Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

Family Law

The leading authority on all aspects of family law

Court of Protection Practice and Procedure Conference 2016

A comprehensive guide to best practice and current thinking

03 AUG 2016

Re A and B (Children : Restrictions on Parental Responsibility : Extremism and Radicalisation in Private Law) [2016] EWFC 40

Re A and B (Children : Restrictions on Parental Responsibility : Extremism and Radicalisation in Private Law) [2016] EWFC 40

(Family Division, Russell J, 22 July 2016)

Private law children – Radicalisation – Child arrangements orders – Allegations of violence and radicalisation

Orders were made for the children to remain living with the mother and to have no contact with the father whom the mother alleged was violent and had been radicalised.

The two children, now aged 2 and 3, had dual British and Arabic heritage. They were born in England and had always lived with the British mother. The mother and children had fled the family home due to domestic violence and now lived in a refuge. The father was currently serving a prison sentence for breach of protective orders and he was subject to a deportation order.

The mother applied for child arrangements orders specifying that the children were to live with the mother and have no contact with the father, a specific issue order for the children to be known by alternative names and a s 91(14) order preventing the father from making further applications to the court. The guardian supported the mother’s applications.

A fact-finding hearing was convened to address allegations that the father had been violent towards the mother and that he had been radicalised by ISIS/Daesh and that that might present an additional threat to the children in the future.

The mother’s case on the issue of domestic violence was made out. However, the allegations of radicalisation were not made out. They were vague, generalised and there was no evidence he was involved with, or actively supported Daesh (or Islamic State), had openly espoused their dogma or aims or that he had encouraged others to do so. Radicalisation was a sensitive subject and there must be no suggestion that the courts would accept or tolerate any suggestion that adherents of the Islamic Faith, or any other faith, were, ipso facto, supporters of extremism.

The father had been repeatedly violent, threatening and dominated every aspect of the mother’s life before she left him, and that he had deliberately set out to intimidate and control her, using his religion, and hers, to justify and normalise his brutal and aggressive behaviour.

The court made the orders sought.

Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWFC 40

Case No: BS15P00888

IN THE MATTER OF A (A Child) (Born on 18th October 2012) and B (A Child) (Born on 2nd May 2014)

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 22/07/2016


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



1st Respondent


A & B (Children by their guardian)
2nd & 3rd Respondents
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 Miss Elizabeth Isaacs QC (instructed by Andrea Davies at DS Legal) for the Applicant
Ms Sarah Morgan QC and Mr Richard Jones (instructed by Rebecca Stevens at Withy King LLP) for the 1st Respondent
Ms Tanya Zabihi (instructed by Sheldan Price at Watkins Solicitors) for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents

Hearing dates: 13th to 24th June 2016

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re A and B [2016] EWFC 40.rtf

Financial Remedies Handbook

Formerly entitled the Ancillary Relief Handbook this is the first resort for thousands of...

More Info from £71.10
Available in Family Law Online
Family Law Online

Family Law Online

Get a FREE trial today! The fastest way to access the latest law reports, case law, commentary,...

Available in Family Law Online
Subscribe to our newsletters