In Re LA v M, F, X, Y, and Z [2024] EWHC 1336 (Fam), the High Court, presided over by Mrs Justice Lieven, upheld a Passport Order preventing a father from traveling to Afghanistan, aimed at protecting his children from the risk of forced marriage. Despite the father's appeal for the order's discharge, the court found the parents’ accounts untrustworthy and ruled the order necessary to protect the younger children. The judgment also extended Forced Marriage Protection Orders (FMPOs) for three of the children, including 17-year-old X, until their 18th birthdays.
Case Overview:
Court: High Court of Justice, Family Division
Case Name: Re LA v M, F, X, Y, and Z
Citation: [2024] EWHC 1336 (Fam)
Judge: Mrs Justice Lieven DBE
Hearing Date: 23 April 2024
Judgment Date: 1 May 2024
Legal Issues:
Passport Order Continuation: Whether the court should continue the Passport Order against the father to prevent him from traveling to Afghanistan, which could increase the risk of forced marriage for his children.
Forced Marriage Protection Orders (FMPOs): The appropriateness of maintaining FMPOs for the younger children, including 17-year-old X, who claims no risk of forced marriage and wishes to remain in Afghanistan.
Credibility of Parental Testimony: The reliability of the parents' testimony concerning the circumstances surrounding their daughter C's return to Afghanistan and her alleged marriage.
Court’s Analysis:
Mrs. Justice Lieven found the parents’ testimonies inconsistent and unconvincing, particularly regarding the alleged marriage of their daughter C and her subsequent pregnancy while in Afghanistan. The court expressed concern over the risk of forced marriage for the younger children if the father were permitted to return to Afghanistan, despite his claim that his presence there could facilitate the family’s return to the UK.
Judgment Summary:
The court upheld the Passport Order against the father until the youngest child, Z, reaches 18, ruling it necessary to prevent forced marriages. The judgment also extended the FMPO for X, despite her objections, citing concerns about the influence and control exerted by the parents over their children’s testimonies and decisions.
Implications:
This case emphasizes the High Court's commitment to using Passport Orders and FMPOs to protect children from the risk of forced marriage, particularly when parental testimony is deemed unreliable. It also highlights the court's careful consideration of the balance between protecting children's welfare and respecting family rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Comments