M (Children : Fact Finding: No 1)

This is an ex tempore judgment concerning two girls, whom I shall call B and C, born respectively on 5^th August 2008 and 11^th August 2009. They are, therefore, seven and five years old. Both were made wards by Jackson J on 10^th November 2014.

This is a fact finding hearing. Whilst I shall make a number of observations which are relevant to welfare, I make no conclusive findings on that issue at this stage.

The mother claims that she was sent back to her family in Pakistan and deliberately abandoned and stranded there. Those allegations are vehemently denied by the father and his family. The paternal grandmother, who is central to the case and against whom primary allegations are made, was joined as a party to the proceedings.

The parents are both of Pakistani origin. The father, a British national, was born in the United Kingdom in 1977. The mother, a Pakistani national and also born in 1977, was born in Pakistan and lived there until after her arranged marriage on 3^rd May 2007.

Ten days after the marriage, the father returned to the United Kingdom. He arranged for his wife to attend this country on a spousal visa, she arrived here on 9^th August 2007. As is usually the custom, the mother lived with the paternal family here, that is to say with her mother-in-law and a number of sisters-in-law. B was born just a few days short of a year after her arrival. C was born the following year.

The mother maintains that her relationship with the paternal family deteriorated, especially after the birth of C. She says that the family favoured B and were disappointed that the second child was also a girl. Those allegations are vehemently denied by the family. Whatever truth behind it, the mother maintains that there was a change in the relationship between her and her in-laws, illustrated at least in part by the father’s occasional irritability and impatience and leading to two isolated but specific incidents of abusive behaviour and violence. She says that increasingly she was treated, effectively, as a skivvy. Ultimately, the mother contends that the father determined that he would “dispose of and deliberately abandon her and their younger child” in Pakistan, at his own or at the behest of his family.

In early 2011, the paternal grandmother took B for an extended stay to Pakistan. The trip occurred without the presence of the mother. On 5^th August 2011, this being an issue between the parties on which I must adjudicate, the mother says that the grandmother required inoculations in order for the children to visit Pakistan. The father says that those inoculations occurred at the instigation of the mother. There is dispute about what occurred on that occasion.

On or about 1^st September 2011, the mother says that she first learned of a firm plan to go to Pakistan. The father maintains that there were preparations, including many shopping trips, leading up to the trip in September. The mother says that she had identified those persons who were going to Pakistan: herself, both the children, her mother-in-law (the second respondent) and her mother-in-law’s brother, who had been visiting the United Kingdom and who, as a senior and educated man, apparently of some status in Pakistan and within the family, exerting, as did the maternal grandmother, a powerful and directive influence over family affairs and events. The mother says that she was told by her mother-in-law to pack up all her belongings and take them to Pakistan.

Such was the mother’s disquiet and anxiety – indeed, it seems to me, panic – that, notwithstanding her hitherto obedient position and subservient role within the family, a matter confirmed during the course of evidence, she took the exceptional step of contacting the police. Standing back for a moment, it is an illustration of her condition that she had the courage to take the step which she did. The reports disclose, although they are not precisely clear, that she told the police that she lived with her mother-in-law, that she was unable to get her passport and suggested that she was being forced to return to Pakistan. In any event, when officers attended some hours later, she told them that she wanted to go to Pakistan, but was afraid of being left there. She told them that the whole family were going for an undetermined period and that they had purchased only a one way ticket. She did not have her passport. Importantly, to my mind, it is recorded that her family had not been told that she was coming to Pakistan. The police ensured the return of the passport, but the mother says (perhaps predictably having regard to all the other aspects of the case) that its custody was immediately regained by the grandmother as soon as the police had left. There are other events which I shall comment on during the course of the evidence concerning that important day. A significant issue is what occurred at the time and the reaction of the family.

In any event, on 7^th September 2011, the small family party travelled to Pakistan. The mother asserts that at all times her mother-in-law or the family retained the passports, that is to say hers and the children’s. On arrival in Pakistan, the family stayed with the maternal uncle with whom they had travelled out. It is agreed that, while she did visit her own family, she in fact only stayed one night with them, that being the night of 3^rd November 2011.

