X Local Authority v M & Ors

M Respondents

F

THE CHILD “C”

I will now give an ex tempore judgment in this matter. I am dealing with case number LV25C50230 and in addition the deprivation of liberty application that has been made by the Local Authority in respect of the child, C. C was born in 2009. She is presently

The matter is listed today for an issues resolution hearing or early final hearing. As will become apparent in this ex tempore judgment, the matter will in fact proceed as a final hearing today.

The background to the applications is deeply troubling. This is a child who has been known to the Local Authority for a considerable period and in fact has been subject to Section 20 provision of accommodation by the Local Authority since as long ago as March 2024. She was made the subject of an interim care order and initial declaration of deprivation of liberty safeguards in April 2025, just over 12 months thereafter.

The chronology and the social work evidence template documents reveal a very troubling history of this young girl being exploited by adult Kurdish males. The chronology in terms of that exploitation begins as long ago as September 2023 when C was reported to have lots of love bites on her neck and she reported that her boyfriend, then said to be Z was 14 years of age. However, the school felt that C was lying about his age and provided information that C was travelling on trains to go and meet him.

In September 2023 social services received a referral from the police who had concerns that she was associating with an adult male. She was said to be travelling to Stoke-onTrent to see an adult male who had been supplying her with money, vapes, and possibly drugs. At that stage she would have been 14.

There were missing episodes on 8^th October 14^th October and on 17^th October. The

Information was then received on 9^th January 2024 from the father that she was away from the family home frequently and the parents were not clear on where she was going. The father indicated at that stage that C was beyond their control. C was not prepared to share details of where she had been staying, saying that she wanted privacy. However, she did show pictures to professionals and the police of mattresses on floors of rooms that she had been staying in and spoke about having friends in Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester. The social worker in addition to this observed C speaking Kurdish to unknown people on the telephone and C showed the social worker pictures of her “friends” on Snapchat in Morocco, Italy and Syria.

On 24^th January 2024 information was obtained from telecoms through C’s phone that she was in regular contact with a range of unknown adults and spending a significant amount of time outside of the family home. The most frequent locations at that time were believed to be Congleton, Macclesfield and Leeds. It was also felt that there was a male that C referred to as “Y”, an adult from Leeds, and she had travelled to see him by train often late at night.

On 1^st February 2024 C reported that she wished to be known by the name “S” as that was her new Muslim name. She spoke about her current boyfriend, Y. She described him physically and where he lived. She said that she was struggling with her emotional wellbeing, she was feeling very low, struggling to sleep at night and when she awoke she awoke crying and was having flashbacks but was unable to describe what the flashbacks were about.

On 9^th February 2024 C had informed her parents that the social worker had agreed to her travelling to a friend’s home. The emergency duty team asked the parents to ensure that C was home safe or report her missing. The parents were unable to contact her. The father said he would report C to the police as missing. Police information suggested that she may be in London overnight. She returned the following day. Professionals remained unclear as to where she had been.

On 2^nd March 2024 C had gone missing from home again. She was located with another girl called K and C was searched due to a smell of cannabis, and she was found to be in possession of a knife which was wrapped in a turban and an additional telephone which had not been supplied by social care. C reported that she was holding the knife for an unknown person but would not give any more details being fearful of the consequences.

On 15^th March 2024 she had been missing for nearly 24 hours.

On 16^th March, she was still missing. Train tickets initially indicated that she had bought two tickets to go to Manchester Piccadilly and the situation was managed by

On 19^th March C was located in Manchester having been missing for three/four days and was made subject to a police protection order as the police did not feel it was safe or appropriate to return her to the home address as she was likely to go missing again. Police on that day arrested four adult males linked to C in relation to child abduction and sexual offences. It was believed that exploitation had been arranged or facilitated and that other males across the UK were involved and it was noted that C had bruising to her right arm. She had sustained soft tissue damage to her wrist and was given a brace.

On 22^nd March 2024 C disclosed sexual activity during her most recent missing episode and reported this to be consensual with her boyfriend but would not give details.

