Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email editor@familylaw.co.uk.
A day in the life Of...
Edward Bennett
Edward Bennett
Read on
Re X (Children) and Y (Children) (No 2) [2015] EWHC 2358 (Fam)
Date:4 AUG 2015
Law Reporter
(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