MR JUSTICE WILLIAMS
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Before :
MR JUSTICE WILLIAMS
Between :
WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL & THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SUSSEX POLICE | Applicants |
- and - | |
F - and - M - and - N - and - P -and- T (Through their Children’s Guardian) | 1st Respondent 2nd Respondent 3rd Respondent 4th Respondent 5th Respondent |
Robert Cameron (instructed by the local authority) for the Applicant
Mark Love (instructed by Anthony Morris) for the 1st Respondent
Mehvish Chaudhry (instructed by Hanne & Co) for the 2nd Respondent
Francis Cassidy (instructed by Duncan Lewis) for the 3rd Respondent
Robin Belben (instructed by Child Law Partnership) for the 4th Respondent
Gemma Taylor QC (instructed by Harney and Wells) for the children's guardian
Hearing dates: 18th - 22nd June 2018
Judgment Approved
This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
Mr Justice Williams :
I am concerned with three children, N now aged 15; P now aged 14 and T now aged nine. On Friday, 8 December 2017 Sussex police applied without notice to the urgent applications judge at the High Court for a forced marriage protection order in respect of all three children. That order was granted including a direction that the respondents were to immediately make travel arrangements for N and T to return to the jurisdiction of England and Wales within 48 hours of service of this order. The respondents to that application were F, the children’s father; M, the children’s mother and C, the children’s aunt. The order was served at about 6:30 PM on Friday evening and thus the children were required to return by about 6.30pm on Sunday 10th December. P was taken into police protection on 8 December and placed in foster care. The girls did not return by that deadline but they were returned by 15 December. They were met at the airport by police and social workers and placed in foster care. The parents agreed to them being accommodated pursuant to section 20 Children act 1989 and on 22nd of December 2017 West Sussex County Council commenced care proceedings. Those proceedings were transferred to the High Court on 3 January 2018 and his honour Judge Thorpe made an interim care order in respect of each of the three children.
Since then both the forced marriage protection application and the care application have run in tandem and have come before me for a fact-finding hearing in relation to the allegation of forced marriage underpinning Sussex police application and the broader allegations underpinning West Sussex care application. Over the course of the past four days I have read and heard evidence and on this day five am delivering my judgement.
N was made a party to both of the proceedings and has been giving instructions direct and represented by solicitors and counsel, Mr Cassidy.
P was also made a party to both the proceedings and has been giving instructions direct and represented by solicitors and counsel, Mr Belben.
T is a party to the care proceedings and has been represented by her guardian Theresa Seale, who was also the Guardian for N and P until they parted company earlier in the year. The Guardian has been represented by Ms Taylor Queens Counsel.
The local authority have been represented by Mr Cameron, counsel
The mother has been represented by Mr Love, counsel
The father has been represented by Ms Chaudhry, counsel
I would like to thank the parties and their legal teams for the immense effort that has gone into preparing this case. The documentary evidence runs across six lever arch files. The arrangements for the witnesses to give evidence have been far from straightforward. N and P were the subject of ground rules hearings and directions based on the recommendations of Dr Latif. That was supplemented by the advice of specialist intermediaries. They both gave evidence by video link and arrangements were made for them to be notified of the topics on which they would be questioned and to limit the number of counsel who would ask them questions. Q, the mother’s sister, also gave evidence. It had become clear at the end of May that she was the individual who had provided much information to the police on which the application had been based. She had been treated by the police as an informant. Considerable care had been taken by the police to preserve her anonymity. Following a hearing in April of this year when I invited the police to consider whether in the context of what was already known (or very strongly suspected) and when her evidence would be a central component of this fact-finding hearing, whether they wished to seek to maintain her anonymity, the police, very sensibly in my view on the particular facts of this case, decided that they did not seek to maintain her anonymity and thus that special advocates would not be required to deal with the evidence as it related to her. However, she was treated by this court as a vulnerable witness and arrangements were made for her to give evidence by video link from a secure location. Regrettably Q did not cooperate with those arrangements and under considerable pressure was brought to London to give evidence from the vulnerable witness suite here. A further local authority witness O also had to give evidence by video link, she only having returned from holiday in the morning of the fourth day of the hearing. Happily, despite some early technical difficulties with the link, all of the witnesses have been able to give their evidence in an uninterrupted and effective way. The special measures taken and implemented by the parties and the court have in this case worked very effectively.
