Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles
Authors

LOCAL AUTHORITY: Brent London Borough Council v S [2009] EWHC 1593 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:06 PM
Slug : brent-london-borough-council-v-s-2009-ewhc-1593-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 9, 2009, 08:26 AM
Article ID : 85863

(Family Division; Sir Christopher Sumner; 3 July 2009)

The child's father was killed by the Taliban, and his family disappeared. He arrived in the jurisdiction as an unaccompanied Afghan minor, and was granted discretionary leave to remain. He was accommodated with a foster family by the local authority. After 2 years, when the child was 17-years old, the child expressed his wish to travel to Pakistan to trace his family, whose whereabouts were unknown. He had saved money and purchased a ticket. The local authority considered that the trip was unsafe and not in the child's best interests, and applied without notice to the court for a passport order and an order prohibiting the child from leaving the jurisdiction. This was granted on an interim basis.

The interim orders would be discharged. The journey to Pakistan involved risks, but not significant ones. The child missed his family terribly, and the importance of knowing the truth, if it could be discovered, was profound. It was in the child's best interests to attempt to locate his family now, as it was not clear when he would be able to do so in future. The child was required to apply for permanent leave to remain before his 18th birthday, and after making that application he would not be able to leave the jurisdiction until the application was resolved, which could take a long time. However, the local authority had acted properly in seeking a decision from the court in such a difficult and anxious matter.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from