Z v V & Anor

The inherent jurisdiction and wardship protect children according to their best interests, but their flexibility requires cautious and proportionate use. Wardship should not continue where it adds no practical protection and unnecessarily intrudes into the children’s private lives or cuts across statutory jurisdiction.

Port alerts, passport restrictions and related orders are protective measures ancillary to substantive relief. They must address an imminent risk, remain proportionate, and ordinarily be time-limited with provision for review. A Children Act 1989 s 91(14) restriction may be made where the children’s welfare requires it, even without a history of unreasonable applications or exceptional circumstances. The court must consider the risk of harm arising from further applications.

The mother sought protective orders concerning her two youngest children, following their father’s previous abduction of them to Nigeria, where they suffered significant physical and emotional harm and neglect. The father had also perpetrated domestic abuse and threatened to take the children back to Nigeria. He did not attend the final hearing.

The mother sought continuation of wardship, a port alert, prohibited and specific issue orders, passport restrictions, non-disclosure authorisations and a Children Act 1989 s 91(14) restriction. The Children’s Guardian opposed continuation of wardship but supported the other measures in principle. The central issues were whether the risk of re-abduction justified the orders sought and whether each order was necessary and proportionate.

1. Wardship and inherent jurisdiction. The inherent jurisdiction derives from the parens patriae jurisdiction and is governed by the children’s best interests. Wardship is a manifestation of that jurisdiction, vesting custody in the court. Its versatility is subject to caution, and it must not cut across statutory powers designed to protect children.
2. Risk and proportionality. There was a tangible risk of abduction. The possible consequences were exceptionally serious because orders made in England and Wales were not enforceable in Nigeria and return proceedings there would be difficult and costly. Mitigating factors did not remove the risk. Protective orders nevertheless had to be necessary and proportionate to the identified danger.
3. Orders made. Continuation of wardship was refused because it added no concrete protection beyond the proposed port alert and prohibited steps orders, while imposing a serious and unnecessary intrusion into the children’s private lives. Existing prohibited steps orders were enlarged to prevent the father attending at or contacting the children’s schools and applying for UK or Nigerian passports or travel documents. Orders were also made to HM Passport Office and relevant Nigerian authorities, and the mother was authorised to hold the children’s passports.
4. A free-standing port alert was ordered for 18 months. The existing Tipstaff orders were discharged. The mother could seek renewal if supported by evidence. Authorisation not to disclose future schools or GPs was refused as unnecessary and disproportionate, although a 12-month order concerning a change of home was made.
5. Section 91(14). A restriction was justified for 18 months. Although the father had not made private-law applications, further litigation would be highly detrimental to the children’s welfare after nearly two years of proceedings and their traumatic experiences.

First-instance proceedings in the High Court Family Division. The judgment records earlier public-law care proceedings before HHJ Henley, concluded after a contested fact-finding hearing, and subsequent adjournment for consideration of protective orders.