When should the Family Court override the strongly expressed wishes of a nearly 17-year-old who wants to return home? – Matthew Brookes-Baker, Oliver Powell and Fazeela Ishmael in A and B, Re (No. 2) (care – welfare after findings of sexual abuse) [2026] EWFC 247
1st Sep 2026 | Cases
Following findings of serious sexual abuse by her stepfather, the court considered whether a young person approaching seventeen should remain in foster care despite her clear and determined wish to return to her mother in A and B, Re (No. 2) (care – welfare after findings of sexual abuse) [2026] EWFC 247.
Following findings that A had suffered serious sexual abuse by her stepfather, Mr Z, HHJ Vincent considered whether the nearly 17-year-old should return to her mother or remain in local authority care. A strongly wished to return home and said she would do so regardless of the court’s decision. The court gave significant weight to her age and views, but found that a return to her mother’s care could not yet be safely managed, given her mother’s physical and emotional difficulties and the risk of possible future contact with Mr Z.
Although separation from her family would itself cause A harm, the judge concluded that this could be mitigated through extensive family contact, whereas the risks associated with returning home could not adequately be managed. A therefore remained in local authority care so that she could recover from her experiences and focus on her education and future. The court also strongly criticised shortcomings in the local authority’s previous support and family-contact arrangements.
Oliver Powell was instructed by Careys Law for the first respondent mother. Matthew Brookes-Baker was instructed by Griffiths Robertson for the fourth respondent child (A). Fazeela Ishmael was instructed by Oxford Law Group for the fifth respondent child (B) through her Children’s Guardian.
