Judge decides further orders regulating residence or constraining choices of vulnerable woman are “unjustified”, despite concern over dysfunctional relationship with father

No useful purpose would be served by continuing protective orders for a 29-year-old woman, P, a vulnerable adult who is under the influence and control of her father, the Family Division has decided.

Mrs Justice Gwynneth Knowles heard the case brought by an unnamed local authority with P represented by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor.

The judge said P had experienced a dysfunctional family life that has left her homeless, isolated from her wider family and her peers, lacking formal education or training, distrustful of authority, and likely to be at risk of harm without support from others which she has consistently refused.

P had been compelled by court order to live apart from her father, Y, in a placement provided and funded by the local authority since late October 2023.

Gwynneth Knowles J said: “Simply put, the central issue in this case was whether the court should continue to use its powers to compel P to live apart from her father.”

P’s mother X married Y in 1991 but divorced him in 2017 on the grounds of domestic abuse and has since had very limited contact with P.

The local authority decided that continuing P's placement was disproportionate and that any other safeguarding measures were unlikely to be effective in helping P extricate herself from Y.

Gwynneth Knowles J approved this, saying that notwithstanding the risks to P's welfare should she refuse the offers of support from the local authority and return to live with Y, it was not appropriate for the court to make further orders regulating her residence or otherwise constraining her choices.

She said concluding the proceedings without further or continuing orders did not constitute a breach of P's Article 3 and Article 8 rights.

The court heard that in April 2023, P and Y were evicted because Y had failed to pay the mortgage and they both slept in a car parked on the property's driveway, and two referrals were received from members of the public expressing concern about P's living circumstances.

Both X and P's brother, Q, subsequently reported concerns over Y's behaviour.

The local authority made an application to invoke the inherent jurisdiction in July 2023 to give P her first opportunity to live independently of Y.

P though was either unable or unwilling to take that opportunity and had declined all efforts of support. The local authority recognised that more draconian measures would be required to cut off all ties between P and her father.

The Official Solicitor shared concerns about P's safety and general wellbeing “but was unpersuaded as to the utility or lawfulness of further protective orders”, the judgment said, as it was highly likely that P would refuse to engage with further assessment or offers of therapeutic or practical support.

Gwynneth Knowles J said: “The stark choice is thus between the cessation of the protective framework with the overwhelming likelihood that P will return to live with her father (in circumstances where it is unclear where they will live and how they will support themselves) or a further prolonged period of residential care which is likely to be as ineffective as the previous period in helping P gain insight into her circumstances and free herself from the undue influence of her father.”

She said the real and immediate risks to P “fall short of establishing a real and immediate risk of degrading treatment for Article 3 purposes.

"Whilst there appears to have been financial and psychological abuse of P by Y, he does not appear to have physically assaulted her and his treatment of her is not such as to cause anguish and inferiority capable of breaking P's moral and physical resistance.

“Destitution - which P faces given her reluctance and that of her father to claim state benefits - is not sufficient to amount to degrading treatment.”

The local authority proposed to set up a £500 prepaid card for P as a financial ‘safety net’ and agreed to withdraw the claim for state benefits it made on P's behalf and to inform the Department of Work and Pensions that P should not be assumed to lack capacity to make any future applications. It would also give P an information pack on future support.

Gwynneth Knowles J said:”All of the above represent a reasonable response to the reality of P's situation and I am satisfied that they are an appropriate discharge of the local authority's statutory obligations to P.”

She added: ”Regrettably, I think it is almost inevitable that P will come to the attention of the authorities in future. I hope this will be in a context where she is seeking help to forge her own course in life, free from the undue influence of her father but I suspect that, unless something significant changes, future contact is likely to be at a time of crisis for P.”

Mark Smulian