Less than a week after the mother’s arrival in Pakistan, her visa expired on 13^th September. On 3^rd November 2011, the mother contends that she was forced to attend the local court and there under significant threat, including a threat of divorce, and force, signed an attested letter of authority. That document has formed an important part of the father’s case and says as follows:

Very considerable reliance is placed by the father on the signing and indeed existence of this document and the circumstances of the signing in relation to the mother. Those are circumstances to which I shall refer later. The father, during the course of his submissions in relation to this and indeed other aspects made it very clear that his strong submission, which he stressed, was that the mother had a choice and at all times exercised that choice (she had apparently attended some course in the United Kingdom about making choices, which the father considers important).

Whatever the truth of the matter, it appears that, on that day, she returned to the paternal uncle’s home, where she had been staying for eight weeks. Her bags had been packed and she was, it appears, further questioned (or harangued, she says) by her mother-in-law, including being assaulted, not in a severe way but she was effectively (to use an old fashioned term) bundled out of the house. The mother was sent by car to her own mother’s house. The two children accompanied her.

The following day, 4^th November 2011, the mother, supported by her brother and accompanied by B, visited a neighbour’s house at the mother in law’s request. In fact, it transpired for the first time in evidence that the “neighbour” was in fact a niece of the mother-in-law. The mother says B was taken from her, with assurances that she, the mother, would be “sent for”. She says, confirmed by her brother in evidence during the course of this hearing, that her passport was handed to her in a peremptory fashion from the window of the car in which the mother and B had put themselves. She was told that travel documents would be sent to her within two to three weeks. She was not handed C’s passport.

The mother maintains that she phoned the United Kingdom on several occasions, eventually speaking to B, whom she says was very distressed. That much is confirmed by what is contained in the CAFCASS report, it being recorded that, when B first started nursery, just after her return from Pakistan with the grandmother, she was tearful and took a long time to settle. If one bothers to think about it for a moment, this is a young child who had been in the sole care of her mother up to that point and who was abruptly removed from that care.

Shortly thereafter, the paternal family changed their telephone number. It may have been unconnected with these events, but the mother was thereafter unable to telephone. Such contact as has occurred has been through the medium of Skype, but it is no substitute for proper contact and it has not been, by the sound of it, from either of the parents or the children’s perspective, very successful.

Much of the above is contested by the father, he puts an entirely different perspective and gloss on what has occurred. His case is that, throughout all of this, he has been a loving and supportive father and husband, that his wife wished to return to Pakistan because her mother was very unwell (a matter which does not seem to be supported by the evidence) and that, at all times, he has done his utmost to (a) dissuade her from going to Pakistan and (b) persuade her to try and come back to this country. If that was so there would seem to be little point in these protracted proceedings.

The father, as the evidence demonstrates, however, was very far from inactive. At the latest, by February 2012, and I find in fact much earlier, he wrote to the British High Commission in Islamabad. The contents of that letter are instructive:

During the same year, 2012, the father, very unfortunately, was diagnosed with cancer; happily he is currently in remission.

From 2012, representations were also made on the mother’s behalf, largely by her brother, but others, including to the local Member of Parliament and ultimately to Reunite.

In September 2013, the father visited Pakistan. He did not take B with him. It was suggested by him that the mother should return to the United Kingdom. That was accompanied by various assurances, including the possibility of reconciliation. It is suggested that such a persuasive course was also being pursued by the mother-in-law. Unsurprisingly, if the mother is correct in her contentions, she refused. The significance of the reconciliation, together with the threats that were made about the prospect of divorce if she did not sign the document on 3^rd November 2011 are both, it seems to me, significant.

Ultimately, proceedings were commenced. Even within the proceedings, the paternal family contrived to be obstructive. In November 2014, the paternal grandmother refused to sponsor or help the mother, saying that she was not able to do so. I reject that contention. The same month, the father also refused to sponsor his wife, saying he had no funds to do so. Having now heard the evidence I reject that too, having regard to findings I shall subsequently make about his financial circumstances.

The father in the proceedings undertook to apply for a UK passport for C, although I shall find subsequently that at all stages he either has had or knows where it is. The form was deliberately filled in incorrectly in a number of important respects and the matter of a replacement passport for A remains unresolved.

By the hearing on 10^th February 2015, the father, although ordered to do so, had still not filed evidence, nor filed the correspondence with the Home Office.

