A Local Authority v The Mother & Ors (Age Assessment)

The Court is concerned with a young person, P. P likes to be called G and I will call her that in this judgment. This is an unusual hearing as it is a fact finding to determine G’s age. She is either 16 as stated by her parents or 18 as she states, her birthday being either on Date 1 or Date 2. G’s mother is A; her father is B. G is represented in these proceedings by her Guardian, CG. G is a competent child but the Guardian and G’s views have not diverged so there has been no need for separate representation at this hearing. The family is originally from Country X. The application for public law orders is brought by a Local Authority (LA).

I am grateful to counsel for their assistance, Ms Sue George for the LA; Ms Kate Mather for mother; Ms Laura Briggs KC and Ms Rachel Francis for father and Mr Neil Fry for G and her Guardian. The hearing took place for three days on 12^th – 14^th August 2025. I reserved judgment with written submissions filed on 26^th August. Judgment was handed down on 18^th September at 2.00pm. I am very grateful to counsel for the sensitive way in which the matter has been handled, particularly in light of G giving evidence. I am also grateful for their written documents in this complex case.

Both parents were provided with interpreters for the three day hearing. On 24^th October 2024 a cognitive assessment of mother was completed by a clinician. She assessed her cognitive ability as falling within the extremely low range but qualified this as being impacted by cultural, educational and language considerations as cognitive assessments use Western norms. The clinician made comprehensive participation recommendations. She felt that an intermediary would not be necessary provided there was an interpreter and her guidance was followed. The Court and representatives have done their best to follow that guidance.

G was made the subject of police protection in December 2023. This followed allegations made by G against an older sibling. No further action was taken by the police due to lack of evidence. G would not give a statement although she has not withdrawn the allegations. She was accommodated under s20 Children Act 1989 with a foster carer between December 2023 and 17^th July 2024. The LA was aware that there was disagreement between G and her parents about her age and chose to treat has as 15, not 17 as she alleged. She returned to her parents’ care after they withdrew s20 consent and she agreed to return. It is not agreed the circumstances in which she gave that consent.

Following the return to her parents’ care, the LA had concerns about G being the subject of a forced marriage. The Team Manager from LA filed a statement dated 26^th July 2024 in support of a Forced Marriage Protection Order (FMPO). It sets out the LA concerns. They are not the subject of this hearing. However, an FMPO was granted by Mrs Justice Arbuthnot on 26^th July 2024 out of hours. This was coupled with a Port Alert Order and an Emergency Protection Order. The FMPO was extended on 29^th July 2025 by me sitting as a s9(1) Deputy High Court Judge. It was extended until further order and no application has yet been issued to discharge the order. The Port Alert Order has expired.

On 2^nd August 2024, the LA issued an application for public law orders and an interim care order was made on the same date. This was challenged by the parents and at a Case Management Hearing (CMH) on 12^th September 2024 directions were made for a contested hearing. The issue of G’s age was identified as a key issue and directions were given for father to circulate identity documents,

“5.

The Father shall provide by 4pm on 16.09.24 copies of G's and her siblings' passports and Country X identity documents, or at the next hearing if not possible beforehand.”

The Court provided further,

“8.

At the hearing on 19.09.24, the Court will consider:

a)

Whether G should continue to be separated from her parents, and if not, under what order she should return home;

b)

Whether or not the Court has sufficient evidence to make a preliminary decision as to G's true age and name, and if not, what assessments should be undertaken; and

c)

In the event that the issue of G’s age is resolved at that hearing, whether the matter should be listed through to a fact-finding hearing, or if not, what if any expert assessments there should be of the family and timetabling to an IRH.”

At a contested separation hearing on 19^th September, the Court continued the separation of G from her parents but identified that G’s age needed to be determined as a preliminary issue. The parents agreed,

“J. The parents agreed to lodge all their children's passports and any Country X identity documents held in relation to the children immediately and in any event not later than 4pm on 27.0.9.24 with their solicitors, and they shall not be released without agreement of all the parties or order of the court. It is noted that N's passport is held by the police, but the other children's passports are in the possession of the parents. The parents' solicitors shall inform the local authority when they have received these documents.

K. The parents agreed that G's Country X identity card shall be kept by her solicitor and her solicitor agrees that it shall not be released without written agreement of the parties or order of the court.”

On 11^th October 2024, the Court approved the instruction of two Independent Social Workers to provide an age assessment of G. This was to have been filed by 2^nd December 2024. Unfortunately, when the matter returned to Court on 19^th December there had been no progress with the age assessment and a new ISW had to be appointed: ISW1 and ISW2. Their report was to be filed by 10^th March 2025.

On 14^th March at a FCMH, the matter was listed for a one day hearing to determine N’s age. This was to be heard on 6^th May 2025. In light of the age assessment that had been received which found that her date of birth was Date 1, the LA accepted that if the Court accepted that position (which the LA did) then there would be a limited number of issues to be determined and the one day could be treated as a final hearing. The identified issues were:

“This hearing will consider:

i)

G's age assessment,

ii)

The position of the parents in light of the local authority's position that they have no locus to bring care proceedings nor to seek findings given G's age assessment, and, therefore, what orders the parents seek, and

iii)

The legal framework for G's care by the local authority if G maintains her wish not to return to her parents' care.”

The Recitals note the following,

“C. The parents dispute the outcome of the age assessment and maintain that G is sixteen years of age. Father has now located a copy of G's birth certificate which records her date of birth as Date 2. He has also located birth certificates and/or ID documents for the non-subject children and brought these to court today. The parents may want to put PD25 questions to the assessors.

D. G continues to assert, as she has done since at least January 2023, that she is two years older than her documented birth. She maintains her wish not to return to the care of her parents. She seeks the determination of these proceedings on the basis that her date of birth is Date 1 and, therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to make any order under the Children Act 1989 in respect of her.”

The parents were once again directed to produce the children’s identity documents and another direction was made,

“6.

The parents shall provide to their solicitors as soon as possible the originals of all their children's birth certificates, travel documents and ID documents and their solicitors shall arrange for these to be sent securely to the local authority for safekeeping and inspection by the age assessors as required. Details will be forwarded to the parents' solicitors from the local authority regarding where the documents should be sent and where they will be held.

7.

These documents shall be held by the local authority for no longer than is necessary for the age assessors to view these documents if required to do so by the parents. Thereafter they shall be returned to the parents.”

Permission was given for the age assessors to review the documents from the parents and for Part 25.10 questions to be put to them.

There were further delays in the questions being put to the age assessors and the hearing on 6^th May had to be vacated. Father made an application for the identity documents to be authenticated by an expert which was granted. The hearing was relisted for three days commencing on 12^th August. The delay in relisting the matter was to enable G to complete her GCSEs without the pressure of the Court proceedings.

