By Amanda Hill, 3rd September 2025
The protected party in this case (her court-assigned initials are AB but we’ve called her “Miranda”, which isn’t her name) is a woman in her early twenties with “a diagnosis of autism, ADHD, behavioural difficulties with limited communication skills.” She “is largely non-verbal[1], but can construct some short words and sentences together“.
In defiance of a court order, and to prevent Miranda being temporarily moved out of the family home for assessment purposes, Miranda’s mother took her to Jamaica in early February 2023. The court has been trying to find her precise location since then. The court now knows where Miranda is living in Jamaica and its involvement with this family going forward is expected to be limited.
The judgment from this hearing, AB & Ors, Re [2025] EWCOP 27 (T3) (25 July 2025), sets out what it calls “The Lengthy Background” to this case. The background in the judgment includes details that I wasn’t aware of before about the extent and duration of the state’s involvement with the family. It helps put the Court of Protection proceedings into perspective and demonstrates why publishing judgments is so useful.
We’ve been following this case (COP 14027239) for over two years and this hearing, on 18th July 2025, was the fourth I’ve observed since March 2025. We’ve already published two blog posts about earlier hearings in this case: “Removing P to another country to evade the orders of the Court” (heard by Sir Jonathan Cohen on 8th June 2023) and “Two years on, P is still missing: Judge refuses application to conclude proceedings, holds proceedings partly in private, and issues injunction with penal notice against mother” (heard by Mr Justice McKendrick on 19th March 2025).
In this blog I’ll use the judgment to briefly summarise the background, before focussing on the hearing I observed on 18th July 2025. I then reflect on the achievements of the court proceedings and the impact of those hearings on the family.
Background
The judgment makes clear that the state has been involved with this family for a long time. Professional concerns about Miranda’s welfare go back to January 2013, when Miranda became known to the local authority’s Children with Disabilities Team. In February 2015, there was a ‘strategy meeting’, held because of concerns that Miranda’s needs were not being met by her mother (§5). In 2016, the local authority tried to visit Miranda at home without success. In January 2017 social workers met with Miranda and her mum but were prevented from entering the house and so the meeting took place in a car. Another strategy meeting (child protection) took place in June 2017, but the case was closed in September 2017. This was because the concerns were not considered to be social care but rather ‘educational’.
Nothing is noted in the judgment for the five years after September 2017. However, in July and September 2022 social workers raised new concerns and an adult safeguarding strategy meeting was held on 28 September 2022. Visits to the family home between September and November 2022 were either unsuccessful or highlighted concerns. The judgment notes that “As of 9 December 2022, the concern was that AB’s parents were refusing access to her social worker who wanted to assess her capacity and carry out an initial needs assessment” (§10).
This is when the Court of Protection became involved for the first time. §11 sets out what the local authority application to the court was seeking to achieve: “
An urgent application was made to the Court of Protection on 9 December 2022 seeking a hearing on or before 23 December 2022 due to the nature of the potential risks to AB. The order sought was for a “direction to enable [A]CC to visit [AB] to assess her capacity regarding care and support and carry out an assessment of her needs pursuant to the Care Act 2014”. Additionally, a declaration was sought in relation to AB’s capacity and, if she lacked capacity, a best interests decision regarding her care and support.” (§11)
HHJ Hodges held a hearing on 21 December 2022. This was not attended by Miranda’s parents, who refused delivery of the papers from a server. The papers were left on the front doorstep. On 29 December 2022 the police used police powers to force entry to the family home to conduct a welfare check on Miranda. There was then agreement for a telephone call between a social worker and Miranda’s mum, but the telephone was subsequently disconnected.
There were further hearings before HHJ Hodges on 11 January 2023 and 3 February 2023, again not attended by the parents. The judge ordered that, in Miranda’s best interests, she be moved to a residential home for people with autism spectrum disorder in order for her to have an assessment. He also ordered that she should remain in the family home until the agreed date for her transition to the residential home on 6 February 2023.