On 1^st May 2015, at pre-trial review before Hogg J, there was a dispute as to the extent of financial disclosure (the mother seeking 12 months disclosure, the father arguing for 6). The court ruled against the father, but in fact he simply produced what he had originally contended for, which was extremely limited disclosure. The later disclosure revealed rather more about which I shall comment on later, no doubt why he did not wish to disclose it. The father’s financial circumstances are very far from clear.

Happily, emergency travel documents have finally been granted, or are about to be granted, to the mother and C. I am told that they are scheduled to return to this country on either 22^nd or 23^rd June, that is in a few days’ time.

The hearing was scheduled for five days, but in fact has taken eight, through no fault of highly experienced counsel, Ms Kirby and Mr Bugg. I especially wish to mention Mr Bugg, who was instructed through the Bar Pro Bono Unit for the first five days and who assisted the father’s case and to whom the court is particularly grateful. The second respondent, the grandmother, has appeared in person at this hearing.

I have read the bundles and a considerable number of supplemental materials, including a further letter of authority, upon which a great deal of reliance is placed by the father, dated 14^th December 2011.

The court has heard a very wide span of evidence, much of it from Pakistan. Inevitably, that has posed quite severe logistical and practical problems and makes the assessment of witnesses, in some circumstances, the more difficult. I bear that in mind, particularly since it is a far from satisfactory way of receiving evidence and assessing witnesses, especially as the evidence has to be interpreted through the assistance of interpreters. There was an additional hiccup at the beginning of this case, in that the court appointed interpreter had to be replaced.

I heard evidence from the mother, her brother and her father. I heard from the father, a family friend, the paternal grandmother and the paternal uncle.

In this case, like so many, there can be no substitute for hearing and watching the witnesses in evidence and in court. It is often not appreciated by parties how the judge is in the unique position of being able to hear and also observe what occurs in court during the course of the entire hearing. It can be, and was, very instructive in this case.

At the start of the hearing, the father’s eldest sister sought to act as a McKenzie Friend and advocate for her mother, the second respondent. Applying the President’s guidance, whilst clearly the family placed considerable confidence in her and she is evidently a highly articulate and intelligent woman, I could not ignore the fact that she has been involved, at least to some extent, in some of the contested events. I do not mean that in a pejorative sense, but for example by the booking of tickets on the first trip to Pakistan in 2011 and it is said that she would have been aware of the way in which the mother had been treated by the paternal family. I noted her apparent amusement at the suggestion, during the course of submissions on that issue alone, that she was influential, being the eldest daughter. There were other difficulties about which it is not necessary to make any finding, but I am entirely satisfied that the court’s initial decision was the correct one, which was to limit her role to that of a McKenzie Friend, which she has done throughout, I suspect with considerable efficacy.

The mother gave evidence over three days. It was little short of a gruelling ordeal. What her prolonged evidence increasingly demonstrated, surprisingly accentuated by the medium of the video-link, was that, the more she was questioned and the more she became distressed, the more powerfully and painfully obvious it was that she was truthful. I noted several occasions, when even the father, who vigorously maintains his case, could not bring himself to look at her. That was not reflected at all in the approach of the second respondent, who from time to time shook her head, pouted her lips or shrugged her shoulders. In that short description of the different responses is an illustration of the very troubled dynamic relationship between these three adults: the mother, the father and the paternal grandmother.

The mother, evidently, is an entirely traditional Islamic wife. She served her husband and his family in their home in the North West with as much obedience and loyalty as she could muster. That much was ultimately conceded by the second respondent during cross-examination. It can be seen with that background how very difficult it must have been for her to summon the assistance of the police. She described what occurred thereafter (not to paraphrase) that it was “all calm and lovely”, as had been described by the paternal uncle, but how she had been made to be brought to heel, made to tow the party line and, indeed she says, made to participate in what can only be called a degrading experience, which was that she should be submissive and obedient to her mother-in-law, including bending down in front of her and even, she says, kissing her mother-in-law’s feet. I was very struck by the fact that, at that moment, when she described that evidence, the father hung his head in shame. The mother-in-law looked directly at the mother, pointing defiantly and, it seemed to me, her face portraying a consummate sense of satisfaction. The mother’s evidence was so obviously truthful. Her accounts are in fact borne out by other events, by logic and by common sense.

