A Mother v A Father & Anor

This is a judgement following an application dated 4 July 2022 bought by A against B for a Female Genital Mutilation Protection Order in respect of C. C is the second respondent to the proceedings through her Cafcass guardian. The Court also has to consider whether to continue the Family Law injunction taken out in March 2022 and to consider B’s application for contact issued shortly before this hearing.

A has been represented by Ms Omideyi of counsel, B represents himself and C has been represented by Mr Samuel of counsel. Both parents speak reasonable English but have had the benefit of an interpreter during the hearing.

I have considered the documents in the trial bundle and heard oral evidence from A and B as well as their oral submissions. Special measures have been in place by way of separate waiting rooms and screens. B was directed to file written questions to be put to A by way of cross examination. He did not do so but his case, as set out in his written statement and responses to the schedule of findings, was ably put to A by counsel for C. B was then given an opportunity to ask anything further but declined that invitation.

C was born abroad. It was apparent to both parents early on that she was not developing normally. She has been diagnosed with neurobiological conditions. She has an education and healthcare plan. She currently lives with A and has had no contact with B for some time.

The parents are both foreign nationals. They both originate from practicing Muslim families. In accordance with their cultural traditions they had an arranged marriage in 2010. A moved into B’s family home

A’s account, disputed by B, is that she was treated cruelly and endured domestic abuse from B and from his brother for a number of years until her husband left for the United Kingdom. She then fled back to her maternal family home. The abuse that A refers to includes severe beatings, attempted strangulation on a regular basis. In addition she gives a chilling account of suffering sexual violence regularly.

She herself had been a victim of FGM stage 3 as a girl. The effects of this on her are that she experiences sexual intercourse to be an excruciating experience and a further violation of her body. Her account is that B, despite being made aware of this, repeatedly forced himself upon her sexually, effectively normalising marital rape over many years.

During one incident, on A’s account, she was ironing her daughter’s clothes when B demanded sex. She refused and in anger he grabbed the iron and tried to burn her face. She covered her face with her right arm and was severely burnt by the iron on the outside of her right shoulder. She produced photographs of the scarring taken recently. Those photographs show a clearly delineated scar in exactly the position where it would have been if she had tried to protect her face with her arm. It is not a burn in a place that could easily have been caused accidentally.

B denies that the incident took place. He claims that there has been no abuse during the marriage whatsoever. In addition, he claims that he has never seen that scar. A further relies on photographs taken of her face in with a prominent black eye which she says was caused by B.

The parties divorced. B says that there were no difficulties in the relationship and has not given any explanation as to why the divorce took place. A’s evidence is that after the divorce, while B was in the United Kingdon, he wanted her and C to join him and that she refused on many occasions. He promised he had changed his ways and that they would have more children and a new life.

B’s evidence was that A contacted him and that it was she who wanted the reconciliation and wanted to come to live in the UK with her daughter. It is not disputed that the parties later remarried. A arrived in the United Kingdom and C followed later.

It was A’s evidence that B forced himself on her sexually from the start from the date of her arrival in this country and continued to rape her, that in addition he sought to control her and be violent to her right from the day after her arrival in the country and that he had not changed. Her account was that he set, what he called, ground rules from the day of her arrival. These rules forbade her access to social media and required her to seek his permission before leaving the house even to go the shops or to the gym and on one occasion during an argument he attempted to strangle her and threatened to throw acid in her face. The threat to throw acid happened on a number of occasions. Her account was that he was particularly angered by her wish not to wear the hijab on all occasions. Again, the father disputes this account.

A moved to separate accommodate with C. It was her account that she agreed with B that he could access her property whenever he wanted and that he continued to have access to her phone and that he could have contact with C, including overnight contact, whenever he wanted to, generally over a Saturday night. It is her account that after the separation she converted to another religion and later began a relationship with another man. She did not tell B as she was terrified that he, his family and her family would kill her for bringing shame upon the family both by the conversion and by her having a relationship whilst she remained married, if they knew about it. It is her account that B had expressly threatened to kill her on several occasions. B denies this.

A says that B came to her house to bring C back after contact later than had been agreed. She had her boyfriend in her flat. Instead of telephoning her and dropping C off, as was their practice, he let himself into the flat knowing where she kept the key and forced his way in, pushed her against the wall, injuring her arm and attempting to strangle her. She produced a photograph of the injury to her arm.

Her account was that he threatened to throw acid in her face and was very abusive to her, that he rushed upstairs to her bedroom, and that he found her boyfriend there in his underwear. C was present during this altercation. He then took C with him, shouting that he would ensure that FGM was carried out. In fact, he returned C the following day.

