Case No. NE24C50736 - [2025] EWHC 1767 (Fam)

Three young brothers fled Country Z with their parents in 2015 and were granted asylum in Austria. Their parents had a fourth son in 2019. In February 2022 the children were made the subject of an Austrian Guardianship Order placing them in long term residential care, revoking parental custody, and transferring it to the relevant Austrian state. The Austrian Court made findings of severe domestic abuse, mutual assaults by the parents, neglect, and failure of parental supervision of the children. The parents separated. In early July 2022 the children’s mother abducted them from a contact supervision centre and travelled with them through Germany and France and then by an inflatable dinghy across the English Channel. On arrival on the English shore she claimed asylum for her and the children which was later granted. Within a short time of arrival in England (or perhaps before arrival) the Mother had divorced the children’s father and entered into a religious marriage with another man from Country Z who himself arrived in England from Austria by small boat in July 2022. They settled in the Northeast of England. In October 2024, after repeated concerns being raised about the children being left alone, abuse, and neglect, the children were removed from the Mother, initially by the police and then under an interim care order. They remain in Local Authority care, but each child is now placed separately. The Local Authority seek final care orders for each child with plans for each child to be placed individually in long term foster care.

I have previously determined that the children are habitually resident in England and were at the commencement of the proceedings. As the Judge conducting family proceedings and seeking to determine the best interests of the children, it is not my role to enquire as to whether the Mother and children ought to have been granted asylum in England given that the Mother abducted the children from care in Austria. However, I must consider the credibility of the Mother insofar as it affects my decision-making about the welfare of her children, and so what she said to the Home Office is material. I have previously indicated an intention to disclose my earlier judgment to the Home Office but was persuaded to receive submissions from the parties before doing so, the Mother opposing disclosure. I am content now to receive submissions on disclosure of both that judgment and this judgment to the Home Office before making a decision whether to do so. However, this judgment is to be published in any event.

The Mother seeks the return to her care of all four children. One obstacle to her application is that her current husband who, she says, does not live with her but on whom she will rely to help her care for the children, has not engaged in the proceedings. The children’s father, who remains in Austria, engaged in the proceedings only fleetingly but has had legal representation. On the eve of the final hearing he filed a statement and proposed that the elder two children could live with one of his brothers, the younger two with another brother: both paternal uncles live in Austria. Statements from them were also filed.

The Guardian supports the Local Authority’s proposals even though the children say they want to return home to live with their mother. At their request I met the two elder boys individually during the course of the hearing.

I heard oral evidence from the allocated social worker, Ms A, who also produced parenting and sibling assessments; her predecessor, Ms B; two members of staff from a supported housing provision where the Mother and children stayed for three to four months in early 2024, Ms C and Ms D; a family finder Ms E; the Mother JK; and the Guardian Ms F. I heard evidence by video link from Austria from the Father, LM, and the two paternal uncles, Mr G and Mr H. I received a large volume of written evidence including a psychological assessment of the Mother and children prepared by Dr Swart.

At the outset of the hearing the Local Authority sought care orders in respect of all four children and a placement order in respect of the youngest child, but it now seeks to withdraw its placement order application in the light of the oral evidence of the family finder. No other party opposed the withdrawal of the placement order application. Both parents accept that the threshold for making care orders is met although Mr O’Sullivan for the Mother raised an issue in closing submissions regarding the threshold which I shall address briefly in my conclusions. The competing proposals are:

The children were known by the Father’s surname which appeared on S’s birth certificate and all formal documents for the four children including their passports which the Father produced during the hearing. On arrival in England the Mother had her own surname recorded as the children’s surnames. There is no application before me concerning the children’s surnames but I shall address that issue in my conclusions.

A further issue which I need to address is that of the children’s dates of birth. It is important to the children that their dates of birth are clearly determined and recorded. On arrival in England, the Mother gave different dates of birth for three of them than had been recorded in Austria. Some of the dates recorded in Austria are unlikely to be accurate.

In this judgment I set out a history of events and the evidence received. I refer to the applicable law and, after analysis of the evidence, provide my conclusions. I then address a procedural issue that confronted the Court part way through the hearing involving the Father and paternal uncles giving evidence from abroad. I have annexed to the judgment an anonymised version of the letter I have written to one of the children, as an example of the letters I have written to all four of them.