The mother’s father gave evidence. He is a decent, quiet, traditional and respectful man and a man entirely the product of his society and culture. Guided and advised at all times by that background, he is self-evidently kindly, caring and well intentioned. Ultimately, my conclusion is that he was duped and manipulated by the paternal uncle, who, as I shall find, is anything but those epithets with which I have described the mother’s father. I noted a small piece of the conversation which he says he had with the paternal uncle, which caused a certain amount of stirring in the court, when it was said that he described the father in pejorative tones, by translation effectively a “bastard”, and that it was the father who was being difficult and objectionable. I have no idea whether that was the case or not, although I suspect it was not. It seemed to me that denigrating the father in that way was an entirely cynical and successful attempt by the uncle to reinforce his reassurances, which were hollow, to the maternal father that “all would be well”. It also, of course, gave him the ultimate let-out when inevitably the plan was put into effect that, when the plea was made to him, he would simply say that it was outside his control and he was unable to do anything. The maternal grandfather’s evidence, in my view, confirmed the mother’s evidence and was clearly truthful.

The maternal brother, a young and straightforward man, was a good witness. He gave a clear and consistent account of events on 4^th November 2011 and his own efforts to try to assist his sister, including getting some facts wrong.

When the father went into the witness box, it was remarkable how the whole physical bearing of the grandmother changed. The father told me immediately about how he says the mother had come to dislocate her shoulder, she saying that she had been thrown against a wall. He maintained that he pleaded with his wife not to go to Pakistan in September 2011.

My conclusion, however, is that that evidence was both hollow and untrue. Not only did he have the power, physically and economically, but I also find that the father would have done as he was told. He does as he is told by his mother. For reasons which are obvious, his mother did not wish him to marry a British Pakistani girl and, therefore, he did not do so. His mother arranged a marriage to someone in Pakistan (the mother in this case) and he did so. The father denied that theirs was a traditional home with traditional values, but it seems to me all the evidence points in the opposite direction, a family and home directed by the grandmother. He was asked, for example, if there was any possibility about a reconciliation, he having, after all, spoken to the mother about such a reconciliation, it is said, in 2013. Before he answered the question, he looked to his mother for assistance and guidance.

The father was questioned about financial provision for the mother and for his children. He again looked to his mother for assistance. The approach towards the mother was illustrated by his peevish and churlish behaviour over the provision even of a photograph of B during their separation to be given to the mother. His evidence demonstrated an essentially weak and shallow man, spoilt and dominated by the women around him. His independence, free will and his decent thoughts (because I believe he has them) are entirely sapped by his mother in particular. He maintained that the mother’s evidence and its content was all theatre for the court’s benefit. I simply do not accept that at all.

The father’s evidence in relation to money was equally unimpressive. He told me about how he had changed his Audi car because he did not like the colour and how the new Mercedes was apparently much cheaper. The amount of maintenance paid to his wife and daughter has been negligible. I am completely sure, having regard to the investigations in evidence of his bank statements, which was unedifying, that there have been substantial sums of money flowing freely in and out between family and friends. I am completely sure that I have not been told the truth about the father’s financial circumstances at all, and that he has access to considerably greater sums that the meagre sums recent bank statements portray.

Overall, the father’s evidence was most unsatisfactory. He was a poor witness both in bearing and in content. He was not a truthful witness. There were isolated moments when he seemed genuinely affected by what had occurred both in relation to the mother and the plight of his daughters and his total and understandable embarrassment by the performance of his paternal uncle in evidence. But, because he is a man who is weak and suborned by the family dynamics, background, circumstances and relationships in which he finds himself, that totally saps his vestigial sense of responsibility and decency.

I was impressed subsequently by the family friend who was called, who was obviously a straightforward and honest witness.

I then heard from the paternal grandmother. Her extreme and completely dismissive views were touched upon by her at the very outset, both in the written evidence and in the CAFCASS report, and were reflected immediately in the witness box. The mother has, in effect, been airbrushed from her and B’s life completely.