On 6 February a team, including the police and social workers, turned up at the house and forced entry but Miranda was not there. The only person in the house was one of Miranda’s two older sisters, YM, who told the team that the rest of the family had moved away. There was another hearing before HHJ Hodges on 10 March 2023, at which it was confirmed that Miranda had flown with her mother to Jamaica a week before the 6 February visit, although §26 of this judgment says they flew with British Airways on 6 February, the actual date of the visit, along with her sister XM, and “the property listed for sale” (§16). A further hearing resulted in orders which “contained lengthy recitals about Miranda’s father’s position, including the suggestion that Miranda’s mother intended to stay in Jamaica until the conclusion of proceedings” (§16). The judgment doesn’t make clear how Miranda’s father was contacted and became actively involved in the case.
The case was transferred to a Tier 3 judge, and the case was before Sir Jonathan Cohen on 8 June 2023. This is the hearing that we blogged about. He ordered that Miranda should be returned to the UK by midnight on 7 July 2023. This did not happen. Another hearing was held on 3 August 2023, this time before Mrs Justice Roberts, and she ordered that Miranda be returned to the UK by midnight on 18 August 2023. This did not happen.
§19 of the judgment makes clear that Miranda’s father was still actively involved in assisting the court: “Mr O confirmed that on 16 August 2023 he had spoken to XM on her mobile and had heard AB and Mrs O singing happily away. He was satisfied, from what he heard, that AB was happy, safe and well. He was unable to confirm AB‘s address. His ability to communicate with Mrs O appeared to have reduced since he had given the Court her contact details and he now relied on XM for contact with Mrs O.” [§19]
I think it is worth setting out in full paragraphs 21 and 22 and the start of paragraph 23 of the judgment, as they succinctly highlight the futility of the court’s efforts to ensure Miranda’s return to the UK:
§21. “The matter returned to court and was heard by Williams J on 15 September 2023. He made an order attaching a penal notice against Mrs O. The order required AB “to return to England and Wales and live in the family home” and not to be removed once there. The return was to be given effect to by Mrs O by no later than midnight 22 September 2023. The Chief Constable of A Police Force was also invited to assist the Court. Upon return AB’s passport was to be held by the High Court tipstaff.”
§22. “On 22 September 2023 Mr O sent an unsealed order made at the hearing on 15 September 2023 to his daughter XM, and he was of the view that she blocked him following this”.
§23. “A few further orders were made and then little then took place for some time until the applicant made an application dated 20 February 2025 to withdraw the proceedings.”
In summary, despite multiple hearings over more than two years, before a number of different judges, and the court issuing numerous orders that Miranda’s mother return her to the UK, including a penal notice (meaning Miranda’s mum could go to prison), Miranda was still in Jamaica at an unknown location in February 2025. It seems as though the local authority was willing to give up at this point: it applied to the court to end proceedings. A draft order was sent in the expectation that the decision would be made “on the papers”, i.e. without a hearing. But acting judge Ms Katie Gollop KC declined to grant the application[2] and directed that the matter be addressed at a hearing. The case came before Mr Justice McKendrick on 19 March 2025. This was the first hearing I observed and blogged about.
Mr Justice McKendrick was also not willing to give up. At the hearing on 19 March 2025, McKendrick J described the application to withdraw proceedings as “misconceived”. He wanted at least to ensure that the court knew Miranda’s current home address and he was concerned for her well-being because she is a “highly vulnerable British citizen”. As a result of his orders at the hearing of the 19 March and subsequently on 28 March 2025 and 4 April 2025 (Miranda’s father attended all these hearings), Miranda has now been located. But her mother has resisted all attempts to take Miranda back to the UK and she remains in Jamaica.
The hearing of 18th July 2025
I attended this hybrid hearing in person – and I’m so glad I did because the microphones weren’t working. This meant that two online observers were excluded from the hearing. The judge apologised for this.
At this hearing, as in the previous hearing I’d observed, Jim Hirschmann was representing the applicant, Essex County Council; Keri Taylor was representing Miranda (via her Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor) and Rose Harvey-Sullivan was representing the third respondent, Miranda’s father. I noticed that Counsel for the third respondent was the same as the hearing we blogged about in 2023, so she has been involved for two years. Miranda’s mother was the second respondent but was not represented and did not attend the hearing.
