Sheffield City Council v M & Ors.
[2023] EWHC 1399 (Fam)
LA v M & Ors
1 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1336 (Fam)
High Court
A family's plan to force their daughter into marriage led to court orders. Even after the daughter returned from Afghanistan and said she was married and pregnant, the court kept orders in place to protect her younger siblings from a similar fate because the parents were dishonest and unreliable. The court had to balance the parents' rights with the children's safety.
Key Facts
- •Long-running dispute over Forced Marriage Protection Orders (FMPOs) involving four children (C, X, Y, Z).
- •Parents born in Afghanistan, children born in Pakistan, all UK citizens.
- •Older sister (A) previously married underage.
- •Initial FMPO obtained in June 2022 following C's disclosure of forced marriage plans.
- •FMPO discharged in March 2023, but family later travelled to Saudi Arabia and then Afghanistan.
- •Children initially stayed in Afghanistan, citing mother's illness.
- •C returned to the UK in February 2024, disclosing a Nikah marriage in Afghanistan and pregnancy.
- •Parents denied C's marriage and pregnancy.
- •Court questioned the parents' credibility.
- •Key issue: whether to maintain a Passport Order against the Father, preventing him from travelling to Afghanistan.
Legal Principles
Power of the court to change case management decisions.
Re LB (Reversal of judgment) [2013] UKSC 8 at [37]
Need to avoid litigants having 'two bites at the cherry' when applying to set aside orders.
N v J [2017] EWHC 2752 at [77]
Open-ended passport orders or travel bans should only be imposed in exceptional cases with a clear justification for their indefinite nature.
Re K (Forced Marriage: Passport Orders (Rev 2) [2020] EWCA Civ 190 at [67]
Proportionality of interference with Article 8 rights (private and family life) when imposing Passport Orders.
Bank Mellat tests (referenced implicitly)
Outcomes
FMPOs granted for the three younger children (X, Y, Z).
Parents' lack of credibility and ongoing risk of forced marriage.
Passport Order against the Father maintained.
To mitigate risk of forced marriage for younger children; parents' dishonesty; proportionality assessment balancing Father's Article 8 rights with children's protection.