The paternal grandmother was unable to give any explanation as to why the mother would have phoned the police in September 2011. She told me, somewhat brazenly:

The grandmother’s evidence fulfilled in every respect the early intimations which are set out in the papers and indeed the allegations made about her conduct and my observations of her in court. At no time was there any sense of reflection, let alone regret. She was confident, she was tough, she was uncompromising. She had no opinion whatever of the mother, who, despite her proclaimed love and affection for B, has successfully poisoned her mind against the mother and has done nothing to protect her at all; indeed quite the reverse. It is illustrated by so much of the rest of the evidence in almost every respect. In respect of central events, I am sure that the grandmother was untruthful, as indeed the independent background evidence also shows, whether it be the calling of the police or the handing over of B on 4^th November 2011. From a welfare perspective I am also sure that the grandmother’s warped perspectives and sustained efforts have been really damaging to B. I am afraid to say B needs removing from her influence as soon as possible.

The paternal uncle is an advocate of the Supreme Court in Pakistan. Although he insisted on an interpreter, his command of the English language was clearly good, as subsequent exchanges between he and counsel later demonstrated. He was one of the most remarkable and worst witnesses that the court has almost ever heard. Even the father could not bear to look. The uncle was self-opinionated, hectoring, belligerent, didactic and plainly untruthful. He demonstrated the clearest contempt both for the mother and her counsel. He was a man who was not just used to getting his own way, but making sure that he did so, a man who was arrogant in the extreme, used to directing events. This was immediately demonstrated when counsel started asking effective and proper questions. He commented how lacking her cross-examination was, he being the expert, having done it now for 50 years. He seldom answered the question, interrupting and pre-empting many, indeed almost every question which counsel attempted to ask, demonstrating clearly incidentally that he had discussed the content of his evidence with someone who had previously been in court but prior to the giving of his evidence. He was in short an appalling witness, the like of which I cannot recall.

The father agreed to marry the mother in Pakistan. It was an arranged marriage. That is what his mother wished. It was an entirely traditional Islamic marriage. The mother came to Oldham and was absorbed in the paternal household. That was what she and they expected. Inevitably, she was isolated from her own family physically, but, in my judgment, in every sense.

The paternal family’s unreconstructed, dogmatic, superior view gradually eroded how the mother was treated. She was at least put upon. I find, on the evidence, that she was subjected on two occasions to the father’s loss of patience and control, resulting in physical injury on each occasion. Perhaps more worryingly, the paternal family, and the grandmother in particular, did nothing to support or protect her. They simply stood by and allowed that to happen.

When the mother says that she was not permitted to seek medical advice, I find that evidence true and powerful. She was given paracetamol. In relation to the shoulder, perhaps the most instructive guide is illustrated by the uncontradicted evidence of the mother’s situation. There were, of course, many conflicting accounts by the grandmother as to what she was doing on that occasion, but what the family friend told me was that the father was outside having a cigarette, waiting for a taxi or an ambulance, and the grandmother and the sister were downstairs at the bottom of the stairs. Where was the mother? The mother was left on her own, in extreme pain, not being given any comfort or assistance by anybody. It seems to me that that rather sad description portrays precisely what was happening to this woman captive in this home. Of course the mother did not say what had happened to her to her family friend. She would hardly be expected to do so in the circumstances.

I find that the mother reluctantly acquiesced (again, I think she had no choice) to B’s trip to Pakistan in 2011. In reality, there had been no proper discussion. I bring to mind the grandmother’s illustrative evidence, dismissive in the extreme, when she said, “Well, the ticket had been left on the kitchen table and therefore she must have known.”

In relation to the inoculations on 5^th August 2011, I prefer the mother’s account. She expressed her surprise, and that was supported to some considerable degree by the father’s very confused evidence about that. I find the inoculations occurred at the grandmother’s behest.

I find that it was only on 1^st September that the mother learned of the firm plan for the trip to Pakistan. Such was her extreme panic and anxiety that she felt constrained to telephone the police. As I have made clear already, that act alone demonstrates the very extremity of the circumstances in which she found herself and both the recording of the phone conversation and the later interview confirm the mother’s evidence. She was afraid that she was going to be left there. If the father’s account is correct, why on earth would she make such a representation to the authorities to the police who were in the home? The mother had, in effect, been completely out-manoeuvred.

The paternal uncle, and indeed the family as a whole, sought to persuade me that, notwithstanding the visit of the police, everything was calm, straightforward and lovely as a result of the visit by the police. Such contentions are ridiculous and I reject them. The house was in uproar. The family clearly were angry and keen to regain control. They no doubt must have been extremely surprised, and extremely affronted. The visits paid by various members of the family had much more to do with that than any form of reassurance to the mother.