Following a pre-trial review in early June the local authority honed down the findings they sought from the 44 which comprised their threshold document dated 16 March to a more sensible and manageable 10. I have incorporated the Scott schedule with the mother’s and father’s responses at the conclusion of this judgement. In order to set the context for this judgment I shall summarise them below.
The children have been exposed to domestic abuse between the parents. The parents accept there were arguments between them but deny any physical violence.
The mother and the father have physically abused P and N. The mother and father both deny ever having physically abused their children. They say any measures of discipline were non-physical.
The mother and father have been verbally abusive to the children. Both parents deny being abusive and say any tellings off were within ordinary parameters.
N’s school attendance was poor before she was taken to Pakistan in 2016. Both parents accept it was poor but say this was because N was going to school and then hiding in the school toilets.
P’s attendance and behaviour at school was poor and he was moved to the care of his uncle and aunt because the parents were unable to provide appropriate guidance and boundaries for him. The parents accept that P was struggling with school, after the mother remained in Pakistan in August 2016, and say he moved to his uncle and aunt so that they could support him with his education which they identify as the root cause of his behavioural issues.
Following concerns being raised by professionals in July 2016 about the care given to the children by the parents N and T were placed by the parents in Pakistan spending a lengthy period separated from their family in the UK and were not returned to the UK until December 2017 when required by the court. The parents say that the children went to Pakistan for a wedding and during their stay the mother became ill and could not return. They say the girls could not return alone and were entered in education. Whilst the mother was there she decided that the environment was better for her health and that she would seek to make a long-term home there. Both parents deny that the children’s presence in Pakistan was in any way linked to the local authority investigation. The mother says that she was in the process of saving money to pay for N’s return flight. Ms Chowdhry and Mr Love both cautioned me against any form of cultural imperialism and the imposition of liberal Western parenting standards in a different cultural context.
The parents caused N to be engaged to a cousin without her consent whilst in Pakistan and made arrangements for N to marry without her consent, attempting to force N into marriage or failing to protect her from a forced marriage. Both parents deny this and say that N was neither engaged nor were arrangements made for her to marry. They say that she had a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship with B her cousin at one stage but it was no more than this.
N received no education in Pakistan after she was taken there, save for a brief period when enquiries were made by the authorities and attendance at a short beauty course. The parents say N was at school for about 3 ½ months but struggled to learn in Urdu and so left school and took up a beauty course at college for three months. They say that they were then awaiting a certificate to enable her to undertake a six-month beauty course which she was due to commence in November. They say this is what N wanted to do.
The parents and/or family members have placed pressure on N and P to not tell the truth and to withdraw their allegations. Both parents deny having placed any pressure on N and P and deny having the opportunity to do so, having had no contact save supervised contact with them.
As a result of pressure from their family and/or in an attempt to achieve a return home, the children have retracted the allegations (which were true) made in their original ABE interviews and are not in a position to provide a full, free and accurate account of the relevant events or to express their true wishes and feelings. The parents deny this and assert that the children’s allegations were untrue and the product of the influence of two maternal aunts but in particular of Q to whom the children had grown close. They maintain that Q bears a grudge in particular against the father because of the circumstances in which they married and that over the course of the marriage Q has made unfounded allegations against the father of drinking, drug use and infidelity which have been the root cause of arguments within their marriage. They deny placing any pressure on the children, or any family members having done so.
N’s position since she gave a retraction interview in February 2018 has been that all of the allegations she made in her ABE interview were false. She says that she very much wanted to come home from Pakistan and made the allegation that she was engaged to be married in order to get back to England. She says that she made the allegations about physical and verbal abuse because she was led to believe by DC Cherryman that if she gave lots of detail in support of the allegations that she would be able to go home to her parents. Mr Cassidy has submitted that the circumstances in which her allegations were recorded and in particular the circumstances in which the ABE interview was undertaken were in breach of the MOJ guidance and that taken together with the inducements offered to her are such as to render the allegations made wholly unreliable. Mr Cassidy emphasises that N’s primary desire is to return to live with her family. Mr Cassidy said in submissions that N feels a responsibility for setting in train events which led to the situation the family now find themselves in. I would like N to know that she is emphatically not responsible for this situation.