On 26^th March 2024 C informed a social worker that she had tested positive for chlamydia.

On 30^th August 2024 police visited C. There were concerns around her being groomed and radicalised. She appeared dirty and unclean, unbrushed hair with small braids in and unclean clothes. She said that she had slept alone in a park all night despite telling friends and intelligence to suggest that she was with Y, her boyfriend. He was on court bail with a condition not to be with her.

C was reported as spending a lot of time with this male. She said that she had lots of male friends as well as Y. C was reported as trying to convert over to being Kurdish. There were concerns about her being radicalised. She was being secretive about her friendships and her relationships.

On 2^nd September 2024 during the police safe and well check the attending officer stated that C should not be in contact with Y as it violated his bail conditions. Despite this C sent two messages to him including:

“You mean everything to me. I hope you can forgive me. I can’t live without you. I am so sorry for everything”.

Y responded with:

“Because I have no one in Britain I love you and this problem came. What is the problem with you? You are happy in my life and I am happy with you in your life. I don’t want anything to be betrayed in this country because I live here”.

On 11^th September 2024 C was reported as missing from placement. At 3.37am the following morning C was arrested and held in custody at a Police Station after being arrested for assaulting a police officer.

On 26^th January 2025 C reported to staff at her placement that she wished to get married when she turns 16.

On 30^th January 2025 C received the following message from her auntie:

“[A] love you dearly and you will always have a place in my heart, but what you are doing is breaking the family, especially your parents. You are white British and should not be wearing that turban thing on your head. It is insulting to our country. Also, you are being groomed by dirty paedophilic Muslims. I don’t understand how you don’t see this is wrong”.

C reported this to the police as “a hate crime”. Staff offered her emotional support and tried to explore her feelings around this, but C left and went to speak to her friends on the phone.

On 7^th March 2025 C was given several wake-up calls and responded at 1pm. She came downstairs and had a moan about the internet being down. Staff advised that the whole

On 13^th March 2025 C opened a package in front of staff and there was a card that read “to my wife”. It had been delivered to the door. C quickly took off the packaging with tracking details however staff managed to get photos of the packaging and the card.

On 14^th March 2025 C was speaking to a male in the kitchen on her telephone whilst cooking various meals for the mosque. C had various conversations with possibly two different males. During the conversation one of the males told C he really liked her and loved her. C said in Kurdish “me too”. She translated this for him. It transpires that C has taught herself to speak Kurdish fluently.

On 15^th March 2025, according to a placement report, C could be heard coming out of her room as she was at the top of the stairs the bedroom staff could hear C on the phone. She mentioned to the person on the phone “he’s offered me £200”.

On 25^th March 2025 C was on the phone to someone who went on to say that he wanted to have sex with her and she shrugged off his comments as “cheeky”. The male asked her for a kiss and when she said she was busy he grew defensive and told her “not to call again” and “to fuck off”. Both talked about being “freshies” and which nationalities “were not welcome here”. The man said “(he) will have sex with her” and said “(he) will show her something”. C said “there are people in the room with (her)”; the man put the phone down and C called him back. The male said he wanted to see

The view of the professionals based on all of the evidence that has been received on a multi-agency basis including reports from C herself is that C has converted to the Islamic faith and religion. She will wear a Hijab. She has learnt the Kurdish language to enable her to speak privately to unknown males online. She has historically been sexually abused, raped and trafficked by males that she has met online. There are significant concerns held by the professionals and the police around radicalisation of C and there is a real possibility that the adult males are likely to be using their religious beliefs and ideology to befriend C, to make her feel accepted and loved. However, these males have set out to exploit and radicalise her as well as to abuse her sexually.

C is deemed to be a flight risk. She has said that she wishes to move to Kurdistan when she is 16 to get married.

Within the proceedings a psychological report was prepared in respect of C and I read from page 4 of the report of Dr P:

“C presents with a complex psychological profile. She is a young person with unmet care needs and developmental trauma. This has resulted in C struggling with emotional difficulties. She becomes dysregulated. She experiences emotional distress but cannot endure those feelings. She does not have functional coping strategies. She has developed a narrative about her own lived experiences which is confused and contradictory.