There is a final piece of evidence which supports the mother, which is that it has not been contested that the maternal family did not know of the mother’s trip to Pakistan. It seems to me quite astonishing that such a momentous trip, where the mother had not been for many years and where they were going to see both their grandchildren and nieces, would not have been discussed, let alone mentioned, but apparently that was not the case.

I reject the father’s evidence where he contended that he strongly sought to persuade her not to go, that she was well aware that her visa was about to expire. Neither are true. Such assertions are absurd and against all common sense and reason and importantly against the reliable evidence. Equally, I reject the suggestion that the mother was in control of the passport and her actions through the airport.

In Pakistan, the mother stayed with the paternal uncle, as would be expected. On 3^rd November 2011, she attended court for the notarised consent. I find that that document was created by the uncle, signed in the car park in very peculiar circumstances, as described by the family, and signed because the mother had been relentlessly worn down by the grandmother and the maternal family hoodwinked by the family generally. She had been subjected to empty and indeed devious assurances by the uncle and ultimately threatened with divorce. Once signed, the family demonstrated their true colours. Her bag, she said, had been packed, she was bundled out of the house in exasperation, both verbally and physically by the grandmother, who was unable on this occasion to control herself, and bundled out the back to her maternal home.

It is perhaps especially surprising that the meeting on 4^th November occurred, but is of itself a reflection of the dynamic between the two families. It is evident that the grandmother herself suspected the mother may not have shown up with B. It is a great pity that she did, but it is a measure of her obedience and of her traditional views and background that she did so. She was still susceptible to those pressures as well as the hollow assurances. That meeting occurred not at the maternal home, as one might have expected, but deliberately at a venue which was not where the mother was able to assert herself, not even a neighbour’s house, as I had been led to believe, but in fact at the home of a niece of the grandmother. B was, in effect, forcibly removed, the passport being dismissively handed to the mother through the car window. I find that the grandmother retained C’s passport and, to this day, knows where it is. Only at a very late stage do I find that the mother in fact knew that her visa had already expired. She was, in effect, marooned.

The father, as I have made clear already, immediately set about ensuring that the mother could never come back. The letters to the High Commission, which are uncontested by the father, are a disgrace. They are a cynical attempt to make quite sure that the mother, and of course C, an unfortunate casualty, were unable ever to come back to the United Kingdom.

When the father went to see the mother some considerable time later, by this stage shortly before these proceedings, even then he strung the mother along, instigating talk of reconciliation. It is a measure of the mother’s traditional views and outlook and of the paternal family’s views that they, despite that, were able to string the mother along for such a long period. The mother has now been stranded in Pakistan for more than three and a half years.

The level of callous, determined persistence, indeed cruelty, to the mother and both of these girls is very high. It is an enormous relief to the court that the sustained efforts made on behalf of the mother have finally born some fruit. These two girls need reuniting as quickly as possible.

Having regard to the father’s very unsatisfactory evidence in relation to money, I find that clearly the father has the wherewithal, the family resources, to pay maintenance to his wife. The recent bank statements bear no relation to his financial circumstances; the older statements show thar monies flow through this and other accounts freely, the family pooling their resources when the mood takes them. Having regard to what I heard in the evidence and the difficulties about it, the father has a pressing responsibility to support his wife and dependants. I am entitled to make an order under section 27 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and I do so, but it is very modest and I shall order that the sum of £400 shall be paid each month, the first payment to be made by 4pm on 19^th July and monthly thereafter. He can afford to pay it and the mother needs it.

In relation to the future care of the children, clearly a great deal of reparation requires to be done as a result of the shocking harm caused to B. The father in evidence could find no good reason, other than a financial one, why the girls should not (a) be reunited and (b) more importantly (notwithstanding everything that was said about the mother, in particular by the grandmother) why the mother should not care for the children. Those plans clearly need further robust investigation and planning. A great deal needs to be done to repair the relationship between the girls and their mother and between the girls and their father, but much may depend on his subsequent stance and approach.

Those are my findings. I shall order a transcript of this judgment to be prepared at public expense. I direct that there should be a further hearing. Clearly CAFCASS needs now to carry out urgent enquiries. That will take some time. I will hear submissions about the timetable for the future conduct of this case.