Further issues were encountered in instructing both the expert to authenticate the documents and the subsequent instruction of an addendum age assessment. Eventually, Dr X was instructed to authenticate the ID documents. This was to be done by 27^th May 2025. ISW(1) was unavailable to work on the addendum report and father sought to instruct new ISWs. This was refused and ISW(2) was instructed to prepare an addendum following receipt of Dr X’s report and she agreed to consult with ISW(1) before finalising it.

Despite some further retimetabling, the matter was ready to proceed on 12^th August 2025.

There are disputes between G and her parents about events in her childhood and where she grew up. However, father’s evidence (contained in his witness statement dated 11^th September 2024) is that he was born in City X in Country X. He met mother as she was also from City X and they married. This was not a forced marriage but a marriage of choice. Father attended university and worked for the President of Country X in City Y following his graduation. The dates of this are not clear but father says that he fled Country X and arrived in the UK in 2001 after a very difficult journey. Mother did not go with him. His claim for asylum was refused but he was granted Exceptional Leave to Remain for four years. On 14^th September 2005 he was granted Indefinite Leave to Remain. It is father’s case that he only returned to Country X after he received Indefinite Leave. G and her older sibling was born after that date. On 15^th February 2007 father was naturalised as a British Citizen. Subsequently G’s younger sibling was born. None of the siblings are subject to proceedings.

It is not disputed that in 2016 father brought G and her older sibling to the UK with him on their British passports. They travelled regularly to Country X to visit their mother and siblings. In 2019/2020 they went to visit but had to remain due to Covid restrictions. G attended some school sessions remotely. However, in 2021 the family had to leave the country urgently with the support of the British Embassy. The manner of this exit would have been a terrible and traumatic experience for the entire family.

By the time the family arrived in the UK on a particular date, they had lost their home and were living in hotel accommodation until they could be rehoused. On 31^st August 2022, mother was granted Indefinite Leave to Remain.

Both parents have been clear throughout these proceedings that they love G; have no intention of forcing her to marry anybody and want her to return to the family home. They have concerns that she has told lies in order to gain more freedom including to marry.

The LA position is nuanced. It seeks to support G and has treated her as a child, even though she has claimed to be 18. The LA is seeking to support her to attend College to undertake a make up and beauty course; it will provide accommodation for her and she will be supported by a social worker and key worker. The LA considers that if she is not found to be 18 it will have an emotional and psychological impact on her as this is what she believes. She may need some additional support to help her with this.

The LA says that there will be no significant difference for G regardless of any finding as her life will not change. The LA would like a care order if she is found to be 16 as it would enable the LA to share parental responsibility. Even if there is no care order, G can consent to being accommodated by the LA under s20. If she is 18 the LA will continue to support her in her accommodation. In practical terms whatever age the Court decides the LA will support her.

The LA does not put a positive case for or against a particular age or a particular name. It is content to use G’s preferred name of G, not P.

Both mother and father refute G’s position and ask the Court to find that she was born on Date 2 in accordance with her authenticated identity documents. Mother has clearly been very affected by these proceedings; she suffers from an illness which she says has been exacerbated by the stress of the proceedings. She wants G back home despite the difficulty that these proceedings present and despite taking issue with her daughter in a contested and difficult hearing.

Mother and father assert that with regard to her name she has always been P. They do not accept that her original name was Z and that it was changed at a later stage to P. Z is a nickname.

CG, a very experienced Children’s Guardian, asks the Court to find that G was born on Date 1 and that she is therefore 18 years old. She asks the Court to decline jurisdiction on that basis. She is also clear that whatever the outcome of the hearing, G does not wish to return home to her parents’ care. The Guardian does not support her returning home.

In closing submissions, the Children’s Guardian makes no submissions in respect of G’s name. However, the Court has assumed that she would support G’s position that her name is Z as set out in paragraph 2 ii) of those submissions.

Unusually in care proceedings the burden of proof does not fall on the LA in respect of the assessment of age. In A Local Authority v The Mother & Onor [2022] EWHC 3043 (Fam) Lieven J was concerned with assessing the age of a young person of Afghan citizenship. She sets out the key principles to be considered of which I have identified the salient ones for these purposes.

“52.

Whether or not a person is a child is a question of objective and jurisdictional fact, which must be ultimately decided by the court. The court will come to its own conclusions on the balance of probabilities in the light of the evidence before it. These propositions are set out by the Supreme Court in R (A) v London Borough of Croydon [2009] UKSC 8, [2009] 1 WLR 2557.

53.

The approach to age assessment was summarised by Thornton J in R (AB) v Kent County Council [2020] EWHC 109 (Admin), [2020] 4 All ER 235 at [21], and I gratefully adopt the points she made. I do note that the vast majority of age assessment cases arise in the immigration context where the fundamental issue is whether the person was under or over the age of 18 when they entered the UK. Usually the age range, although it may be as large as in this case, relates to significantly older children or older people, so some of the principles are a little different here.

54.

Firstly, in reaching the determination of a person’s age, there is no concept of a burden of proof. In other words, there is no burden of proof on the applicant to prove his or her age.

55.

Secondly, the court acts in an inquisitorial role and determines age on the balance of probabilities.”

In Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35Baroness Hale at paragraph 70 said:

“I…would announce loud and clear that that the standard of proof in finding the facts necessary to establish the threshold at s31 (2) or the welfare considerations at s1 of the 1989 Act is the simple balance of probabilities, neither more nor less. Neither the seriousness of the allegations nor the seriousness of the consequences should make any difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts. The inherent probabilities are simply something to be taken into account, where relevant, in deciding where the truth lies”.

In Re A (Fact Finding: Disputed findings) [2011] 1 FLR 1817 Munby LJ observed “it is an elementary position that findings of fact must be based on evidence, including inferences that can be properly drawn from evidence and not suspicion or speculation”. The Court’s task is to make findings based on an overall assessment of all the available evidence.

In the words of Butler-Sloss P in Re T (Abuse: Standard of Proof) [2004] 2 FLR 838,

“Evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed separately in separate compartments. A judge in these difficult cases must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case put forward by the local authority has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof”.

In Re H and R (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] 1 FLR 80 Lord Nicholls comments as follows,

“The range of facts which may properly be taken into account is infinite. Facts including the history of members of the family, the state of relationships within a family, proposed changes within the membership of a family, parental attitudes, and omissions which might not reasonably have been expected, just as much as actual physical assaults. They include threats and abnormal behaviour by a child, and unsatisfactory parental responses to complaints or allegations. And facts, which are minor or even trivial if considered in isolation, taken together may suffice to satisfy the court of the likelihood of future harm. The court will attach to all relevant facts the appropriate weight when coming to an overall conclusion on the crucial issue”.

I turn now to the difficult issue that confronts judges in fact findings that not all witnesses are truthful all of the time. This was recognised in R v Lucas [1981] QB 720 that “if a court concludes that a witness has lied about a matter, it does not follow that he has lied about everything. A witness may lie for many reasons, for example out of shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress, confusion and emotional pressure”.

