Re P (Service on Parent in a Refuge) [2023] EWHC 471 (Fam)
Dr Charlotte Proudman was instructed by Rights of Women in a guidance case on behalf of Latin American Women’s Aid, Women’s Aid and Refuge. The President addressed the competing challenges when urgent court orders needed to be served on a woman who resided in a women’s refuge, especially given the concerns about the inadvertent disclosure of the refuge residential address. Guidance was given in relation to the steps that should be taken to avoid disclosure of the address to other individuals. This is one of the first cases in which ‘intersectionality’ was defined with specific reference to the vulnerabilities of migrant women.
Of particular note from the Judgment:
LAWA, Refuge and WAFE additional submissions
- It was a letter to Morgan J, prepared by Dr Charlotte Proudman, counsel for the three intervening women’s organisations, which first brought the general issue of service into focus in this case. The court is grateful to Dr Proudman for doing so and for her additional submissions on behalf of the interveners.
- Before turning to the detail of any interim arrangements, Dr Proudman reminded the court of the important role refuges play by protecting the security of women through the provision of confidential addresses and rigorous security measures. Safety measures include the use of a PO Box, keeping doors and ground floor windows locked at all times, checking the identity of visitors, turning off location settings on phones, and taking other steps to ensure security. In addition to the provision of a physically safe haven, refuges provide an environment which is staffed by individuals who are psychologically well informed and, in particular, trauma aware.
- Dr Proudman set out the following specific considerations which apply where a party is residing at a refuge. This is a useful list and it is reproduced here in full so that it may be used as an aide memoire by courts considering service in these circumstances:
1. ”Refuges are designed to be both physically and psychologically safe environments for adult and child victims of domestic abuse. They are life-saving services. Women do not choose to uproot their and their children’s lives and seek refuge without cause.
2. All refuges carefully protect their residential addresses in order to protect the safety of all of the adult and child victims of abuse within the refuge. Disclosure of the address to third parties risks that safety for all residents. All residents sign an agreement with the refuge that they will not disclose the address at risk of being evicted from the refuge. All refuges provide a PO Box or office address for correspondence with residents of the refuge.
3. All refuges have careful risk assessment processes in place before any resident is permitted to join the refuge. They also have safeguarding policies in place in relation to the children that reside in their refuges. This mitigates against the likelihood of abduction.
4. All members of refuge staff, volunteers, trustees and contractors sign a confidentiality agreement as part of their contract of employment/agreement which states that disclosure of the refuge address to a third party is likely to amount to gross misconduct and, therefore, dismissal. It is never appropriate for junior members of staff to be ordered to disclose residential addresses of a refuge. Requests must be made to the CEO/Director.
5. Migrant women face multiple intersectional barriers to accessing support and experience discrimination from services when they do seek support. The additional discrimination they face makes them particularly vulnerable. The mere fact of being a migrant woman with historic links in another country, insecure immigration status or having no recourse to public funds is not sufficient to show there is a risk of abduction. The act of seeking refuge mitigates against any risk that might exist. Refuge staff should never be expected to act as translator of court documents for a resident in the refuge”.
Related barristers: Dr Charlotte Proudman