I hypothesise that her narrative in terms of her religiosity and Kurdish background is a way of coping with her emotional distress and actual or perceived rejection. She also struggles with her social relationships. She is vulnerable to entering into relationships that may be characterised by coercion and control. She enters into social relationships to get her needs met. She has limited awareness of the risks within these relationships. With care givers she can adopt a rejecting role.

C presents with significant behavioural challenge. She can become aggressive. She engages in high levels of risk-taking behaviours such as running away, entering into vulnerable situations as well as self-harm and suicidal ideation. C’s understanding of risk and the concerns is limited and superficial.

It is my view that C is at significant risk in terms of keeping herself safe. This is currently being managed through intensive behavioural restrictions. However, I hypothesise that if those restrictions are lifted the risks will re-surface. To support C there are two key areas of support. She has unmet care needs. However given her age and her attachment profile it would be difficult to begin to meet her care needs. Instead, support should focus on individual therapeutic interventions as outlined alongside managing risks. However, there are concerns as C may not engage with therapeutic support. The goal will be to work with C on engagement and support her to develop a therapeutic relationship. Without change there are significant concerns in all aspects of her psychological profile in the future as she enters adulthood”.

Since C became a cared for child she has had numerous placement moves. Indeed her fifth residential placement at B Home she entered earlier this year. She then moved to D Home which commenced in May 2025, a 16 week assessment. She is currently placed in E Home and has been there since August 2025. She has engaged well with the staff at E Home and settled well. The Local Authority plan is for her to remain in E Home pursuant to a care order, but buttressed also by deprivation of liberty declaration safeguards. Therapeutic work is due to start with C next week including EMDR therapy. She will also be working with CAMHS.

Unfortunately, her familial relationships appear to have broken down. She last saw her parents for direct face-to-face contact in February 2025. She has not spoken to her mother recently although, as I understand it, she has had some telephone contact with her father.

The current placement is a solo residential placement and the deprivation of liberty safeguards are sought as a final order for a period of 12 months. In terms of the restrictions that are sought by the Local Authority, they would be:

The parents recognise that they cannot provide good enough, safe enough care for C

There was one issue around disclosure. The Court had previously made, some

C has not engaged well at all with the children’s guardian. However, she has met

The children’s guardian also requests that the Local Authority hold onto C’s passport in light of her stated intention to go to Kurdistan when she is 16, and in addition the guardian advocates for ‘all ports alerts’ to prevent her from leaving the UK.

The advocates for the parties have managed to agree a threshold document which is before me and I read that threshold into the judgment. At the time the Local Authority took protective measures on 15th April 2025 – (there will need to be an amendment of course to remove “reasonable grounds”):

“C was suffering and/or was likely to suffer significant harm by reason of her being beyond parental control. The Local Authority rely upon the events occurring on or before 15th April being the date that proceedings were issued.

She was beyond parental control as evidenced by the following:

The parents were often unaware of her whereabouts. British Transport Police found C at Z Train Station in September 2024 at 21 minutes past midnight. She had been to Stockport and had no charge on her phone so was unable to contact her parents. The mother called the police.

On 8th October 2023 C went missing from the family home for a number of hours following a CAMHS appointment where she was told she was grounded for not coming home the previous Sunday.

On 14th October 2023 C was missing for a number of hours. She had gone to a party at 1pm. She was due to return home at 6.30pm but did not return home. C’s parents reported her missing due to concerns that she was in Stoke-on-Trent drinking alcohol. At 9.22pm C’s mother contacted police to inform them that C had returned home.

On 9th January 2024 the father said that C was away from the family home frequently and they were unclear where she was. He said that between 26th December 2023 and 9th January 2024 she had only spent one night at home overnight. The father said that C was beyond the parents’ control and she does not listen.