This was further elaborated on in H-C (Children) [2016] EWCA 136 at paragraphs 97 -100 where MacFarlane LJ endorsed the approach taken in criminal proceedings and as explained by Lord Lane CJ in Lucas,

“To be capable of amounting to corroboration the lie told out of court must first of all be deliberate. Secondly it must relate to a material issue. Thirdly the motive for the lie must be a realisation of guilt and a fear of the truth…. Fourthly the statement must be clearly shown to be a lie by evidence other than that of the accomplice who is to be corroborated, that it to say by admission or by evidence from an independent witness.”

Macfarlane LJ goes on at para 100,

“One highly important aspect of the Lucas decision, and indeed the approach to lies generally in the criminal jurisdiction, needs to be borne fully in mind by family judges. It is this: in the criminal jurisdiction the “lie” is never taken, of itself, as direct proof of guilt. As is plain from the passage quoted from Lord Lane’s judgment in Lucas, where the relevant conditions are satisfied the lie is “capable of amounting to corroboration”.”

In assessing credibility, the evidence of the parents and carers is of the utmost importance and they must have the fullest opportunity of taking part in the hearing. The court is likely to place considerable weight on the evidence they give and the impression it forms of them, given the fallibility of human memory.

“The assessment of credibility generally involves wider problems than mere “demeanour” which is mostly concerned with whether the witness appears to be telling the truth as he now believes it to be. With every day that passes the memory becomes fainter and the imagination becomes more active. The human capacity for honestly believing something which bears no relation to what actually happened is unlimited. Therefore, contemporary documents are always of the utmost importance” Mostyn J in Lancashire County Council v R & W [2013] EWHC 3064 (Fam).

In MIA, R (On the Application Of) v Dorset Council [2025] EWHC 1324 (Admin), HHJ Dight was dealing with a factual matrix not dissimilar to what faces the Court in this matter. The claimant in that case was an unaccompanied asylum seeker who said that at all material times since arrival in the United Kingdom in the summer of 2023 he has been a child, whereas the Council maintained that at all material times he has been an adult. New evidence was submitted in the form of an Afghan national identity card known as a taskira, which said it was issued on 16 April 2017 (stating that the claimant was aged 10 years old at the date of issue), alongside two expert reports confirming that in the view of the experts the taskira provided by the claimant was genuine. The judge noted: “The taskira, if the information which it bears is accurate, therefore indicates that the claimant was indeed aged 16 on arrival in the UK.”

Outlining the position of the Council, the judge said:

“At the hearing before me the defendant confirmed that it did not challenge the genuineness of the taskira. The defendant's counsel also accepted the date on which it was stated to have been issued and that the discovery and production of the taskira was a relevant matter in considering whether to re-assess the claimant's age. The essence of the defendant's position is that the information contained in or on the taskira cannot be shown to have been compiled in an appropriate way and the document is not, therefore, a reliable piece of evidence as to the true age of the claimant and it therefore follows that receipt by the defendant of a copy of the taskira did not give rise to an obligation to re-assess the claimant's age.”

HHJ Dight analyses the position of the Council as follows,

“66.

The fact that the defendant accepts that the taskira is genuine and created at the date which it bears means that it is to be taken to have some evidential value. Notwithstanding the reasons given by the defendant for its view that the taskira was unreliable, reasons which would, on their face, apply to any taskira with which it was presented, it is a form of evidence which is capable in theory of assisting in determining the age of the holder of the document. If issued by governments of other countries it would readily be accepted as conclusive proof of the information which it contains. The documents before me contain no evidenced reason as to why in this particular case the officials in Afghanistan would have created a genuine document but deliberately falsified the information on the taskira or would accidently have recorded a significantly different birth date for the claimant. In the absence of a burden of proof it is not, in my view, for the claimant to prove that the taskira was issued after an appropriate process had been undertaken.

67.

In any event the taskira shows that an official in Afghanistan had gone through a process which concluded that the claimant was born in 2007. That date, if correct, would result in the claimant being "notably…younger than initially assessed", to use the words of the ADCS Guidance. There is little room for doubt that the document is therefore capable of supporting a "significantly different conclusion" as to age and therefore, in my judgment, "might" do so.”

Father’s counsel, Ms Briggs KC also drew my attention to the authorities dealing with allegations of fraud. If, as seems to be the case that G is suggesting that the identity documents have been produced fraudulently and on the basis of false information, that suggests that not only have the Country X documents been produced as a consequence of such false information but so too have the British passports. The party alleging fraud bears the burden of proof (RP (proof of forgery) Nigeria [2006] UKAIT 00086)

From a Civil law perspective, it should be noted that any allegations of fraud or illegality must be specifically pleaded where they are relied on in support of a claim (CPR 16PD para 8.2). This means providing sufficient particularity to allow the respondent to the allegation to know the case against them.

The Court has had a full bundle of documents which I have read. If I do not refer to a particular document it does not mean that I have not read it and taken it into account.

Expert Evidence

Lay Evidence

Dr X has produced two reports, one dealing with the birth certificates and the other with the Country X ID documents of the family. He is an extremely well qualified expert and no one sought to challenge his opinions by way of written or oral questions.

Dr X was asked to consider “the original hospital – issued birth certificates and an accompanying letter from a Hospital”. Dr X considers that all the birth certificates were issued at the same time; clear from the use the same handwriting and same pens being used. They were all completed in one day. He says that,

“This type of Birth Certificate issuance from a previous hospital record book is common in Country X. Most Country X parents do not ask for hospital Live Birth certificates at the time a child is born. They ask for these documents, when they are needed for some forms of legal matters in Country X or internationally.”.

He is satisfied that the birth certificates were all issued on or prior to 15^th June 2013. He explains that the documents have been attested by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

“to enable their owners to use them internationally. Attestations are completed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs upon a formal request by the document owners (head of family/guardian). Attestations of documents in Country X means that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has caried out internal checks and confirms the truth and accuracy of the documents it attests.”

Dr X explains that the change of the surname from one name to another does not raise any cause for concern as surnames are very flexible for people from Country X.

He concludes,

“61.

In my expert opinion and based on the above-detailed forensic examinations, all 5 Birth Certificates issued to members of the family are genuine documents issued by the MoPH department and attested by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Country X.”

Dr X was asked to consider the authenticity of original electronic ID documents issued to the family for father, mother, G and her siblings .

He explains that,

“40.

Description of the Country X ID document: The ID documents listed and which scans are shown in this expert report are the most security-enabled fully digitised ID cards that a government of Country X has issued to the present day.

41.

The document's format: All ID documents, match the correct format.”

His conclusion is,

“61.

There is no need for attestations as any person literate in the English language can read all the data recorded there. In my expert opinion and based on the above-detailed forensic examinations, all 8 Country X ID documents issued to members of the family are genuine documents issued by Ministry of Interior Affairs (Equivalent to the Home Office in the UK) of Country X. ID documents are issued in English as well as two other languages.”

