Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
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