Families travelling to join Isis should be allowed to keep custody of their children, says judge

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/families-travelling-to-join-isis-should-be-allowed-to-keep-custody-of-their-children-says-judge-10428671.html

Version 0 of 1.

Families suspected of attempting to travel overseas to join Isis should be allowed to keep custody of their children – as long as the parents wear electronic tags, a High Court judge has ruled.

Two families were detained at airports in the UK and Turkey earlier this year after security officials became suspicious they were about to head to Isis areas. Social workers then took the cases to family court in a bid to protect children, who are in local authority foster care pending decisions about their long-term futures.

A written ruling on the cases from Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division of the High Court in London, was published following hearings in private. Justice Munby argued that the package of protective measures agreed to by parents provided “the necessary very high degree of assurance” needed.

But the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has raised concerns about monitoring, which the judge will now consider.

Social workers raised fears the children would be taken to Isis areas. But Sir James said that parents had agreed to submit to restrictions, including electronic tagging, living at specified addresses and regularly reporting to police.

The judge said: “I accept that there is some degree of risk of successful flight. But, taking a realistic view, though not forgetting that we are here in the realm of unknown unknowns, my considered assessment is that the degree of that risk is very small, indeed, so small that it is counter-balanced by the children’s welfare needs to be returned to parental care.

“I should add, to make plain, that in relation to their welfare, leaving flight risk on one side, the benefits all of these children will derive from being returned to their parents clearly, in my judgment, outweigh any and all of such contrary welfare arguments.”

An MoJ official wrote to the court saying there were “resource implications” in tagging being used in family court matters and questioned who would be responsible for enforcement.