Dr X’s reports are clear and authoritative. No party seeks to challenge or undermine his opinions. It must follow that both the birth certificates and the ID documents are, on the balance of probabilities, authentic documents. They have been accepted by the Home Office as authentic and G has been issued with a British passport on the strength of these documents.

This is not a case where assertions are made about a young person’s age without any authentic documentary evidence.

The age assessment was carried out in accordance with the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS) Guidance. This was issued on1st January 2024. Its purpose is, “to help frontline social workers conduct age assessments of unaccompanied children seeking asylum in the UK. It contains practical advice on preparing for, and conducting, age assessments”. The Guidance sets out the difficulties and the reasons why it is necessary as follows,

“Age assessments are a controversial subject, and indeed there is a robust debate on whether social workers should complete age assessments at all. While we acknowledge the contested nature of age assessments, some children arrive in the UK whose age may be unclear, unknown or disputed. The fact remains that social workers are currently required to complete age assessments in England so as to ensure any service a child requires is provided appropriate to their age and assessed needs. Social workers, by nature of their education, experience and specialist skills in working with and interviewing vulnerable children and young people, are uniquely positioned to undertake holistic assessments. This guidance aims to support social workers seeking to make the best assessment of age possible”.

ISW(1) and ISW(2) were asked to complete their age assessment in accordance with the ADCS Guidance. They conclude in their report of 10^th March 2025 that, “G should be afforded the benefit of the doubt in respect of her claimed age and therefore, conclude that G should be treated as an 18 year old”. However, they go on to say they, “do have concerns in respect of her motivation for identifying herself to be older.”

During the course of the assessment which was over two days G informed the assessors that she was not called G but Z; that she was 18 years old and born in Country Y, not Country X. She informed the assessors that her father told her that her name was going to change when she was told she would be moving to the UK although it was not until she arrived in the UK that she understood that her date of birth and therefore her age would change and she would be treated as two years younger. She asserted that her passport had been obtained when the family was living in Country Y but visiting Country X monthly. She also believed that she had two ID documents, one of which had the correct date of birth but was missing.

The assessors commented,

“7.13.

Throughout the assessment interviews, G presented as a mature and sensible young person. She engaged fully in the assessment, was talkative and chatty and was keen to provide detail and information. We noticed that when G was answering questions, her answers were full and would often go onto other subject matters as she elaborated on details and the questions asked of her. At no point did G appear to be trying to create a narrative that was supportive of her claimed age, but rather information flowed in a response to the questions asked of her.”

G further asserted that not only is her birthday incorrect, so too is the birthday of her older sibling, who is also older than his documented age. She believes that the only correct birthday is the youngest child.

She provided an extensive history of recollections about her family to the assessors including being physically abused by one of her uncles, including when she was little and needed to go to hospital; living in City Z when a gate fell on the older sibling who had to go to hospital. She said that the stress of him being in hospital resulted in her mother being blamed for her grandmother’s death.

She described being born in Country Y and spending the first part of her life there but travelling regularly to Country X as they had a property there as well as in City Z and City A. She described an incident when a bomb went off near their home in City A “just before moving to Country X”. It is a vivid description. She recalled bombs going off in Country X as well.

She said the family moved to City Y to be with the paternal family around 2014 when she was around seven years old. She said she moved to the UK with her older sibling in 2016 when she was nine years old. It is clear from her description of the family’s departure in 2021 from City Y that it had been a very traumatic experience.

G told the assessors that she attended school in Country Y, first when she was living in City Z, the Academy; she thought she was about five or six; she then says she moved to City A where she started school again, attending for around six years; she thought she was in class five or six when she left City A. She identified the school by name. She only attended school briefly in Country X because she knew she would be moving to the UK.

The age assessors considered that G’s account was free flowing and provided a wealth of information “as well as anecdotes concerning her family”. The age assessors felt that some of the information provided were “core memories that G had rather than a narrative she was creating to support and reinforce her claimed age”.

The assessors were aware of the limitations of the age assessment, they had no documents to consider and while they consulted professionals (without any response) they did not speak to the parents or siblings. They give her the benefit of the doubt and considered she should be assessed as 18.

In the addendum (30^th June) the assessors were asked a series of questions including about the evidence of the parents and the authentication of the documents. The response is from ISW(2) as ISW (1) was not available to do the report. ISW(2) however spoke to ISW(1) before concluding the addendum.

She confirmed they had read the statements of the parents. She said that a conscious decision was taken not to speak to the parents and that it would not be routine to contact parents directly. Perhaps this is unsurprising as the ADCS Guidance was designed mainly to assess the age of unaccompanied minors. However, this is an unusual situation where there are parents who can be spoken to and who challenge the account given by G.

The assessors were provided with Dr X’s expert report. They are content to accept his opinion on the authenticity of the documents. The impact of his evidence changed the assessment of age with a conclusion that G was between 16 and 19 years old. When clarification was sought on the point ISW(2) confirmed that they accepted G’s age as per the documents that had been authenticated (email dated 7^th August 2025). In other words, she was 16 not 18.

ISW(2) gave oral evidence, confirming the methodology behind the age assessment. She was very clear that had they had the verified documents before undertaking the age assessment it would not have been undertaken. She said the documents are everything and “everything falls behind the documents”. They are verified and authenticated documents of identity and in light of that the parents’ accounts which are consistent with the documents would be given high weight despite some inconsistencies.

ISW(2) accepted that there were some inconsistencies in G’s account for example that she told the age assessors that she was born in Country Y but on 11^th June 2020 told the school that she was born in Country X, then moved to Country Y then back to Country X where there was a large house with guards who escorted the children to school. There were also inconsistencies with the timeline and while ISW(2) accepted that the dates were approximate, she also accepted that the dates were in doubt due to the documents issued in 2013. In the Child and Family Assessment dated 28^th April 2023 it was said that concerns were raised by Schools that G and her older sibling may not be the ages they claimed to be. The Social Worker reported, “Concerns have been raised about the children's ages not being correct, however, they all have British passports and have denied to me that their ages, to their knowledge, are different from that claimed.” This was not contained in the age assessment; ISW(2) was unable to explain why not.

In response to Mr Fry for the Guardian, ISW(2) said she considered G’s account to be incredibly detailed which she felt would have been challenging for G to maintain had it been fabricated but she said that the documents undermined the narrative.

In my judgment there is limited value to the age assessment save for obtaining G’s account of why she says that she is 18 not 16. That account is G’s narrative and is largely unchallenged by the assessors. They do not put inconsistencies to her. The timeline was not challenged despite the dates not being consistent even with agreed dates such as G’s arrival in the UK. This is not intended as a criticism of the age assessors who conducted the assessment in accordance with the ADCS Guidance. However, in my judgment the Guidance has not assisted in this case because there is a wealth of other evidence to be considered which is often not available when there is an unaccompanied minor. Clearly, the assessment was not assisted by the absence of identity documents which were not produced until after the age assessment was completed. Further, it would have been desirable in my view for the assessors to have spoken with the parents so they could weigh up the different accounts given by G and by the parents. The fact that G’s account was free – flowing does not make it true. An untrue account can also be free flowing.

