OA127042014

a) I have carefully perused the documents to reach the conclusion that this case should be handled by an illuminated use of discretion, remembering that here we are dealing with the bet interest of a 16 year old girl who, as one can appreciate, is vulnerable due to her residence in Cameroon with two teenage boys.

b) The Appellant's aunt used to look after her but in August 2013 she died and now she is living with a friend of her mother who is not willing to commit to the longterm supervision of this girl.

c) In their oral evidence both the Appellant's parents have said that they are very concerned about their daughter's welfare and she should be with them. They are keen to get her into school in the UK and to look after her well.

d) The Appellant is entitled in law to claim benefits - particularly Child Benefit. For her parents to say to me that they will not claim any benefit cannot be accepted by me. The fact the Local Authority has given a written assurance that the Appellant could join her parents in the same dwelling without any increase in the Housing Benefit is, of course, admissible evidence.

In ZH (Tanzania) [2011] case the Supreme Court said "In reaching decisions that will affect a child, a primacy of importance must be accorded to his or her best interest. This is not, it is agreed, a factor of limitless importance in the sense that it will prevail over all other considerations. It is a factor, however, that must rank higher than any other. It is not merely one consideration that weighs in the balance alongside other competing factors.