MSD and FPD (Children) (Stranded Spouse; Wardship), Re

Wardship is not justified merely because a case involves an international element or allegations of spousal stranding. The inherent jurisdiction, and wardship in particular, should be used only where there is a sufficient reason to do so. Where the children remain in England and no order is sought concerning their residence, care or another important step in their lives, continuation of wardship will ordinarily require specific justification. Concerns about future changes of residence, schooling or parental involvement can generally be addressed through appropriate orders under the Children Act 1989. Wardship does not enhance the court’s powers beyond those available for breach of an ordinary section 8 order.

The proceedings concerned two children whose mother alleged that their father had taken her passport while she was in India, returned to England without her and thereafter changed the children’s residence and school. The father denied the allegations and made cross-allegations of domestic abuse. No findings were made at this stage.

The mother obtained a location order and wardship orders without notice. At the return hearing she sought continuation of wardship. The central issue was whether wardship remained justified where the children were in England and no consequential order was sought concerning their residence, care or other major decisions.

1. The wardship order was discharged. The court’s inherent jurisdiction should not generally be invoked where the issues can be addressed under the Children Act 1989, and wardship should not be continued unless there is some sufficient reason to do so. The fact that a case has an international element, or that Family Division judges have experience of international child abduction cases, does not itself establish that wardship is the appropriate vehicle.
2. Wardship can provide carefully crafted solutions in complex or unusual cases. Its distinguishing features are that custody is vested in the court and that no important step in the child’s life may be taken without the court’s consent. In the present case, however, no order was sought as to where the children should live, with whom they should live, or any other consequence of wardship.
3. The mother’s concern that the father might change the children’s residence or schools could be addressed by appropriate statutory orders. The alleged prevention of the mother’s parental involvement, even if established, did not by itself justify wardship where the necessary statutory powers were available.
4. Wardship does not enhance the court’s powers beyond those available if an ordinary section 8 order is breached. The limited use of the inherent jurisdiction to obtain a location order was not a significant factor in favour of continuing wardship.
5. There was no allegation of international child abduction. The international features were the mother’s position abroad and the factual dispute about events overseas. Those matters did not justify continuation of wardship.