Once they had the authenticated documents their views were very different and they accepted the authenticated documents and the information recorded in them. They would not have done the ADCS assessment had they seen these before starting.

Very careful consideration was given to G giving evidence and CG carried out a full Re W assessment dated 9^th August 2025. She recommended that G be permitted to give evidence with appropriate special measures. Counsel for the parties worked hard together to ensure that G was facilitated to give her evidence in the most effective way possible which meant that the parents attended remotely with their screens off. Obviously, this meant that the Court was unable to see their reaction to her evidence. Ms Briggs KC asked the agreed questions on behalf of all parties.

I am considering G’s evidence first it is her case that she is older than the documentary evidence and the age assessment says she is. She has a very different account of her early life to that of her parents and in my judgment, and in light of the authenticated documents she must provide at least some prima facie evidence that those documents have been produced as a result of fraud or forgery and are therefore false in order to support her account that she is older.

G has produced one statement for the Court dated 12^th August 2025. She confirms that she does not agree that she is P who is 16, born on Date 2 but instead says she is Z, born on Date 1. I have read her statement very carefully. The essence of G’s allegations are as follows:

In her oral evidence, G was equivocal about the authenticity of the identity documents; disputing that they contained accurate information. She said that she believes she was born in Country Y in City A because that was what her mother told her. This is not mother’s case. She says she was born in hospital but does not know which one; she was not born in City X at home. She had no evidence about any vaccinations she might have had at birth.

In order for her to have been born in 2007 her mother and father needed to have conceived her in around April/May 2006. She accepted that father had paid for his Nationality Checking Service in cash on 19^th May 2006 so must have been in UK. She also accepted that her mother did not come to the UK until 2021 and was not here in 2006 (having previously suggested that she was here on a visitor’s visa).

When she was questioned about the timeline for her education, she was very confused and unclear. She was also unclear about where she lived and with whom. She said that she went to City Z straight after she was born; lived with extended family; it was her paternal grandparents’ house although she had previously said all her grandparents lived in Country X. She said they had a house in City Z.

She gave very unclear evidence about the school she attended in City Z; first of all saying that she did not remember sending ISW(1) the name of the school while doing the age assessment; then saying that she did not remember what she had said to ISW(1) and finally saying that she did “not accept it was an Academy in City Z”. She did not know how she would have been registered. She said she did not know if she had given ISW(1) a false name for the school.

She agreed that she did say she had attended a school in City A and had lived in City A for about six years. She was in the right class in City A. It was put to her that the dates she has provided simply do not add up

She agreed that this did not work but then said she did not remember fully; nor could she build into the timeline any time in City Y. She either denied that she had been there or said she could not remember.

I’m afraid I found this part of her evidence lacking in credibility. Far from being free flowing and credible, I found there was little substance to what she was saying and she was unable to explain how she had come about the information she was asserting was true.

G’s evidence about when she saw the paper ID document and whether she saw it in Country X or the UK was sadly very confused. She said that father told her he had lost it but she said she had seen it in 2016 when visiting Country X; she thought she had seen it again when she was in the UK maybe in 2017/2018, before the family’s exit from Country X. She believed she had two paper ID documents. She had no knowledge about converting the paper ID documents to electronic ID documents in 2019. She thought the documents may have been altered in 2013 when father first obtained the passports.

G believed that it would be easy for her father to have obtained false documents in Country Z. The basis for this seemed to be that her grandparents lived there and a sibling told her that he had gone to Country Z. She was very vague about the substance of the allegation but said that she believed father had obtained false documents between the date of the age assessment (10^th March 2025) and the hearing on 14^th March she had no answer but to repeat that she believed he did obtain fake documents.

She repeated the allegations about her siblings’ ages having been altered but was unable to explain the discrepancies in the dates of conception and birth for her older sibling or why she has said to the school that her younger sibling was born in UK as he was not (Cpom dated 7^th February 2023). However, she was adamant that he was born in Country Y not City Y. She denied that the family ever lived in City Y; only visited. She did not accept the notes from the age assessment that the family lived in City Y for two years.

Although Ms Briggs KC put questions to N about her possible motivation for lying there were no clear answers from G.

I’m afraid I found G’s evidence largely unreliable. Although superficially she seemed to have a story wholly at odds with that of her parents; there was no real substance to it. She was unable to account for the very significant inconsistencies; when she was challenged about matters she could not explain, she said she could not remember and her allegations about the documents being bought/obtained in order to deal with the age assessment lacked any evidential basis at all. The LA, Guardian and age assessors put weight on the anecdotal incidents including allegations of domestic abuse, the bomb going off in City A and the gate falling on her older sibling. There is no evidence of any of these incidents apart from what G says. Both parents deny any knowledge of these incidents, although mother was perhaps too dismissive and accepting of the allegation of domestic abuse.

Unlike the Guardian and the age assessors, I do not consider her account was free flowing and substantive thereby giving it more credibility. In my judgment it was fractured and lacking in substance. While her motivation seems unclear, it seems likely that she wanted more independence and freedom, possibly even to marry at an earlier age than her parents would have wished; alternatively, to be free from the pressures of a more traditional cultural family life.

I can give little weight to G’s account of her history and age.

I have no doubt that mother loves all her children very much and that at present her focus is on G returning to the family home. She is in an invidious position. If she accepts that G is 18 and does not contest what she is saying then G will be treated as an adult and will be able to choose what she does. If she is found to be 16 then mother hopes she will be returned home despite the difficulties and recriminations of these proceedings. The relationship is clearly fractured.

Mother is a person with vulnerabilities, having a diagnosis of an illness, some breathing difficulties for which she has been prescribed an inhaler and having suffered four miscarriages since arriving in the UK. She does not speak English and has been assisted by an interpreter. Her mother tongue is a language and she speaks fluently in another language. She does not read or write any language. These proceedings and the loss of G into care have clearly taken their toll on her and she appeared to be very nervous and anxious. She seems to have lost weight during the proceedings and appeared very drawn and strained. However, she did her very best giving evidence and I am sure she tried to assist the Court.

Mother has filed four statements which I have read. She gave oral evidence that she and father lived in the same village, City X and the family used to visit each other’s homes. They were married when she was 15. Father used to travel a lot with his job and she remained in City X. The father then went to Country Y and then left for London. She remained in City X. Before then she had had two children both of whom died.

In her first statement she confirms that G’s name is P and her date of birth Date 2 although in her oral evidence she said she could not remember what year she was born. She explains that P is her given name but that she has been known by the nickname “Z” which mother says is from her mother tongue. She confirms that P also calls herself a different name, used on her WhatsApp profile. Mother says that the other children also have nicknames. Mother says is sometimes known as one nickname and father as another nickname but these are not their family names, just informal ones.

