Y (Children) (No 3)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment follows a finding of fact hearing in a case involving four children and three adults who had travelled from the United Kingdom to Turkey and were detained near the Syrian border in April 2015. The children had been placed in foster care following orders made by a judge, and were returned to their parents' care in August 2015. The local authority applied for findings that the adults intended to enter an active war zone in Syria controlled by an extremist group, placing the children at risk of harm. The hearing considered whether the family intended to cross into Syria and remain there permanently, or whether their travel was an innocent holiday that went wrong. The judgment was handed down in private in March 2016, with proceedings dismissed following the local authority’s concession, and then published in April 2016.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether in April 2015 the children's respective parents intended to go to a war zone in Syria controlled by an extremist group with the children and to remain there permanently.
2. Whether the adults made plans and travelled with the intention of entering an active war zone, thereby placing the children at risk of physical and emotional harm.
3. Whether the adults engaged in deceptive conduct to conceal their travel intentions.
4. Whether the journey caused emotional harm to the children sufficient to justify State intervention.
5. The evidential burden and standard of proof required for such findings in child protection proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

Local Authority's Arguments

• The adults planned and travelled to Turkey with the intention of entering Syria, an active war zone, putting the children at risk of harm.
• They made complex travel arrangements and lied about their plans to conceal their true intentions.
• They made practical arrangements indicating an intention to leave their homes permanently.
• There was an ideological motivation inferred from the circumstances and untruthfulness of the adults.
• The journey caused emotional harm to the children.
• Evidence included mobile phone analysis, property searches revealing tradecraft notes, and the family's behaviour in Turkey consistent with guidance for migrants to Syria.
• The local authority did not assert a specific ideological affiliation such as ISIS but argued that an ideological motive existed.

Adults' Arguments

• The travel was an innocent family holiday that went wrong, not an attempt to enter a war zone.
• There was no credible evidence of ideological motivation or extremist beliefs supporting the local authority's case.
• The local authority’s case was incoherent, circular, and lacked a plausible explanation for the alleged intentions.
• Specific criticisms included the late introduction of mobile phone evidence and lack of evidence that the adults knew of any plans by others in the group.
• The adults denied knowledge of certain travel arrangements and denied contact with other adults prior to their arrival in Turkey.
• The alleged 'tradecraft' evidence was equally consistent with innocent travel and tourism.
• The children’s emotional distress was less than that caused by their separation from their parents upon return, and the journey was not reckless.
• Public policy concerns were raised about State intervention based on alleged reckless holiday-making.

Children's Guardian's Arguments

• The parents were loving and protective, with no evidence suggesting motivation to expose the children to serious harm.
• There was limited evidence of unusual ideology among the adults.
• Some aspects of the journey were unusual and potentially reckless, but many indicators of 'tradecraft' were equally consistent with tourism.
• The adults may have been untruthful in parts, but no firm conclusion on intent could be drawn.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by identifying the key factual issues: the location of the second hotel and the place of detention by Turkish authorities. It found on a balance of probabilities that the second hotel was in Reyhanli near the Syrian border and that the family was detained within a restricted military zone close to the border.

The local authority’s case rested on the premise that the adults intended to cross into Syria and that this intention was ideologically motivated. However, the court found no credible evidence of any extremist or ideological mindset among the adults. The local authority did not establish a pre-existing ideological motivation but sought to infer ideology from the alleged intention to enter Syria.

The court found that although the adults’ explanations were often inconsistent, evasive, and involved untruths, this did not suffice to prove the local authority’s case. The adults may have lied out of fear of the consequences rather than to conceal an intention to enter a war zone.

Evidence of 'tradecraft' and complex travel arrangements was found to be equivocal and consistent with innocent travel. The local authority’s late introduction of mobile phone evidence and the absence of key witnesses further weakened its case.

The court emphasized the burden on the local authority to prove its case on the balance of probabilities and rejected circular reasoning that assumed ideological motivation to prove intention and vice versa.

Regarding the alleged emotional harm to the children, the court was not persuaded that the journey was reckless or that any harm justified State intervention.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the local authority’s application for the disputed findings against the adults. It held that the local authority failed to discharge the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities that the adults intended to enter Syria and expose the children to harm.

The direct effect is that the children were returned to the care of their parents, and the proceedings were concluded without establishing any new legal precedent. The judgment underscores the necessity for local authorities to present clear, cogent evidence in child protection cases involving allegations of ideological motivation and travel to conflict zones.