The father applied for a prohibited steps order under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 against removal of the child by the mother and for the return of the child to the father’s care. After the mother and child moved into a refuge the father, fearing the imminent abduction of the child, applied to the High Court for a range of orders under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985. The judge made a location order and disclosure orders against a number of government agencies and other bodies, directed service on the mother by e-mail and ordered her attendance at the next hearing. Included in the disclosure orders was a direction requiring two named staff at one refuge and another staff member of a women’s aid organisation to provide all information relating to the child’s whereabouts within their knowledge or control. The aid organisation responded detailing its concerns over the orders that had been made, highlighting that the service of similar orders in previous cases had resulted in significant harm, and raising concerns about the process of without notice location orders being used to continue abusive behaviour. The following issues of principle arose for consideration: (i) the arrangements for the service of orders on those residing in a refuge and any differences that arose when orders were made under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court or the Family Court; (ii) whether, pending consideration of that issue by the Family Procedure Rules Committee, interim arrangements could be made to serve proceedings on those in a refuge in a manner that balanced the needs of the court and the safety of those residing in refuges, and (iii) the cost and proportionality of any arrangements, present or suggested.
On the issues—
Held, guidance given on the process to be adopted in such circumstances. Pending more detailed consideration by the Family Procedure Rule Committee, the following guidance should be applied when court orders and other documents had to be served on an individual who was thought to be residing in a refuge. (i) The court should only require personal service at the address of the refuge in circumstances which were truly exceptional and urgent. (ii) In all other cases, an alternative means of service, as sanctioned by FPR Pt 6, should be used, such as (a) personal service at an alternative location, (b) service on the party’s legal representative, (c) service via post at a PO Box or office address provided by the refuge for this purpose, (d) service via email and/or text and/or WhatsApp or other electronic messaging service in circumstances where the resident was known to use those means of communication, (e) service by post via a third party whom the court was confident would provide the resident of the refuge with the documents. (iii) When service was to be via post the chief executive officer or director of the refuge should be required to confirm that any material thus served would be promptly brought to the attention of the person to be served. (iv) The court should at all times be mindful of its duty under section 63 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and FPR Pt 3A and PD 3AA to make participation directions with respect to an individual who was, or was at risk of being, a victim of domestic abuse. (v) Where the person residing at a refuge was a migrant woman the court should pay additional attention to the need to ensure that any court orders were appropriately translated. (vi) The alleged perpetrator or their representative should never, themselves, personally serve a resident at a refuge. (vii) Where, because of the exceptional and urgent nature of the circumstances, it was considered necessary for the court to order personal service of court documents on a resident at a refuge, the court had to be alive to the fact that refuges were designed to be both physically and psychologically safe environments for adult and child victims of domestic abuse. (viii) Where personal service was to be made at a refuge it should be undertaken by a court bailiff or the Tipstaff and, where possible, using female officers in plain clothing. (ix) The address of a refuge was never to be disclosed to the alleged perpetrator or to their solicitor, even if an undertaking was offered. (x) Any formal contact with a refuge, and any orders requiring information, should engage with the chief executive officer or director of the refuge and it would never be appropriate for individual refuge staff members to be required by court order to disclose confidential information (para 46).
List of considerations which may apply when the court is considering service on a party residing in a refuge (para 34).
Michael Gration KC and Matthew Persson (instructed by Blanchards Law, Henley-on-Thames) for the father.
Jasvir Degun (instructed by Citizens Advice Family Legal Centre) for the mother.
Charlotte Proudman (instructed by Rights of Women) for Women’s Aid, Latin American Women’s Aid, and Refuge intervening.
Jason Pobjoy (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) by written submissions only for the Secretary of State for Justice intervening.