Mother says in her statement that she gave birth to G at home in Country X, father was in the UK at the time. In oral evidence she confirmed that this was City X. She explains that the hospital was a long way from the village and she attended a local clinic run by an NGO where G had vaccinations and later boosters. In response to Ms George she explained that the vaccination card was a particular colour; would have the date of birth recorded and it can be taken to a hospital where the birth can be registered. Mother said that she took G to the vaccinations within 2 -3 weeks of the birth. She no longer has the vaccination card. Father dealt with all the birth registration at the hospital.

Mother denied that G was born in Country Y; that she went to school in City Z or City A. She confirmed that while G had visited Country Y she had never lived there; she thought she had made up stories about life there from the occasions she had visited. In particular the family visited Country Y when G’s paternal grandmother was ill; they visited again in order to get TB tests. She denied that there had been a bombing just outside the house where they stayed. It was mother’s opinion that she had picked up information from the girls she lived with at the immigration hotel where they all lived when they came to the UK in 2021; she could not understand why she had not provided this information before now.

She agreed that the family had been in City Z when the paternal grandmother was ill but this was only temporary. She did not seem to know about the gate falling on the older sibling but said it was not something that happened in City Z.

In her third statement she explains that it was only after the age assessment that father asked where other documents might be found and he then started searching for them. She suggested they might be in the loft. Mother said she was not involved in the search and cannot read the documents. She says, “I understand that all the documents my husband produced in March were previously shown to his solicitors”. She was clear in her oral evidence that he did not obtain them after he realised there was an issue with her age; she thought it would be very difficult to do so.

Mother confirmed that the move in 2016 was a planned move. The main reason was education although the situation was changing in Country X. She said that father was responsible for all the arrangements. She did not move until 2021. Although she had applied previously, she did not pass the language test. In the end she came in the chaos of their exit from Country X in 2021. She had not visited in 2004 or 2006.

Mother could not account for G telling lies save that she knows that when she is 18, she can do as she wishes in the UK and she wants to be free.

I thought mother was an honest witness who was trying to help the court with her evidence. While there were a number of things she was unable to remember clearly, for example she was not good with dates, her accounts of the births in City X; the vaccination procedure and her life in Country X came across as genuine. She was very clear that she had never lived for any lengthy period of time in Country Y; she accepted they had visited on a number of occasions, most particularly when her mother in law was ill. I thought this evidence was credible. There certainly seemed to be no opportunity for her to forge or fabricate any documents relevant to these proceedings.

I am sure that father loves all of his children and wants what is best for them. He has worked very hard to bring them to the UK and to provide a settled and safe home for them. He is clearly very worried about his daughter, G. He would like G to return home to the family and he assures the court that he would allow her to have appropriate freedom “and not force her to do anything against her wishes”. He did not feel able to tell his family about what is happening because social services involvement is considered to be shameful.

Father explains in his first statement that he was born in City X in Country X and he met mother who was also from City X. Theirs was not an arranged marriage, they decided to marry and did so on a particular date. I have dealt with the other aspects of father arriving in the UK in the background section and will not repeat it here although he confirmed to Mr Fry that he entered the UK illegally from France. He was granted Exceptional Leave to Remain on 17^th March 2001. He only returned to Country X after he was granted Indefinite Leave on 14^th September 2005. It was put to him that he went to Country X in 2006 and G was conceived then and born in 2007. He was clear that did not happen because the older sibling was born before G. It was suggested that he had lied about that sibling’s age as well and that he was already shaving in year 6. The school records suggest that the older sibling does present as older but there are no concerns and he is accepted by his peer group.

In his first statement he is clear that G was born on Date 2 not Date 1 and that her name is P. He says that she has heard the name Z in Indian dramas and wanted that as a nickname. In his third statement dated 9^th May 2025 (after the first age assessment report) father explains that he shared an electronic copy of G’s British passport on 12^th September 2024, the original is held by the police. He says that he brought all the children’s ID documents to a hearing some months previously. He could not find the younger child’s and still has not. He reports that the only ID document the social worker was interested in was G’s and that was taken by her solicitor at the hearing on 19^th September and remains with her solicitor. This account seems credible. If he fabricated the documents or arranged for their fabrication why not do it for all of the children. It seems inconsistent.

On 14^th March he brought the birth certificates for the sibling group together with the younger child’s ID document together with evidence of his naturalisation to Court. He explains that he had never been asked to provide the children’s birth certificates and he only found them prior to the hearing on 14^th March 2025. He said he located them in the zipped pocket of a suitcase stored in the garage of the family home a couple of months previously. Although this is different to where mother suggested he search this is not in my view significant. He explains that when they left Country X in 2021 they were under huge pressure; frightened and it was chaotic. He said they packed what they could; some suitcases went missing and he cannot locate the younger child’s birth certificate or the younger child’s ID document. He thinks the Birth Registration Cards may also have gone missing.

He goes on to explain that between 2013 and 2019 he applied for British passports for all the children; he could do this because he held a British passport. He explained that he sent birth certificates, ID documents and vaccination cards to the British Embassy in Country X. He also had to submit DNA tests to confirm the children were his. The passports were issued following the necessary checks.

Father is clear in his fifth statement that G could not have been conceived in 2006 as he and mother were in different countries. He was in the UK and in the process of being naturalised as a British Citizen; mother was in Country X. She did not come to the UK before 2021. He is clear that apart from a short period of time in 2013/2014 the family did not live in Country Y and all of the children apart from the youngest were born in City X. He explained that representatives from the NGOs would administer vaccines and would provide vaccination cards which contained the dates of the vaccination, the date of birth of the child, the name if the child and the father’s name as well. The vaccination cards were presented to the local registry in City X and the paper ID documents and birth certificate were issued in City Y.

In oral evidence he confirmed that he took the vaccination cards to obtain the birth certificates but did not do so straight away. He registered all the births (apart from the younger sibling) at the same time in 2013 in order to obtain the British passports.

He explains in his statement that in 2018/2019 the government of Country X adopted an electronic ID document system and the paper documents had to be lodged with the Central Registry, verified against the information held and electronic ID documents issued. Father confirms that the paper ID document contained the correct information about G and was handed to Central Registry.

In his oral evidence father said he believed that G had picked up information from the girls living in the immigration hotel and had repeated it. He said that it was only in 2023 that she began to say that she was two years older than she is and he did not understand why she would not have raised it before with her teachers and other adults. He was clear that G was lying and following her own agenda.

It is father’s evidence that the family lived in City X until 2013 then moved to City Y. However, his mother was unwell and had to have surgery which she had in City Z. He rented a property in City Z and the family stayed for 8/9 months until she died and then they returned to City Y. He is clear that neither he nor the family own property in City Z or City A.

