Childhood Radicalisation and Parental Extremism: How Should Family Law Respond? Insights from A Local Authority v X, Y and Z

Abstract

A Local Authority v X, Y and Z (Permission to Withdraw) is a recent case in a series of cases appearing before the family courts, referred to as the radicalisation cases, which deal with concerns related to extremism, radicalisation and terrorism and their impact on children and families. The radicalisation cases represent a significant legal development and a unique legal moment, facilitating an unprecedented interaction between counterterrorism and family law. The cases pose a number of important and serious legal questions: how should the law, and in particular family law, respond to fears that a child is at risk of childhood radicalisation? How should it deal with the terrorist and/or extremists as a parent? A Local Authority v X, Y and Z is an important radicalisation case which addresses these questions. In this article, I examine how the case deals with two issues: a) childhood radicalisation and its treatment by family law as a separate, free-standing harm which can justify compulsory state intervention and b) the question of parental extremism and/or involvement in terrorist related activity. I claim that although the case includes an important and welcome reaffirmation of the principles of family law in the face of worrying recent developments in the counter-terrorist landscape, this reaffirmation remains fragile, arguing that the case represents a missed opportunity for the family courts to critically reflect on and appraise the nature and purpose of family law's interaction with counter-terrorism.

Children of extremist parents: Insights from a specialized clinical team

“…In the case of minority families, profiling and stigma may shatter the family unit and disrupt the child environment, while for majority families, the normalization of certain forms of extremism may expose the child to psychological abuse and to a harmful culture of hate that alienates them from society. After an analysis of a series of radicalization cases appearing in UK family courts, Ahdash (2018 ; Ahdash, 2020 ) argues that the interaction between family law and counterterrorism is worrisome as it may become a way to regulate cultural, political, and ideological expressions of Islam. But if the potential harm of this interaction to the protective nature of the family is established and should clearly be avoided, much less is known on the possible harmful consequences of the majority clinicians’ and security agents’ blind spots about the majority forms of extremism on children.…”

Islam, Social Work and Common Good in the Muslim Minority Context of Europe: Rethinking Shariʿa as Relational Ethics

“…More recently, the mismanagement of migration from newly admitted EU member states and the economic recession of 2008 have triggered a wave of new nationalist populism formed around the 'othering' of migrants, particularly Muslims, who are increasingly stereotyped as 'Islamists' holding an intransigent political ideology (Islam) that needs policing (Abbas, 2018). For Example, the UK Prevent legislation has been expanded to traditionally non-security areas such as child-protection, family law and education (Ahdash, 2020). European security policies continue to focus more on Islamic radicalism and less on far-right extremism.…”