Case No. NE21FF08154

7.M provided me with a draft order setting out in detail the safety measures she proposed to protect H from the risk of FGM. I will set this out in more detail later in his judgment, but in summary the protection she proposed was threefold: orders and undertakings of the court; the support of her family in The Gambia; and support and monitoring from a non-government agency, The Girls Agenda, in The Gambia.8.She proposed that F should spend time with H by video call for a couple more sessions before proceeding to face to face visits supervised by her brother MU who is currently living in England. After learning of the guardian’s views, she suggested that her brother should support the handovers of H to F and then remain for around 5-10 minutes to check that H was comfortable to go with the father.9.She invited the court to adjourn the final determination of both issues, make an interim order allowing a single trip to The Gambia and an interim order progressing contact, and then restoring the proceedings for final determination.10.F initially opposed the relaxation of the worldwide travel ban. However by the time of the final hearing he resolved not actively to participate on the issue, instead leaving it to the professionals and ultimately the court to resolve the issue. His main concerns were that the (unidentified) father in The Gambia would rely on Sharia law to separate H from her mother, retain her in The Gambia and, potentially, inflict FGM on her. 11.He initially sought immediate unsupervised contact with H but accepted that it would be a good idea to have at least one further remote contact session. He saw no need for any supervision of contact and proposed that M should undertake the handovers. He had previously put forward as potential supervisors; his youngest daughter, PHS; his ex-partner and PHS’s mother, PHS’ mother; his twin brother PU; and his wife, PU’s wife. However by the conclusion of the hearing he had largely accepted that MU would be a more appropriate supervisor, if one was really necessary.12.The children’s guardian supported and informed M’s position generally. She agreed that H should be permitted to travel to The Gambia for a single trip, but with all the necessary safeguards proposed by M. She then proposed that the matter be returned to court for final determination.13.The guardian was opposed to the mother having to be present at handovers of contact because of previous findings of domestic abuse made against F and because PD12J made it inappropriate and unsafe. She clearly did not consider that H’s time with the person she believed to be her father should be supervised once H was safely in F’s care; but she supported MU facilitating handovers and remaining present to ensure that H was happy in his care.14.She sought expert advice on the question of how and when H should be told about her paternity.15.All parties recognised that the assessment of the risks to H of going to The Gambia and whether or not the worldwide travel ban should be varied was for me to determine.