He is also clear that none of the children attended school in Country Y; he has no knowledge about any bomb that went off near the family home or near school. He confirmed that G attended school in City Y for about a year and a half. She was registered using the paper ID document which had her date of birth as Date 2. She was in a class based on her age and the school was a School. He was clear in his oral evidence that N had never attended school in Country Y and the schools she had identified would not have been affordable in any event.

With regard to the travel to Country Z, father accepts that he did go to Country Z twice this year but not between 10^th and 14^th March 2025. He went from 24^th to 28^th February and from 4^th to 17^th April 2025. He says he did not obtain any identification documents during that trip.

Father is clearly very upset by the proceedings and the involvement of social services in his family’s life. He has tried hard to work with them but at the beginning when G had been removed and there was no contact it was very challenging. I am satisfied that father was an honest witness who tried to assist the Court. Given the allegations made by G it must follow that the essence of her allegation is either he acquired false authentic ID documents or he tampered with the documentation on which the ID documents are based. This was not put to him expressly and there is no evidence on which to make such an allegation. His evidence in respect of how he dealt with the documentation and obtained the birth certificates, the ID documents and the passports was entirely credible. In particular it is of note that he said he had to lodge the vaccination certificates with the British Embassy in order to obtain the passports. These would have been the most contemporaneous documents to the births.

In my judgment father’s evidence should be regarded as largely reliable. There may be some discrepancies for example he could not remember if he was at G’s birth and he suggested she might be 5 or 6 when her grandmother died in 2013 which would suggest she was older. I do not consider these undermine his evidence in any significant way.

On behalf of G the Guardian adopts the position of G that it is more likely that she was born on Date 1 than Date 2. The Guardian submits that on father’s own case he would not have been safe to have returned to Country X before he received a British passport in 2007 given his refugee status, granted in 2001 due to the threat from a force and that on his own admission he has only returned twice since 2021 and that was because he had a British passport and his job working for the President was a long time ago. The Guardian suggests it is curious that he says he got Indefinite Leave to Remain in September 2005 and returned to be reunited with his wife. Mr Fry submits that given the risks it was more likely that father would have returned to be with his wife in Country Y during the period between being granted Exceptional Leave to Remain on 1st March 2001 and British citizenship on 15^th February 2007.

Without wishing to embark on the politics of the situation, this submission seems to me to be misconceived. Given the presence of troops in Country X there seems to have been little to prevent father from travelling to Country X after he was granted Indefinite Leave. Apart from G stating that they lived in Country Y, there is no other evidence that they did. Both parents accept that they visited occasionally and had one longer stay from 2012/2013 when father’s mother was ill.

The submissions on the part of G appear to me to be entirely speculative, based on her somewhat muddled account of her childhood. It would have been possible for G to have called other evidence from family to support what she said about her early childhood. None was called. It is suggested that it was for the parents to produce a photo album/ more details of G’s childhood but they failed to do so. G is alleging that the parents are lying; there is no burden of proof on the parents.

The Guardian’s submissions suggest that the limited number of text messages provided to the Court from G’s uncle and older sibling in which she is called another name suggest it was more likely that she was called another name. Obviously, the Court has only seen these messages, there may be many more in which she is called P or G. Those that are exhibited prove nothing more that she was called by what her mother says was her nickname, by an older sibling and an uncle.

The Guardian submits that the change in name was somehow to change identity, saying, “Being a member of the President’s particular group of appointees, on which the father’s application for asylum to the UK was based, put him and his family at risk”. Again, the timing for this does not seem to me to support this proposition. In 2013, troops were still in Country X and the force was not in power. There would have been no reason that I can understand for G’s first name to be changed to another name but for none of her siblings names to be changed nor for her parents to change their names.

The Guardian’s submissions regarding the accuracy of the information on the ID documents relate to the absence of any underlying, contemporaneous documents that relate to the birth; it was a home birth and there are no hospital records, only the vaccination cards which are not before the Court.

The Guardian relies on the age assessment and the conclusion in the original report that G should be give the benefit of the doubt and assessed as 18. It is submitted on behalf of G that the age assessors are blinkered in their acceptance of the authenticated documents because the documents might be authentic but the information contained in them is not necessarily true. It is further submitted that they failed to balance the view they had formed of G’s account being detailed and free flowing and therefore needing a higher weighting, against the documentation, simply accepting the view of the document authenticator.

The Guardian submits that G’s assertion about her age is a deeply held conviction and has remained the same both before and after entering foster care; it has been consistent to professionals. The Court is invited to find that G is the age she claims to be.

The LA takes a neutral stance but points to some of the pieces of evidence that it asks the Court to take into account. These include:

The LA repeats it position that it will support G whatever the Court’s decision

I will deal with the parents’ submissions together.

Ms Briggs KC and Ms Francis point out the very significant consequences that a finding that G is 18 will have, not least the change in the sibling dynamic; she will become the eldest child; she will be an adult; potentially her British citizenship will be at risk because if the finding is made that she is 18 she will have been born before father became a British citizen.

The issue for the Court is summarised in paragraph 6 of father’s submissions,

“There are authenticated documents proving G’s date of birth. The allegation made on G’s behalf, and on which the burden of proof rests with G, is that the father provided false information to the Country X Government on registering her birth in or around 2013, changing her birth date by 2 years from Date 1 to Date 2. In common with G’s alleged given name, P, no document exists which records this as her date of birth”.

I accept the submission on behalf of father that while the Court conducts an inquiry into a child’s age and there is no burden of proof on the LA or the child in general terms, in this instance the child is making a serious allegation of falsification against the parents and it is for her to prove that the authenticated documents have been produced by the Country X government with an incorrect birth date. It is not for the parents to have to further prove the authenticity of the documents. On the balance of probabilities, they are authentic.

The issues raised by HHJ Dight in MIA (ibid) are directly relevant. The Court must give due weight to the authenticated documents and consider why the Country X officials would have created an authentic document containing incorrect information. Further, but for the documents having been created in Country X, the question of the accuracy of the underlying information would not have been called into question. In the words of HHJ Dight, “it would have readily been accepted as conclusive proof of the information which it contains.” The age assessors being very experienced ISWs did not seek to query the validity of the identity documents and the information contained therein.

Father’s submissions contain very detailed information about the documentary process for providing birth certificates in Country X. It is submitted that the parents’ evidence is in line with that process. There is a clear reference to the need for vaccination certificates in order to obtain the birth certificates and if the birth is a home birth the certificate can be obtained at a later date.

The Court is asked to look at all the evidence in the round including the identity documents; the expert evidence; the sibling accounts; the professional records; G’s account and the parental accounts. The Court agrees that this is a holistic process and none of the individual aspects of the evidence should be looked at in isolation.

On behalf of mother and father it is submitted that the parents gave their evidence helpfully and were consistent with what they have reported during the proceedings.

They ask the Court to find that G is 16 not 18 and that her date of birth is Date 2 and her name is P.

