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
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
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