P also no longer holds by the allegations he made prior to December 2017 or in his ABE interview. Mr Belben on his behalf says that he was desperate to secure the return of his sisters from Pakistan and said what he considered needed to be said to get them back; what he did was an honourable thing. He accepts that what he said was not true and he also wishes to return home. I agree that what P did was motivated by concern for his sisters and by his own desire to be reunited with them. That was a perfectly proper motive. If he ‘overcooked’ the allegations he made that is not a surprise. No one in his immediate family was listening to he or his sisters and in response he was effectively forced to take more and more radical action. He does not bear responsibility for the situation the family finds itself in. I’m sure he might wish to reflect on the impact of some of his more extreme allegations but I cannot blame him at all for acting as he did. When children and young people are not listened to on such serious issues as those engaged here the adults around them should not be surprised and certainly should not blame them if the children resort to extreme measures to make their voices heard.
Ms Seale takes a different view and aligns herself in this respect with the local authority. She supports the truth of the allegations expressed by the children and the probability that they have withdrawn them as a result of familial pressure.
Those allegations and the responses thus form the foundations upon which this hearing has been built. The fact-finding I have been engaged upon takes place within the framework set by the Children Act 1989 and the Family Law Act 1996.
Legal Framework
Care Order
In order to make a care or any public law order the Local Authority must prove that the situation justifies the intervention of the State. This means that the Local Authority must establish the statutory threshold set out in s.31(2) Children Act 1989.
A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied –
(a)that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and
(b)that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to –
(i)the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or
(ii)the child's being beyond parental control.
The relevant date for determining whether the threshold is met is the date at which the application was made; namely on 22 December 2017. The Court can rely on subsequent events as per Re G (Care Proceedings: Threshold Conditions) [2001] 2 FLR 1111 but only they are capable of showing what the position was at the relevant time and if so they should be admitted for that purpose. In Re G the court said that information as to a person’s capabilities which comes to light after the relevant date may inform the decision as to what the risk was before the date just as much after that date where there was no change in the persons abilities. It is clear from the judgment of Lady Justice Hale (as she then was) that she clearly had in mind subsequent events which proved that a risk existed at the time.
The provisions relating to the forced marriage protection order are set out in Part 4A family Law act 1996.
63A Forced marriage protection orders
The court may make an order for the purposes of protecting –
a person from being forced into a marriage or from any attempt to be forced into a marriage; or
a person who has been forced into a marriage.
In deciding whether to exercise its powers under this section and, if so, in what manner, the court must have regard to all the circumstances including the need to secure the health, safety and well-being of the person to be protected.
In ascertaining that person's well-being, the court must, in particular, have such regard to the person's wishes and feelings (so far as they are reasonably ascertainable) as the court considers appropriate in the light of the person's age and understanding.
For the purposes of this Part a person ('A') is forced into a marriage if another person ('B') forces A to enter into a marriage (whether with B or another person) without A's free and full consent.
For the purposes of subsection (4) it does not matter whether the conduct of B which forces A to enter into a marriage is directed against A, B or another person.
In this Part –
'force' includes coerce by threats or other psychological means (and related expressions are to be read accordingly); and
'forced marriage protection order' means an order under this section.
63B Contents of orders
A forced marriage protection order may contain –
such prohibitions, restrictions or requirements; and
such other terms;
as the court considers appropriate for the purposes of the order.
[Such other terms would cover a return order provided it supported the ‘purposes of the order’
The terms of such orders may, in particular, relate to –
conduct outside England and Wales as well as (or instead of) conduct within England and Wales;
respondents who are, or may become, involved in other respects as well as (or instead of) respondents who force or attempt to force, or may force or attempt to force, a person to enter into a marriage;
other persons who are, or may become, involved in other respects as well as respondents of any kind.