I remind myself that the Court has to make its decisions based on evidence. That evidence can take many forms but when finding facts the Court should not base its decisions on suspicion and speculation (Munby LJ in Re A (ibid)). It appears to me that that the LA and the Guardian have to some extent lost sight of that simple proposition. The Court has to analyse the evidence before it and while it can draw inferences and reach conclusions based on all of the evidence (the wide canvas) it has to be evidentially based.

The simple position in this case is that G is said to be 16. She has been treated as such since her arrival in the UK in 2016. She has authenticated travel documents and a birth certificate to support this. It was not until 2023 that the issue of her and her siblings’ ages was raised. They have never been raised by any third party only by G. But for the fact that she is from Country X it seems to me very unlikely that the LA would have taken seriously a 14 year old child’s allegations that she is two years older than she is documented to be.

While the Court conducts an inquiry into age, it must be for G to bear the burden of showing that the documentation contains false information. The only evidence for this is from G herself. There is no independent third party or other evidence to support what she says or to raise concerns that she is not the age recorded in the documentation. Even the first age assessment is based wholly on G’s account.

It is against this backdrop that the Court needs to analyse the evidence.

I accept the evidence of Dr X that the birth certificates and the ID documents are authentic. On the balance of probabilities, the Country X authorities must have had underlying information to support the information recorded in those documents. The father and mother’s evidence was clear that vaccination certificates would have been necessary in order to obtain the documents. I accept that evidence; it is in line with the publicly available information provided by father’s counsel. While I have not seen the vaccination certificates, there is no evidence before this court that false information was provided to the public authorities in order to obtain false documentation. Speculation that father might have done so or that he was in a sufficiently influential position to obtain false documents is not evidence.

While it is said that in 2013 the father was planning to obtain passports and move to London, he cannot have assumed that he would obtain passports; further he must have known that in order to obtain British passports there would be a high level of scrutiny of the documents provided in support. On his evidence he had to submit all the documentation including the vaccination certificates to the Embassy and thence to the Passport Office in London. There is no evidence that any queries were raised by the Passport Office and the children were issued with British passports. If what is now said by G is accepted namely that the underlying evidence is false, then that suggests that the scrutiny provided by the Passport Office was inadequate and failed to pick up false information. That seems to me unlikely given the scrutiny given to those seeking British passports from war torn parts of the world and Country X, in particular.

I also accept that the age assessors are very experienced in their task. It is of significance that if they had known there were authentic birth certificates and ID documents they would not have undertaken the assessment. In my view this is not an abdication of responsibility but an acknowledgement that the best evidence is to have authentic documents and if there are such documents there is no need for further assessment. It is clear from the ADCS Guidance that the assessment of age by ISW(1) and ISW(2) is imperfect. It is therefore entirely understandable that if there are valid documents the imperfect assessment is not required. I endorse what was said by HHJ Dight in MIA that but for the documents being created in Country X, “it would readily be accepted as conclusive proof of the information which it contains”. I also remind myself of the words of Mostyn J in Lancashire County Council (ibid) that given the fallibility of human memory documentary evidence is of the utmost importance.

The parents do not have to prove that the underlying information is valid; it is for G to show that it is false. There is no such evidence.

This aspect of the jigsaw must be given considerable weight.

G now alleges that a number of her siblings’ ages have been altered. The siblings do not agree with this; they were asked by the social worker in 2023 and raised no concerns; when they were spoken to as part of the Child and Family Assessment in January 2024 no allegations were made about their ages. In fact, both the children appeared happy and contented and raised no issues with the social worker. On G’s case she has known about the change in age and name since she came to the UK in 2016 with her older sibling. This means that they would have known about it and would also have known that their ages had changed. However, there is no mention of it to anyone; no mention from her older siblings that G’s name and age has changed nor theirs. It seems incredible and implausible that none of the schools have noted this and the children have all kept silent about it until 2023 when it was first raised by G.

In the absence of any allegations from the siblings, there is little evidence to support the allegations. Father and mother could not have been together at the conception of the older sibling if G’s case is accepted as father had not yet received Indefinite Leave to Remain (in September 2005). I accept his evidence that until he received that, he did not leave the UK as he would have had no right to return. I reject the Guardian’s submissions that after 2001 and before he obtained Indefinite Leave it is likely that he travelled to Country Y. There is no evidence at all that that happened; it is pure speculation.

It appears that G has lied about the changes to her siblings’ ages in order to maintain the sibling hierarchy, otherwise she would become the eldest which has never been her case. I agree with Father’s submissions that these are lies from G to support her case and not for any Lucas reason.

G made no report of any name change or birth date change until 2023, having arrived in 2016. While it is said by the age assessors, the LA and the Guardian that she has been consistent, in fact it is only for a relatively short period of time since 2023. Further what she has reported has not always been consistent, varying between being about to be 17 in her first report in 2023 and on 7^th February she says she is 16. None of the professionals had a concern about her age until she raised it.

I consider the LA, the Guardian and the age assessors in their first report have given too much weight to the alleged consistency of her account, without analysing why this was only raised in 2023 after being in the country for some seven years, in a number of schools and spoken to in 2018 by social services. There seems to have been a complete lack of challenge to her account or curiosity as to its accuracy

I have already dealt with my view of G’s evidence and have found it to be unreliable and far from clear and detailed or a free flowing account. Little weight can be put on her alleged recollections. Whether they are deliberate lies; information she has gleaned from others such as the girls with whom she spent time in the immigration hotel or as her mother suggested a story built partly on her experiences of spending some time in Country Y and partly a mixture of other influences is very unclear. She has some acknowledged mental health difficulties and it cannot be underestimated the stresses and difficulties of living in Country X, coming to the UK and having to start again without her mother and then returning and being unable to leave. Escaping from City Y in 2021 must have been terrifying. Her desire to lead a different life to that of her parents and family appears to be the motivation behind her wish to be older.

Whatever the reason for her version of events she is now unable to move away from it or withdraw it. She has repeated it so often in these proceedings that she may even believe it to be true.

I have dealt with the parents’ accounts above and find that they are consistent and credible. There has been unsupported and unevidenced suspicion thrown on father by both the LA and the Guardian that he somehow has sufficient influence with the Country X authorities that as long ago as 2013 he was able to have authentic birth certificates falsified for his children so that they could have additional years of education in the UK as and when he was ever able to get them to the UK. It is wholly implausible and there is not a shred of substantive evidence to support this, just suspicion and conjecture based on his nationality and his supposed high status within a regime that has long since gone.

I found both parents to be credible; to have tried their best to help the Court in very difficult and distressing circumstances with allegations made against them that are hard to disprove. Mother, in particular should not be criticised for not being able to remember or answer all the questions. She has vulnerabilities that must be taken into account when assessing her evidence, added to which there are cultural aspects that make it difficult.

In my judgment, having considered all the evidence before the Court and taking into account the role of the court to assess the child’s age as an inquisitorial process, I find that G’s date of birth is Date 2 and that her registered name is P.