There was no summary at the start of the hearing[3]. The judge’s first words were asking where Miranda’s mother was. She was not on the link. The judge didn’t seem surprised. From the following discussions in court it was ascertained that the Court knew where Miranda was living (and had done for over two months), there weren’t any acute concerns about her, Miranda’s mother was still receiving benefits in Miranda’s name (as her appointee) from the UK Department of Work and Pensions, even though she was no longer in the UK, it wasn’t clear what her other sources of income were, the judge was concerned about the impact on Miranda of benefits stopping…….But what more could be done?
The judge said [4] “It strikes me that this Court has done its job. We have located Miranda…it is now down to the local authority and local constabulary and the Jamaican police….she is a highly vulnerable British citizen overseas…these are expensive public hearings….Has their utility come to an end? A highly vulnerable adult has been removed from the jurisdiction…if she was a child (there would be?) inter-agency working….This court does not have boots on the ground…it makes orders and return orders have been made….”
The discussion then turned to contempt of court. Nobody seemed very keen on bringing proceedings against Miranda’s mother for contempt of court (according to the judge) as there was a question as to what would be achieved by that (according to Counsel for the applicant). The judge confirmed that nobody was bringing an application for contempt “at this stage”. He said it “turned on” how satisfied the LA was that Miranda is protected.
The position of the third respondent, Miranda’s father, was that proceedings should be concluded. What would be achieved by continuing them as “there is no clear plan as to what should happen next” and it’s “difficult to see how (continuing them) would help Miranda’s welfare”.
At this point the judge said he was tempted to dismiss proceedings and a CoP9 could be filed for contempt “if necessary”.
As for Miranda’s Counsel (via the OS), she said that the OS has a client she has never met, who is publicly funded. The OS understands that the LA wants to continue investigations …they are inviting the LA to fund Miranda’s legal representative to go and see Miranda but recognised that the chances of this were “vanishingly slim”…the Legal Aid agency funding legal proceedings in Jamaica would be on a “hiding to nothing”.
The judge said that was “nothing to do with me” but he understood the OS concerns. “We are where we are” and “We know where Miranda is”.
The OS made a suggestion that in order for Miranda’s mum to “face whatever music there is”, the LA could offer to fund a return flight for Miranda and her mother. But because of a combination of factors and the jurisdiction issue, there is “little the OS can do”.
There was then a discussion about staying (pausing) proceedings or concluding them. If proceedings were concluded, the OS would not be involved anymore and there might be legal aid difficulties in the future (the OS is funded by legal aid for Miranda). Counsel for Miranda (via her Litigation Friend the OS) confirmed that proceedings would be live until there was a final order.
The judge set out his thoughts. There could be a case made for Miranda’s mother being responsible for the costs of proceedings and may be in contempt…”but in the light of information from the DWP and the benefits situation ….the parties would not want to pursue contempt if she brings Miranda back to the jurisdiction…..some thought could be given to that”.
The judge seemed to be setting out ways to encourage Miranda’s mother to return to the UK with Miranda.
Finally, he wasn’t “minded to conclude proceedings today” because of the cost implications for the LA and the OS. The LA needs to be clear what steps are available, including liaising with adult social services in Jamaica and the British High Commission.
He stated there would be a published judgment setting out his concerns and covering the use of third-party disclosure orders, so that lessons could be learned concerning how they can be used to locate people. He stated that if Miranda had been located earlier, maybe she could have been returned earlier. But he wasn’t making any orders. Proceedings are stayed for six months. But the judgment (§32) clarifies that if no application is made to continue proceedings by the end of six months, then proceedings will be dismissed with no costs orders.
Paragraph 43 of the judgment reflects his line of thought: “….ever mindful of the need for this court to take a proportionate approach, I see only (a) very limited role, for this court going forward.”
And that was that. The hearing had lasted about an hour.
What have the Court proceedings achieved and what impact have they had on the family?
I found it interesting to go back to the first blog we published in 2023 and consider how things have developed over the past couple of years by comparison with what the Court hoped to achieve. The hearing in that first blog was on 8 June 2023 and was before Sir Jonathan Cohen. According to the blog, “it was listed to consider the issue of Miranda’s return to the UK and what steps are necessary now.” At that time, Miranda’s father was talking about selling the family home and moving to a different area, to a different local authority “enabling the family to start a new working relationship with another local authority”. The blog states: “He doesn’t think it’s in Miranda’s best interests to return to the current home, or for Miranda to be assessed by social workers within their current local authority, since that relationship has broken down. …..He says that the plan is for Miranda and her mother to return to the UK by the end of July 2023.”
