Manisha appeared recently before the Family Court in Re F (Female Genital Mutilation Protection Orders – Withdrawal of Application – Evidential Threshold – Expert Evidence – Risk Assessment – Proportionality) [2026] EWFC 229.
The proceedings have a lengthy history and the present applications brought by South Yorkshire Police (SYP) for FGMPO’s in respect of two Sudanese children were issued approximately 15 months prior to any final decisions. Following Manisha’s instruction on behalf of the Children and review of the then available evidence, detailed directions were set down for relevant disclosure. The disclosure was then reviewed by Manisha and a timely position advanced thereafter at the outset, on behalf of the Children, raising concerns regarding the necessity and proportionality of the orders sought.
On behalf of the children the applicant was requested to reconsider the applications but declined to do so. The applicant instructed a Kings Counsel and thereafter issued a late and incomplete expert application. The applicant advanced, as one of the proposed experts, one of its own retired officers. This resulted in further delay and additional hearings, it being contended on behalf of the Children at the outset of proceedings that the retired officer was not an expert. On behalf of the Children alternative country and FGM experts were accordingly advanced, namely Professors Tasmin Bradley and Nafisa Mohamed Abdul Bedri, with detailed draft questions, which were specific to the FGMPO’s sought and risk contended. This instruction, as advanced on behalf of the Children, was subsequently endorsed by the court with agreement of all parties. The conclusions of the experts thereafter were clear, the risk to the children was assessed as minimal or very low and they recommended no final orders be imposed.
Following receipt of the expert evidence, the applicant ultimately accepted that the evidential basis for seeking a final FGMPO could not be maintained and applied to withdraw proceedings. The Children’s Guardian, supported by the parents, sought for the court to refuse the applicant permission to withdraw and instead invited the court to formally dismiss the application in light of the lengthy proceedings, delay, lack of review and conduct of the applicant. This was the course the Court ultimately pursued.
It is of note that the parents were unrepresented throughout these proceedings until the final hearing only, when the decision had already been taken by the applicant to withdraw. Legal aid was initially refused which required an appeal before public funding was granted late in the day. This latter issue further highlights the difficulties unrepresented parties face in complex applications, particularly where no Children’s Guardian is appointed and/or there are differing positions being advanced.
Relevant points to take away from the judgment are as follows:
- Significant shortcomings in the conduct of the case by the applicant were identified, including delays in obtaining and disclosing relevant material, delays in obtaining appropriate expert advice, failure to undertake an early and rigorous review of the evidential basis of the application and continuing proceedings despite repeated concerns being raised by the Children’s Guardian as to the adequacy of the evidence underpinning the claimed risk.
- Despite repeated challenges on behalf of the children as to the adequacy of the applicant’s evidence concerning assessment of risk; the applicant continued to pursue their application without the benefit of suitably qualified expert assessment.
- HHJ Pemberton stressed that preliminary safeguarding enquiries may justify investigation but are not equivalent to the evidence required to obtain and maintain a final court order.
- The judgment draws a clear distinction between the experience and training of an investigating officer and the expertise of appropriately qualified independent experts. The court confirmed that the expert evidence obtained in these proceedings demonstrated the importance of culturally informed, evidence based risk assessments which were key in applications such as these.
- The judgment further emphasises that applications must be kept under careful and ongoing review.
- Previous proceedings and their outcomes should be properly considered before fresh proceedings are issued.
- Reliance on assumptions by an applicant derived from nationality, ethnicity, prevalence statistics or inadequate risk assessment tools is insufficient.
- Intrusive orders affecting family life require cogent evidence demonstrating necessity and proportionality.
In addition to the above, an application was made on behalf of the Children for the investigating officer in the case to be named as a matter of wider public interest. It was noted the officer, who had attended all other hearings, did not attend the final hearing in which judgment was handed down. The court ultimately determined that it would not name the particular officer but made clear observations about not only the investigating officer but also the legal team and those instructed to provide legal advice to the applicant to carefully review evidence in cases such as this.
In line with the above observations arising from the judgment, the applicant provided assurances to the court that an internal review of their assessment processes as applies to these types of cases would be undertaken.
You can read the judgment in full using this link: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/229
Manisha is Head of the Family Team at KBW and practices in both public and private law children with a primary focus on international family law matters. Manisha is ranked for her expertise in children law matters in both Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500. She regularly provides specialist training on a wide range of applications to professional clients, Local Authorities and police forces.
To instruct Manisha, please contact our clerks on clerks@kbwchambers.com