LA v M & Ors

Forced Marriage Protection Orders may extend beyond a protected person’s 18th birthday where the evidence establishes a continuing, serious risk of forced marriage. The court must respect the enhanced autonomy of adults and Gillick-competent young people, and must justify each term of the order separately.

The court should follow a staged assessment: establish the facts; determine whether protection is needed; assess individual risks and protective factors, including the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3; and achieve a proportionate accommodation with Article 8 rights. The order must be bespoke and no more intrusive than necessary. Protection from forced marriage does not justify preventing a genuinely voluntary arranged marriage.

The local authority sought continuation of Forced Marriage Protection Orders concerning three young people and continuation of Passport Orders against their parents. Earlier orders had followed findings that one daughter had been forced into a religious marriage in Afghanistan and that the parents had lied to the court.

Further evidence disclosed before the hearing supported findings that the daughter had suffered a traumatic miscarriage and attempted suicide. The court had to reconsider the duration of the protective orders, assess the risks to each young person, weigh their wishes and autonomy against the risk of forced marriage, and determine whether the parents’ passports should remain held.

1. Orders extended. Forced Marriage Protection Orders were continued in respect of X, Y and Z until their 21st birthdays. Passport Orders against the parents were continued to protect Z until her 21st birthday.
2. Part 4A of the Family Law Act 1996 permits an FMPO to be made in respect of a person over 18. The court nevertheless had to give very great respect to X’s autonomy as an adult and to the wishes and feelings of Y and Z, who were Gillick-competent.
3. The court applied the four-stage roadmap in Re K (Forced Marriage: Passport Order) [2020] 1 FLR 904: establishing the underlying facts; deciding whether protection was needed; assessing the individual risks and protective factors; and balancing Article 3 protection against Article 8 family and private life, including autonomy.
4. Each term of an FMPO required separate justification. The order had to be bespoke, placing the intrusion at the point necessary to discharge the protective duty and no further. The proportionality assessment required consideration of the importance of the objective, rational connection, less intrusive measures, and fair balance, applying the approach in Bank Mellat (No.2) [2014] AC 700.
5. The evidence established a manifest and continuing risk to X and Z, and an appreciable though unquantifiable risk to Y. The parents’ past conduct meant that their assurances could not be relied upon, and the other family members were not protective factors. Passport Orders alone were insufficient because the parents had shown themselves willing to evade or manipulate court orders.
6. An arranged marriage and a forced marriage were legally distinct. Following NS v MI [2006] EWHC 1646 (Fam), the orders did not prevent a voluntary arranged marriage, although they could make the process more scrutinised. The risk of lifelong harm from coercion outweighed the intrusion into the young people’s Article 8 rights and the parents’ inability to travel to Afghanistan.

First-instance decision. The judgment records earlier proceedings in which FMPOs and Passport Orders had been made and later reconsidered, but this was a fresh determination of the duration of the protective orders.