At the end of that hearing, as reported in the blog, the judge decided to order Miranda’s return to the UK: “After this long period of time, and what seems to me to be only superficial cooperation between the parents and the Local Authority, it is now time to make an order for Miranda’s return, and that is the order I intend to make.” To offer a “carrot” to the mother, he stated that “…..no party is seeking at the current time for Miranda to be removed from family care. Secondly, I think it is proper to say that the mother should not be arrested upon her return to England, but I suspect there may be a proviso that she lodge her passport or hand it in to the tipstaff or immigration authorities on arrival.”
As he was going through his order, “Counsel for the father pointed out (“respectfully”) some of the “blunt language” that she said was “spooking” the mother and that the mother was experiencing as a “threat”. The judge added, at the end of the recitals, that no party was seeking for the mother to be arrested on her return. I think he also did not make any penal notices: “I can’t imagine the existence of a penal notice will make one of them say, ‘oh my goodness me, I’m going to have to completely change my behaviour’!”
But on 15 September 2023, the judicial view had changed (perhaps because of the passing of time, without the return of Miranda). A new judge, Mr Justice Williams, had issued an order saying that Miranda’s mother must return Miranda to the family home. He attached a penal notice meaning that if Miranda’s mother disobeyed and was found as a result to be in contempt of court, she could be imprisoned, fined, or have her assets seized. There was later some debate as to whether Miranda’s mother had actually been served with the order.
By the time I first observed a hearing on 19 March 2025, before Mr Justice McKendrick, there had been little progress. Miranda was still in Jamaica, and the Court didn’t know exactly where or how she was. And now there was an application from the local authority to end proceedings. As my blog reports, Mr Justice McKendrick had other ideas. He wanted Miranda to be located. In that hearing, he considered the contempt of court issue. He stated that if Miranda’s mother had been served by the order (from Mr Justice Williams), “… and if she is in contempt of court, one possible penalty is a sequestration order against the 50% share of the property that she co-owns with Miranda’s father (the house he’s currently living in, worth several hundred thousand pounds). If the mother is found to be in contempt of court, she could lose her share of the property she owns. He stated that it is open to the court not only to send her to prison, but also that her assets could be sequestered. He said he was “not making a threat” but it was his “obligation” to point out the possible consequences of non-compliance with court orders.” (as reported in the March blog). He was taking a more “stick” approach. He also authorised the use of third-party disclosure orders to aid the process of identifying where Miranda was.
By the time of this hearing in July 2025, Mr Justice McKendrick had achieved his primary objective. Miranda had been located (on 30 April). There were no immediate concerns about her well-being. Paragraph 28 of the judgment states that “UK Police requested a welfare check in respect of (Miranda) utilising Interpol. They were able to confirm that the Jamaican authorities had completed it giving the following response: (….) Her daughter [AB] was observed sitting on the veranda been (sic) fed by her mother. She appeared to be in good physical health and seem quite animated as she communicated with her mother and sister.”
The judge also wanted to make sure that lessons were learned about this case, so that a similar situation, of not being able to locate P for years, could be avoided. Paragraph 34 from the judgment spells that out: “Secondly, this judgment is produced because there were steps that could have been taken to locate AB earlier, when it became clear Mrs O (Miranda’s mother) would not comply with the return orders. It may be helpful for practitioners in the Court of Protection to understand the steps that can be taken to locate missing persons. Such orders in the High Court are often used to locate missing children…….”
