“1. This case concerned a young person who asserted she was at risk of harm and at risk of a forced marriage at the hands of her parents. Whilst on a trip abroad, to country X, the young person escaped from her parents. The young person had no connection to country X. She was reported missing by her parents and located by the local police of Country X. She was taken to a children’s home where she remained for 5 months until she was able to return to this jurisdiction. The authorities of Country X did not return the young person to her parents due to the allegations she had made. There was also a request made by the High Court of England and Wales to the relevant authorities of Country X not to return her to the care of her parents. 2. There were simultaneous proceedings in this jurisdiction and the courts of Country X. The relevant local authority was joined as a party to these proceedings at the first ex-parte hearing. The orders made by the High Court of England and Wales included a Forced Marriage Protection Order, Wardship and Tipstaff Orders. Several requests were made to various authorities to assist with the young person’s repatriation and orders were made pursuant to the 1996 Hague Convention on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement and cooperation in respect of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children. 3. It remains unclear to date what the nature of the proceedings were in country X. It is known that the young person’s parents had initiated proceedings in Country X to secure the young person’s return to their care. However, there was another set of proceedings during which permission of the court was required to secure the young person’s return to this country. 4. After some months, the parties were informed by the relevant authorities in country X that the young person had to be collected by a UK state official. The Forced Marriage Unit suggested to the parties to explore this with the local authority and/or the police and referred the parties to the Guidance from the President of the Family Division: liaison between the courts and British Embassies and High Commissions which states ‘The FCDO provides a facilitative role in relation to the return of the child but is not able to care for, take control of, or assist in procuring the return of the child.’ 5. Fortunately, the young person was able to return because the local authority agreed to send social workers to Country X to collect them.”
‘The FCDO’s position is that the Presidential Guidance is sufficiently detailed and is the product of careful consideration and discussion with the President of the Family Division. Great care should be taken when considering whether any additional guidance should be issued by the Court, and to ensure that it does not conflict with the Presidential Guidance and is appropriate for all situations to which it might apply. In the FCDO’s experience, both the individual facts of cases where young people wish to be returned to the UK and the law and practice of other jurisdictions can vary considerably.’
‘11. Consular assistance involves relations with the authorities of foreign jurisdictions and the Foreign Secretary remains best placed to determine the most effective way to conduct those relations with sight and consideration of a wide range of factors. 12. In addition to risking treading on the Foreign Secretary’s discretion, there is a risk that a court-issued ‘protocol’ would be too restrictive to allow the Forced Marriage Unit and other relevant FCDO officials to focus on ensuring optimal assistance for the most vulnerable consular clients, with necessary sensitivity to local conditions. 13. Conversely, any ‘protocol’ accommodating the multifarious variables across different jurisdictions and the specifics of individual cases would likely be so complex as to lack utility and risk introducing confusion.’
‘Overseas, the FMU may be able to assist British nationals facing forced marriage abroad by working with the FCDO’s network of Embassies, High Commissions and Consulates to help them reach a place of safety and return to the UK if they wish. The FMU can assist non-British nationals facing forced marriage abroad but only by referring them to local organisations that can help or by advising statutory agencies in the UK.’
‘Consular assistance: how the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office provides support’, dated31 August 2022 , which states that the FCDO ‘may be able to provide specialist support in specific situations, for example relating to forced marriage…’
‘xiii. Chapter 12.5 of the Practice Guidance addresses the steps to be taken by children’s social care where a child has been taken overseas and is at risk of forced marriage. This may include working with local organisations to facilitate support for and repatriation of the child. xiv. Police forces do not generally have any or any detailed knowledge of the legal systems or social work systems of other countries, or any direct links with police forces or other state bodies in other countries. xv. Police officers are not generally able to exercise their powers as police constables outside this jurisdiction.’
‘28. This may be dependent on the particular circumstances of the case. However, the NPCC considers that it would usually be appropriate for the Local Authority to take responsibility since: i. It is assumed that this situation would only or usually arise where the PP is a child. ii. Appropriate staff within the Local Authority have specific training relating to care / protection of children. This is particularly important where dealing with a PP who has been forced into or is at risk of being forced into marriage, and is likely to be particularly vulnerable. iii. The child would, where appropriate, fall within the care of the Local Authority on return to this jurisdiction. iv. The child is likely to be under the care of the equivalent social services team in the other jurisdiction. It is likely that that body would consider it appropriate to handover to a counterpart in a similar role from this jurisdiction. 29. Police officers do not have powers outside this jurisdiction, and are not trained to care for children. The right person to care for and safeguard a vulnerable child is a social worker, not a police officer. The NPCC does not consider that it would be appropriate, or in the best interests of a vulnerable child, for a police officer to undertake this role. 30. As with any investigation, guidance on liaising with the authorities in the other jurisdiction, and arrangements for repatriation, should be sought from the FMU / FCDO / CPU by the relevant Local Authority… 34. As indicated within the Practice Guidelines, it may be appropriate for the police to play a more limited role, such as being asked to meet the PP on arrival in the UK, in case family members try to abduct them at the airport. However, this assistance would be provided within the UK, and would involve police officers being requested for the potential exercise of police powers. It would not involve police having responsibility to provide care for a vulnerable child.’