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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
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...
View all articles
Authors

Re X (Children) and Y (Children) (No 2) [2015] EWHC 2358 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 22:27 PM
The President gave an additional judgment in two joined cases where the parents had attempted to remove the children to Syria in which it was ordered that the mothers would be subjected to GPS electronic tagging.
Slug : re-x-children-and-y-children-no-2-2015-ewhc-2358-fam
Meta Title : Re X (Children) and Y (Children) (No 2) [2015] EWHC 2358 (Fam)
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 4, 2015, 09:16 AM
Article ID : 116543
(Family Division, Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division, 4 August 2015)

[The judicially approved judgment and accompanying headnote has now published in Family Law Reports [2015] 2 FLR 1515]

Public law children – Interim care orders – Parents alleged to have attempted to take children to Syria – Whether ICO’s could be discharged in favour of wardship and a series of protective measures including electronic tagging of the parents

Please see attached file below for the full judgment.


The President gave an additional judgment in two joined cases where the parents had attempted to remove the children to Syria in which it was ordered that the mothers would be subjected to GPS electronic tagging.

Following the judgment of Re X (Children) and Y (Children) [2015] EWHC 2265 (fam) the MoJ, NOMS and EMS made further submissions on the use of GPS tagging in family cases which they submitted was unprecedented. Evidence was submitted that GPS tagging costs 6 times more than RF tagging. The MoJ remained committed to assisting the court in protecting the welfare interests of children and would be prepared to facilitate GPS tagging but a number of operational considerations and arrangements would take time to put in place.

At the hearing the MoJ submitted that it would take approximately a fortnight to put the arrangements in place and that in this instance they would meet the cost. That position formed no general principle in such cases and it remained the case that the court could not force the MoJ to meet the costs of such provisions.

The President remained of the view that GPS tagging offered a greater measure of security and protection than RF tagging and that it should be included in the package of protective measures. The children would return home to their parents who would be fitted with RF tags until the arrangements for GPS tagging could be made. During that period an additional curfew period would be imposed.
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 2358 (Fam)
Case numbers omitted

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Date: 4 August 2015

Before :

SIR JAMES MUNBY PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

In the matter of X (Children)
In the matter of Y (Children)
(No 2)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Simon J G Crabtree (instructed by the local authority) for local authority A
Mr Karl Rowley QC (instructed by Stephensons Solicitors LLP) for MX (mother of X1, X2.X3, X4)
Miss Ayeisha Khandia (of Fountain Solicitors) for FX (father of X1, X2, X3, X4)
Miss Linda Sweeney (instructed by AFG Law) for GX (the children’s guardian of X1, X2, X3,X4)
Mrs Jane Crowley QC and Miss Rhian Livesley (instructed by the local authority) for localauthority B
Mr Karl Rowley QC (instructed by Stephensons Solicitors LLP) for MY1 (the mother of Y1,Y2 and grandmother of Y3, Y4)
Mr Karl Rowley QC (instructed by Linder Myers Solicitors LLP) for MY2 (mother of Y3, Y4)
FY2 (father of Y3 and Y4) appeared in person
Miss Julia Cheetham QC and Miss Elizabeth Morton (instructed by Temperley Taylor) forGY (the children’s guardian of Y1, Y2, Y3, Y4)
Mr Alex Ustych (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Ministry of Justice(MoJ)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Hearing date: 3 August 2015


Re X (Children) and Y (Children) (No 2) [2015] EWHC 2358 (Fam) 

Approved Judgment 
Categories :
  • Judgments
  • Public Law Children
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from