objective.

The relevant factors form a flexible, non-exhaustive framework. An unlawful abduction may materially alter the balance where the children cannot realistically be returned within the statutory timescale, the court cannot effectively enforce protective orders, and the local authority cannot discharge its statutory duties abroad. Proceedings which have become ineffective may therefore be withdrawn, but only on the particular facts and without treating abduction as a means of avoiding public-law scrutiny.

Manchester City Council issued care proceedings concerning three children following allegations of serious domestic abuse by the father. During the proceedings, the parents removed the children to Pakistan in breach of the interim care orders and a subsequent summary return order.

Despite efforts by the local authority, Greater Manchester Police, Interpol and the Pakistani authorities, the children were unlikely to return within a timescale compatible with the care proceedings. The local authority therefore sought permission under FPR 2010 r 29.4 to withdraw the care proceedings, while seeking continued wardship. The central issue was whether withdrawal remained consistent with the children’s welfare and the overriding objective.

1. The application to withdraw the care proceedings was granted. The children remained wards of court, with wardship listed for review in six months.
2. The case fell within the second category identified in J, A, M and X (Children) [2014] EWHC 4648 (Fam): the local authority could plainly satisfy the threshold under s 31(2) of the Children Act 1989. Withdrawal therefore required consideration of the children’s welfare and the overriding objective under FPR 2010 r 1.1.
3. The court applied the non-exhaustive factors derived from A County Council v DP, RS, BS (By the Children’s Guardian) [2005] 2 FLR 1031 and endorsed in GC v A Local Authority (A Child) (Withdrawal of care proceedings) [2020] 4 WLR 92. Those factors included necessity, relevance to future care planning, fairness, proportionality, likely duration, impact on the parties and public cost.
4. Absent the abduction, continuation would have been in the children’s interests. Further investigation of the mother’s capacity to protect the children from the father was necessary, and the proceedings were otherwise ready for a fair and proportionate final hearing.
5. The abduction nevertheless changed the analysis. The parents repeatedly refused to return the children; reciprocal legal mechanisms with Pakistan were ineffective in the circumstances; an extension under s 32 of the Children Act 1989 would be of unknown duration; and the local authority could not effectively discharge its duties to children abroad.
6. Following London Borough of Southwark v B [1993] 2 FLR 559, there was no solid advantage in maintaining proceedings which had become ineffective in result. The decision was confined to the particular facts and did not condone abduction or permit parents to defeat care proceedings by removing children from the jurisdiction.

The judgment was a first-instance decision. It records that summary return orders had been made on 14 December 2020, but does not identify an appeal from an earlier judgment.