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...
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles

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


Royal Courts of Justice

Date: 4 August 2015

Before :


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

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