On 9th February 2024 C’s whereabouts were unknown. Police information suggested that C was in London.

On 2nd March 2024 C’s whereabouts were unknown. She was due to be staying at the home of a friend, K, as agreed by her parents, but neither child was there. The girls were picked up in Z and returned home and when home C was searched due to a smell of cannabis. She was found to be in possession of a knife which was wrapped in a turban and an additional phone which had been supplied by social care. C reports to have been holding this knife for an unknown person but did not share more details due to being fearful of consequences. C’s mother called the police.

On 13th March 2024 C went missing. The father reported C had run from his car after school pick-up. She was missing for 24 hours.

On 16th March 2024 C had gone missing. Train tickets indicated she had bought two tickets to Manchester Piccadilly.

In March 2024 C was located in Manchester after three days missing and was made subject to police powers of protection. There was police activity on this day to arrest four adult males linked to C in relation to child abduction and sexual offences. AH was believed to have arranged or facilitated exploitation of C to meet other males across the UK. C had bruises to her arm”.

I am satisfied that that threshold under Section 31(2) of the Children Act is met, and I am satisfied that C, at the time these proceedings commenced, was suffering and was likely to suffer significant, physical, sexual and emotional harm and that harm or likelihood of harm was attributable to her being beyond parental control. The gateway to my ability to make a public law order is therefore open and I turn my attention to Section 1 of the Children Act to address the issue of welfare. I remind myself that my paramount consideration is C’s welfare. Any delay in making a decision is likely to prejudice her welfare. There will be no delay.

I also have regard to the welfare checklist. Under Section 1(3)(a) her ascertainable wishes and feelings: I accept entirely that her wish is for independence and that she would, in my judgment, be likely to say if she were asked today that she would not want to be subject to State interference in her life, either through the auspices of a care order or alternatively deprivation of liberty provision.

Her physical, emotional and educational needs: Clearly, she needs to be protected from those who would exploit her sexually and there is a grave risk, in my judgment, that she would leave this country if her liberties were not restricted and would be likely to marry somebody from Kurdistan. She clearly has a need to be supported in a warm, nurturing environment where her emotional needs and her educational needs can be met and the Local Authority with the support of the other parties suggest that the current placement is the placement that is best suited to her. It is Ofsted registered. It is also a place where she can have her need for therapeutic intervention identified by Dr P met. That is clearly vitally important because I accept the professional opinion of Dr P that it is only with the benefit of that therapeutic intervention that there is sufficient hope that she will develop the skills to take decisions about her own safety that are consistent with her welfare rather than being the complete antithesis of that.

If there is no State interference in her life, then there is in my judgment a likelihood that she will be subjected to grave physical and sexual harm by adult male predators. The belief of police and professionals is that she has been abused by approximately 20 males and has suffered really serious sexual assault including rape as a result of that sexual exploitation. It is vital and critical that this Court acts to provide safeguards that can be put in place around her to prevent those males and others like them from abusing and exploiting her further.

In terms of her age, sex, background and characteristics, it is clear that as a result in the main of suffering trauma she has behavioural difficulties and emotional dysregulation

The position adopted by all parties including her parents is that there should be no change in her current circumstances in terms of the current placement. In those circumstances, and there being no alternative carer as the family have effectively ruled themselves out of providing care for her on a day-to-day basis, there cannot be any change in her current circumstances. There is no alternative.

In terms of any harm which she has suffered or is at risk of suffering: I have dealt with that already in this judgment.

The parents accept and the professionals’ view is, that sadly, neither parent is capable of providing good enough, safe enough care for C. She is beyond their parental control.

I have considered the range of powers available to me under the Act and I am satisfied that a care order is necessary, proportionate and consistent with her welfare.

In terms of the deprivation of liberty provision, I have undertaken a considerable exploration of the circumstances surrounding the Local Authority’s proposal which has included my pre-reading of all the evidence filed by the Local Authority, and the evidence filed by the other parties including the mother, father, and the children’s guardian. Obviously C is joined as a party. She has her own children’s guardian and I have read evidence of the nature of the proposed regime and the justification for the arrangements as necessary and proportionate in meeting C’s welfare needs. I have taken into account the C’s views on the application.

