Can British Children’s Right to Live with Their Parents Be Overridden by National Security?
A Critical Look at U3 v SSHD [2025] UKSC 19
Do British children truly have a guaranteed right to live with their parents in the UK? Or can that right be curtailed in the name of national security? This is the uncomfortable question raised by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in U3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKSC 19, which upheld the deprivation of citizenship and exclusion of a mother despite her three children being British citizens.
British Children’s Rights and Article 8 ECHR
Under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), children have the right to family life – including to grow up with their parents in their own country of nationality. Courts repeatedly stress that a child’s best interests must be a primary consideration in immigration and human rights cases.
In U3 v SSHD, however, the Supreme Court found that the Government’s national security assessment carried “very considerable weight”, strong enough to outweigh the children’s Article 8 family life rights.
National Security vs Family Life – The Core Questions
This judgment raises troubling questions about the balance between national security and immigration law on the one hand, and British citizenship rights on the other:
- Do British children have a meaningful right to live with their parents in the UK, or is that right always vulnerable to being overridden by national security claims?
- Is it proportionate to separate children indefinitely from their mother, even when they are British citizens, simply because the executive asserts, she poses a risk?
- What message does this send about the strength of children’s rights under UK immigration and human rights law?
A Hierarchy of Rights: National Security Over Children’s Interests
The judgment highlights a troubling hierarchy: national security > children’s best interests.
The Court acknowledged that separation causes serious harm, but pointed out that the children were “thriving” without their mother – using this to justify ongoing exclusion. In practice, this reasoning means that children’s Article 8 rights to family life are recognised but not decisive. They remain secondary casualties of the deprivation of citizenship framework.
The Future of British Citizenship Rights
The U3 decision raises wider concerns for families facing citizenship deprivation or exclusion from the UK. If even British children cannot rely on Article 8 family life rights to guarantee living with their parents in their own country, what protection do these rights really carry?
This case underscores how fragile children’s rights under UK human rights law can be when set against national security arguments advanced by the Home Office. Until policymakers address this imbalance, children will remain the silent victims of national security decisions – acknowledged, but ultimately sidelined.
At Sterling Law, our immigration and human rights team closely follows developments in cases such as U3 v SSHD [2025] UKSC 19. If your family is affected by issues around deprivation of citizenship, exclusion from the UK, or Article 8 ECHR family rights, contact us for expert advice and representation.
