The High Court discharged orders prohibiting the family from taking children abroad and concluded that “clear boundaries have been overstepped”.
Facts:
This judgement concerns a family of six – a mother, a father, and their four children – who became the subject of a legal dispute with their Local Authority (LA). The parents, originally from country X and now settled in the UK, planned a trip to their home country to visit the paternal grandfather, who was seriously ill. As part of the process of acquiring a right of residence in this country, they had to surrender their passports, and since then, the family has used only UK passports when travelling abroad. They were never involved with any social services.
The case was triggered by a comment made by the youngest child, D, to his teacher that he and his father were going to "kill the bad people," alongside the parents’ request to remove the children from school early for the trip.
Despite the parents' cooperative demeanour and their offer to change their travel plans to country Y and then country Z—both popular holiday destinations—the LA's suspicion grew. This culminated in a police visit to the family home, where, under duress, the parents handed over the children's UK passports. The LA then initiated care proceedings and applied for a Port Alert Order and injunctions to prevent the children from being taken abroad.
Decision:
His Honour Judge Sharpe's judgement led to the discontinuation of the care proceedings against the family. He concluded that the LA's case did not meet the legal threshold for state intervention, which requires a reasonable belief that a child is likely to suffer significant harm in the absence of an order.
He noted that the “parents were being restricted from exercising their own judgement in relation to where they should take their children by operation of court orders which were imposed upon them, but which will now be discharged given that … the legal basis for such restrictions is not made out.”
The Court found no credible evidence that the parents would knowingly take their children into a dangerous situation. He highlighted that the parents had been cooperative, were willing to change their travel plans, and had successfully raised their children in a loving and stable home.
Judge Sharpe was highly critical of the LA's reliance on speculation and general Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) travel warnings. He stated that simply because an official body advises against travel to a country does not, by itself, justify taking a child into care. As a direct result of the judgement, the children's UK passports, which had been seized by the police and the LA, were ordered to be returned to the parents.
The judgement strongly upheld the principle of parental autonomy. The Court stressed that parents have the right to make decisions for their children, even if those decisions involve some level of risk, as long as they are acting reasonably and in their children's best interests.
Implications:
The most significant implication is the Judge's clear stance on the threshold for state intervention. This judgement firmly established that the LA's case, based on general FCDO advice and media reports, was insufficient to meet the legal test of "likely to suffer significant harm".
The ruling sends a strong message that LAs cannot rely on speculation or generalised risk assessments. To justify removing children from their parents' care, they must present concrete, evidence-based concerns related to a specific family's circumstances.
This decision clarified that FCDO advice is a guideline, not a legal mandate. Parents who choose to travel against this advice are not automatically putting their children at risk of significant harm. The Court's role is to evaluate the specific risks, not simply to defer to government guidance. This empowers parents to use their own judgement and real-time knowledge when making travel decisions.