B’s account is very different. He says that A told him that she had an exam, so he took the day off work to look after C. But A then changed her mind and insisted that he brought back his daughter the following day. He had to go to work, so he brought her back that night. He exhibits to his statement text messages to support his account. He denies any violence or threats. In his oral evidence he said when asked why he came into the house he said it was only to go to the toilet.

A, in her oral evidence, was clear that the text messages are forged and that she never sent them. A’s case is that once B had evidence that she was in another relationship, the risks to her increased. She became terrified that he would kill her or try to take C from her. She was scared that he would take C abroad to undergo FGM.

She had overheard conversations between B and his family on C’s birthday asking when he was bringing her there for the procedure. She had not felt too worried previously as C did not yet have a travel document but once she did have a visa to enable her to travel to the other country she became very fearful.

In his evidence B denied all violence throughout the relationship. He pointed out that he has no criminal record and has never been in any trouble with any authorities. He says that he is against FGM and that although it was the practice in older generations in his country it is not anymore. He says that he is an active advocate against FGM and attached evidence that he had worked for a DFID funded project against FGM.

It is his evidence that A had no concern for C or him and that she took out the injunction proceedings and the protection from FGM proceedings as direct manipulative behaviour to hide her shame about her new relationship, that all her allegations are lies and untrue. He denied sexual assault and claimed that he had had no intimate relations with the mother whatsoever since her arrival in the UK and that he slept on the floor in the room while she slept on the bed.

A applied for a Non-Molestation Order under the Family Law Act. An order was made that was to remain in force until a return hearing. At that hearing, without making any admissions, B did not oppose the order remaining in force.

In the bundle there is police evidence which includes a report that B, whilst at court, gave to the interpreter a carrier bag saying that it contained a gift for C. The interpreter at court and A’s solicitor both witnessed that the bag contained a pregnancy test and a sexual lubricant. B denies this saying that it contained only gifts for C and that A had tampered with the gift before it was photographed. A says this is another example of controlling behaviour by B in an attempt to frighten her.

The burden of proof is on A to prove her allegations to the civil standard on the balance of probabilities. In addition, in order for me to make a Female Genital Mutilation Protection Order I must be satisfied that it is necessary in all the circumstances, to secure the health, welfare and wellbeing of C. I heard A’s evidence. Notwithstanding the painful nature of the subject matter I found A to be a convincing, truthful and consistent witness who did not seek to exaggerate. I found her explanations as to why she had not reported the abuse earlier totally convincing.

I heard B’s evidence. In his written response to the findings schedule on the issue of the iron burn he says:

“I have never seen any mark on the Applicant’s body during the course of our relationship. The images the Applicant relies on do not show her face and could possibly not be the Applicant.”

In his oral evidence when faced with a further recent colour photograph showing the scar with A’s face in the picture he accepted it was her but maintained that he had never seen the scar. I found this to be wholly incredible when they have lived together, at least in the UK, for periods of time. I do not accept his assertions that there was no intimacy between them during that period and no occasion when he saw the mother’s shoulder. I find that the shape of the burn, and the position of the burn are such that the only credible explanation for it that B deliberately burned her. He reluctantly accepted that the photograph of A with a black eye was in fact A but denied that he knew anything about it.

I accept A’s account supported by the photographic evidence of three separate assaults. I found A’s description of B forcing her to have sexual relations against her will, knowing that she did not want it, wholly convincing in the context of the violence and control I find within the relationship and the serious burn injury that she had suffered at his hands. Where their accounts differ, I unhesitatingly prefer A’s account supported by the reports of the various agencies as well as the photographs.

I am unable to make a finding as to whether the WhatsApp messages are genuine or not. But even if they are genuine they would not affect the findings that I make in this case.

The findings I make are:

As a result of these findings, and the UNICEF evidence showing that this area has an extremely high ongoing rate of FGM at over 80% that A herself underwent FGM and B’s evidence that he would like to take C to see his family, I find this amounts to a significant risk that if not protected from by order, C would be subjected to FGM. I therefore make the Female Genital Mutilation Protection Order until C’s 18th birthday to include the Prohibited Steps Order that B does not remove her from England and Wales or from A’s care or from anyone to whom A has entrusted her care to save for any contact ordered by the Court.

I make a further Family Law Act order for a period of two years. I direct a transcript of this judgment. I direct a section 7 report within the Children Act proceedings, and I will list the case for a dispute resolution appointment. Unfortunately, due to heavy listing commitments in this court, that will be at 2.00pm on 4 August.