However, it doesn’t look as though Miranda will be returning to the UK any time soon, as Cohen J had ordered in June 2023. And despite the penal notice attached to the order to return Miranda (by Williams J in September 2023) no contempt of court proceedings are currently anticipated against Miranda’s mother. Her share of the house won’t be seized, and she won’t be going to prison. There is still a risk of future action about contempt of court though and it remains to be seen if the Jamaican authorities will take further action. The judge summed up, in paragraph 41 of the judgment, the situation with regards to contempt:
§41. “I should also add that whether or not there is to be an application for contempt is one for the applicant and Official Solicitor. There appeared to be a reluctance to consider any form of contempt against Mrs O because it was felt to be lacking in utility because she is in Jamaica. However, directions and orders made in March 2025, clarified that Mrs O likely owns fifty percent of the family home. The possibility of confiscation of Mrs O’s interest in the family home pursuant to COP Rule 21.9 (1) if she were found to be in contempt of court, certainly appeared to encourage Mr O to cooperate.”
The court believed that a “stick” approach then had worked in its favour to at least make some progress.
A court’s powers are huge. However, this family, or at least Miranda’s mother, has been determined not to comply with court orders. And now the court is choosing not to exercise their powers. One could argue that the family has won a sort of victory. But that’s not to say that there hasn’t been a significant cost to the family due to their actions, including being separated. The Position Statement for the Third Respondent also makes clear that Miranda’s father has few savings left due to the cost of his legal fees. And as it seems as though the DWP will stop UK benefits, that will mean a significant drop in income available for the mother and her daughter, so there seem to be significant future financial implications. And still potential legal consequences if the mother were to return to the UK, because of her use of a UK address to claim benefits when she and her daughter were overseas. I guess the family see all that as a price worth paying for keeping mother and daughter together.
I’d like to end with a final reflection on the judgment. Towards the end of the hearing, there was a discussion between counsel for the Third Respondent (Miranda’s father) and the judge as to how much information should be included as background narrative to the decisions set out in the judgment. Paragraph 1 of the Applicant’s (Local Authority) position statement (PS) states “A background/narrative is filed with the position statement ” so I assume the discussion related to this document.
The father (Third Respondent) disputes some of the information included by the Local Authority in the background narrative. The Third Respondent PS for the 18 July hearing sets out his concerns:
§2 “The court has also had the benefit of a narrative of the background facts to these proceedings…..it is agreed insofar as it is consistent with the records.”
§3 However in places the content of those records is not necessarily agreed by the Third Respondent; for instance he does not agree with the portrayals of the family as uncaring and denies …. [I’ve chosen not to repeat the allegations that the father denies]”
The judge said in response that “some has been edited out and some is relevant”. Maybe he said “would be” edited out – I’m not sure. But this short exchange brought home to me that judgments are subject to the editorial choices of the judge and how he or she decides to present any case and any party. And this is one reason why what happens in hearings can sometimes seem very different from what ends up in a judgment (and why it’s important to observe hearings). How families and family members are presented (framed) in judgments is an area I plan to explore as part of my PhD research.
Amanda Hill is a PhD student at the School of Journalism, Media and Culture at Cardiff University. Her research focuses on the Court of Protection, exploring family experiences, media representations and social media activism. She is a core team member of OJCOP. She is also a daughter of a P in a Court of Protection case and has been a Litigant in Person. She is on LinkedIn (here), and also on X as (@AmandaAPHill) and on Bluesky (@AmandaAPHill.bsky.social)
Footnotes
[1] Ss quoted from §5 AB & Ors, Re [2025] EWCOP 27 (T3) (25 July 2025)The term ‘non-verbal’ is a direct quote from the published judgment. Dr Gill Loomes-Quinn, Co-Director of OJCOP and a disabled socio-legal scholar-activist with a background in community advocacy, tells me that in the autistic/autism communities it’s becoming more common to talk about “non speaking” rather than “non-verbal” in recognition of the fact that lack of speech doesn’t necessarily mean lack of thoughts and the words to express them (which is pertinent to capacity). Some people are unable to produce the mechanics of speech but do still communicate (or attempt to communicate) using language (eg via AAC devices)
[2] I read in the PS for the Third Respondent for the 19 March hearing that she sent an email to the parties saying “I am not content to conclude these proceedings” and listed her reasons.
[3] I am grateful that all parties sent me their position statements in response to my request as they have been very useful in supporting my understanding the hearing.
[4] I don’t do shorthand or touch type so my notes are likely to be incomplete and quotes not entirely verbatim
Promoting Open Justice in the Court of Protection 