For the purposes of subsection (2) examples of involvement in other respects are –
aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, encouraging or assisting another person to force, or to attempt to force, a person to enter into a marriage; or
conspiring to force, or to attempt to force, a person to enter into a marriage.
63C Applications and other occasions for making orders
The court may make a forced marriage protection order –
on an application being made to it; by a relevant third party.
A relevant third party is defined as a [police authority] pursuant to a FLA 1996 (FM)(RTP) Order 2009. West Sussex police are that [??]
63D Ex parte orders: Part 4A
The court may, in any case where it considers that it is just and convenient to do so, make a forced marriage protection order even though the respondent has not been given such notice of the proceedings as would otherwise be required by rules of court.
In deciding whether to exercise its powers under subsection (1), the court must have regard to all the circumstances including –
any risk of significant harm to the person to be protected or another person if the order is not made immediately;
whether it is likely that an applicant will be deterred or prevented from pursuing an application if an order is not made immediately; and
whether there is reason to believe that –
the respondent is aware of the proceedings but is deliberately evading service; and
the delay involved in effecting substituted service will cause serious prejudice to the person to be protected or (if a different person) an applicant.
The court must give the respondent an opportunity to make representations about any order made by virtue of subsection (1).
The opportunity must be –
as soon as just and convenient; and
at a hearing of which notice has been given to all the parties in accordance with rules of court.
In Chief Constable and Another -v-YK and Others [2010] EWHC 2438 the President of the Family Division, Sir Nicholas Wall, gave the following guidance on the proper approach to the jurisdiction to grant forced marriage protection orders.
[9] Nonetheless forced marriage cases are likely to throw up issues which are profound in the extreme. The subject matter itself is highly sensitive. In every case, as it seems to me, a clear distinction needs to be drawn between, on the one hand, forced marriage as a form of domestic violence and a serious abuse of human rights, and, on the other, the concept of the consensual arranged marriage which is rightly perceived as a cultural norm in certain societies and thus wholly acceptable: - see, for example the decision of Singer J in Re SK [2004] EWHC 3202 (Fam), [2005] 2 FLR 230 and that of Munby J (as he then was) in Re K [2005] EWHC 2956 (Fam)[2007] 1 FLR 399.
[17] Two aspects of the Act are immediately striking. The first is that it is very widely drawn. It is extra-territorial in its application and orders may be both made and discharged ex parte. Secondly, the Act plainly creates a protective / injunctive jurisdiction. Its object is to prevent forced marriages by protecting those who may be, or have been, forced into marriage. The position in relation to respondents, moreover, seems to me robust, and the only criterion for protecting a respondent to such an order appears in section 63D(3), where the order is made ex parte and the court is required to give any respondent "an opportunity to make representations" (see section 63D(3)). That opportunity must be "as soon as just and convenient" (section 63D4(a)) and at an "on notice" hearing (section 63D4(b)). The order otherwise lasts until varied or discharged (63F).
[18] Although the court is required to take into account "all the circumstances" when deciding whether or not to make an order there is nothing in the Act which requires the court to apply any given criteria beyond the matters identified in section 63A(2).There is, moreover, nothing in the Act to stop the court acting on hearsay evidence, or information provided to it by the police which has not been disclosed to the respondents.
[20] Thus the highest the case is put for any respondents are the requirements where there is an ex parte order; (1) for service and; (2) for the respondent to be given the opportunity to make representations. In other words, there is no requirement for there to be a conventional hearing at which the respondents are alerted to the case against them and have the opportunity to rebut it. These are issues to which I shall need to return later in this judgment.
[100] The difficulties which arise – or may arise – come into focus when an application is made to set the order or orders arise. In such circumstances, I fully recognise that factual issues may arise which the court is required to investigate. However, not only is that not this case, but, even if it were, it does not seem to me that that special advocates have any role to play. The police - or the alleged victim – argue that certain information likely to lead to a breach of the rights provided by ECHR Articles 2, 3 or 8 should not be disclosed. Balanced against that are the ECHR Article 6 (and possibly 8) rights of the persons subject to the order. Given the protective nature of the court's jurisdiction, it seems to me that the court can decide the issue of whether or not the order should stand without either detailed investigation of the factual issues or the intervention of special advocates.
