England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IMPORTANT NOTICE
This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

 

 

IN THE CENTRAL FAMILY COURT

 

First Avenue House

42-49 High Holborn, WC1

Tuesday, 18 ^th October 2016

 

Before:

 

HIS HONOUR JUDGE TOLSON QC

( In Private )

 

 

 

B E T W E E N :

 

 

A LONDON BOROUGH

Applicant

 

- and -

 

B and Others

Respondents

 

_________

 

 

Transcribed by BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO.

(a trading name of Opus 2 International Limited)

Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers

25 Southampton Buildings, London WC2A 1AL

Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737

info@beverleynunnery.com

 

_________

 

 

 

 

 

_________

 

J U D G M E N T

(As approved by the Judge)

A P P E A R A N C E S

 

 

MR. ZIMRAN SAMUEL (instructed by Legal Services) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

 

MR. GARFIELD BRAITHWAITE (of Counsel) appeared on behalf of the First Respondent.

 

MS. SANDRA FISHER (of Counsel) appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent.

 

MR. IAN BUGG (instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen) appeared on behalf of the Guardian.

 

_____________

 

JUDGE TOLSON:

 

1                     This is the end of care proceedings where the risk of harm to the two girls involved, one aged thirteen and one aged five, centres upon female genital mutilation.

 

2                     In the event, the outcome of the case has been agreed, save in one very limited respect. The girls have been in foster care, but it is agreed that they shall return to the care of their mother and father. I am delighted at this outcome. It is now done with the agreement of all parties. It is an outcome in accordance with the two experts who have looked at the case and offered an opinion as well as the children's guardian. Consequent upon the return of the children home, there is a written agreement as to the steps that will be in place in order to protect the girls in future. It is not necessary to this judgment to read in the agreement in full, but it covers a wide range of the areas that might be expected.

 

3                     The one narrow area of disagreement concerns future medical examinations which it is proposed should be carried out upon the girls. The purpose of this is as a deterrent so that the parents will know that were they to cause the children to undergo FGM in future then that would come to the attention of the authorities.

 

4                     Everyone is agreed that there should be medical examinations or at least that course is not opposed by the parents, but there is disagreement as to the trigger. The Local Authority proposes that the examinations should take place on a regular basis. The parents do not oppose that contention, but their primary case is to support a suggestion from the Guardian that only upon a further referral of the girls to the Local Authority should there be such an examination. This is a very narrow point. However, in my view, the better course is to provide a more certain trigger than that proposed by the Guardian.

 

5                     Necessary to my conclusion may be some understanding as to the history. The matter came to light in circumstances which have not been investigated in detail by me, but, on paper at least, involve the mother informing a friend of hers that she was concerned as to a trip to Guinea Conakry from where the family originates. This came upon the mother without warning - it is said at the instigation of the father.

 

6                     Subsequently, the parents were to give different versions of events about the circumstances which led to the suggestion that the girls might be taken to Guinea. The elder child gave an ABE interview to the police, the terms of which were deeply concerning as to the intention which underpinned the trip to Guinea. The idea formulated in the minds of the authorities that the girls were at serious risk of female genital mutilation.

 

7                     The threshold is conceded in fact in terms which are not yet in detail before me, but which must involve an acknowledgment or at the very least a finding by the court that the girls were - when proceedings began - likely to suffer significant harm in the form of FGM. There is a powerful case on paper to support that conclusion.

 

8                     In those circumstances, it seems to me that there must be concrete safeguards in place for the protection of the children in future. It seems to me too uncertain to leave it to some future child protection referral to the Local Authority to trigger such an examination. Indeed, it seems to me that this case should not conclude without my making a specific issue order in the following terms:

 

"As a specific issue as to the exercise of parental responsibility in respect of the two girls, the parents shall, subject to the consent of any competent child, arrange a medical examination at the request of the Local Authority not more frequently than annually to demonstrate that the children have not undergone female genital mutilation. The parents shall provide independent evidence of the result to the Local Authority. The medical practitioner concerned should be one who attracts the approval of the Authority."

 

9                     No one disputes my power to make such an order. All that is in issue is the trigger, as I have indicated. Mr. Bugg for the Guardian has eloquently sought to persuade me that such a medical examination would be disproportionate as an interference with the Art.8 rights of the two girls, but I do not believe that to be the case. The contention of Mr. Bugg is that some future risk of female genital mutilation must be demonstrated at or around the time of the proposed examination. The reality of this case, however, is that this risk (indeed a likelihood) has been demonstrated in the past and the facts of the case suggest that it is not a risk which can in any sense be said to have somehow vanished with the conclusion of these proceedings.

 

10                 That, I believe, is sufficient for me to explain the reasoning underpinning what I emphasise is a narrow dispute between the parties. The fact that I have had to rule on a contested issue should not, in my judgment, dissipate what I hope will be a sense of satisfaction on the part of all parties as to the outcome to the proceedings.

 

11                 I would like to express my gratitude to all the professionals involved for the care and attention which has been given to the case, perhaps in particular over the course of the last two days as a settlement has been negotiated. I would like to thank all the professional witnesses involved equally for the care and attention which they have given and I would like to wish both parents the best of good fortune in caring for the two girls in future.

 

12                 I should finally say that a third child was involved at one stage. My good wishes of course extend to him, but there will be no public law order in his case.

 

______________