I am satisfied pursuant to Section 100 of the Children Act 1989 that the LocalAuthority should have leave to make an application for the exercise of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction with respect to C. I am satisfied that the results which the Authority wish to achieve could not be achieved through the making of any other order of a kind to which Section 100(5) applies, and there is reasonable cause to believe that if the Court’s inherent jurisdiction is not exercised with respect to C, then she is likely to suffer significant harm of the kind I have described earlier in this judgment. “Likely” in this context means a real possibility that cannot sensibly be ignored having regard to the nature and gravity of the feared harm in this particular case, which is serious and significant physical, sexual and emotional harm.

I am satisfied that the proposed order does safeguard and promote the child’s welfare. I am satisfied that the order is proportionate in that the benefits of the proposed order outweigh the infringement of C’s Article5 rights to liberty.

The restrictions which the Local Authority wish to impose have been set out earlier in this judgment and I am satisfied that those restrictions do amount to a confinement having regard to a comparative child of the same age. I am also satisfied that the confinement is imputable to the State. The Local Authority and the parents cannot consent in light of the care order in place.

I will make a deprivation of liberty declaration. I have considered for how long that declaration should be in place. I am urged to make an order for 12 months. However, this is a significant and substantial infringement of the Article 5 rights to liberty that C has under the European Convention on Human Rights. In my judgment, a period of 12 months is too long for the Court to make as a final deprivation of liberty declaration and is disproportionate. This is not one of those cases for example where the child’s presentation is likely to be static as it would be in a situation where, for example, there was incapacity. In seeking to apply the balance that is necessary, balancing obviously her Article 8 rights to private and family life, her Article 5 rights to liberty, the necessity to avoid any breach of her Article 3 rights not to be exposed to inhuman or degrading treatment, and also to balance the absolute requirement that she is kept safe, in my judgment, the right balance is one of six months and I intend to make a final order for a period of six months. At that stage of course the Local Authority will need to consider whether they should make a fresh application for further deprivation of liberty provision and the Court will consider such an application if it be made on the merits. However, I consider that at this stage, to make a 12 month order would be unjustifiable and too great an interference with her Article 5 rights to liberty and would therefore be disproportionate.

I have also considered the suggestions and submissions made around seeking the disclosure that was Court ordered in respect of Greater Manchester Police. I agree with the approach that is proposed and that there is good reason for there to be a recording on the face of the order that there is, and remains an expectation of this Court (no longer a court order), that the Greater Manchester Police will observe their responsibility and obligation to comply with the need for disclosure to the local authority, particularly in cases of this sort where there is a vulnerable young girl who has already suffered horrendous sexual exploitation by a large number of males and who is more vulnerable through radicalisation. The example of that is that she has apparently adopted the Islamic faith and has taught herself to speak fluent Kurdish. That makes her even more vulnerable than she would be otherwise. She is also expressing a desire to move to Kurdistan aged 16 and to marry. There is in my judgment a safeguarding obligation on the police to provide the disclosure that will thereby inform safeguarding professionals and those providing therapeutic services in working with C, so that proper safeguards can be maintained to keep her safe. It cannot be pursued pursuant to a court order any longer as the proceedings are now at an end. I make no criticism of Greater Manchester Police as they have not been given an opportunity to make any representations.

There is also a request by the children’s guardian for the papers to be sent to the Official Solicitor to consider whether the history of this matter discloses a cause of action that C may have against the Local Authority for failing in its duties to protect her. I do not think I have heard any submissions on that point. Does anybody wish to make any submissions? No. Then, in the absence of any submissions I propose to make that order and that can be on the usual terms.

There should be transcript of this judgment and a copy of the transcript can be sent to the police if that is thought to help to encourage them to provide the disclosure. I will direct that the transcript be prepared as a matter of urgency at Local Authority expense.

That concludes this judgment.