The language of s.63A therefore gives a very broad discretion. Provided the terms of that section are applied an order may be granted. There is no evidential threshold other than that contained in section 63A still less does it appear that the court must conclude on the balance of probabilities that the protected person has or will be subjected to a forced marriage.
Given that such orders carry penal consequences and not just on contempt but criminal law penalties where a person might be arrested on the basis of there existing reasonable grounds to suspect them of being in breach and being charged on the basis of a realistic prospect of conviction it is clear the making of an interim ex parte order is a very serious step with potentially very significant consequences for the respondents. This is a case in point. Without notice orders were made on Friday morning, served at 6:30 PM on Friday evening with a requirement that the two girls be returned within 48 hours of service. The order did contain a warning including the fact that they had a right to apply to the court to change or cancel the order. The warning stated in bold failure to obey this order is a serious criminal offence. Thus, as of 6:30 PM on Sunday evening, the parents without having had the opportunity to consult lawyers or to make an application back to the court were at risk of arrest for breach of the order. Given the concerns expressed by P in his telephone call of 7 December it is hardly a surprise that the application was made on an urgent basis and was granted on an urgent basis. The difference between the sorts of orders that the President was discussing in that case and this is that he was referring purely to protective and prohibitory orders which prevented a forced marriage and which could not be seriously objected to, purely requiring the respondents to refrain from doing things. When mandatory orders are concerned which require a person to do an act, in this case requiring the return of children from Pakistan in circumstances where they had been there for 16 months that is clearly a far more significant matter. It clearly involves a positive interference with the family life of the respondents and therefore has article 6 ECHR implications which rights the President concluded were not engaged when the court was simply making prohibitory orders. Where mandatory orders are sought, whilst the section 63A criteria still apply (I assume for these purposes a return order falls within the definition of ‘requirement’) it seems to me that the court must be satisfied on appropriate evidence that the making of such an order is a necessary and proportionate response. Where the order is to bite almost immediately and in circumstances where the respondents will be placed under an obligation carrying potentially penal consequences before they will in practical terms be able to seek legal advice or return the matter to court the approach of those applying for the injunction and the court considering it will necessarily need to be that much more robust.
I note in that case the President was considering the jurisdiction, in particular in the context of what evidence would have to be considered and whether special advocates would be required on an application to discharge the order by the protected person. The respondents were not seeking its discharge. It does not appear that there were linked care proceedings which do require findings to be made on issues which are common to both sets of proceedings. The determination of the factual issues in this case will of course inform the exercise of the court’s powers in relation to the forced marriage protection order. I should note that neither of the parents are actively seeking its discharge. It is their case that they have never sought to force N into a marriage and will not do so.
Fact -Finding
It is for the local authority to prove that the threshold is crossed and to prove the facts on which the application or a Forced Marriage Protection Order rely. They have undertaken that task on behalf of the police. They rely on the Schedule.
In approaching the task of determining the facts I refer to what the President said in the June 2013 View from the Presidents Chamber as further explored in para 46 Re J (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 222.
[The Court} needs to know what the nature of the local authority case is: what the essential factual basis of the case is; what the evidence is upon which the local authority relies to establish its case; what the local authority is asking the court and why.
In approaching the Threshold, the court must be satisfied that facts alleged by the LA are proved by admissible evidence on the balance of probabilities. The LA must then demonstrate the link between those facts and the threshold. In other words, the court must then be satisfied that those ‘proven facts’ demonstrate why the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering significant harm.
In respect of the task of determining whether the ‘facts’ have been proven the following points must be born in mind as referred to in the guidance confirmed by the President of the Family Division in In the Matter of X (Children) (No 3) [2015] EWHC 3651 at paragraphs 20 – 24. See also the judgment of Lord Justice Aikens in Re J and Re A (A Child) (No 2) [2011] EWCA Civ 12, [2011] 1 FCR 141, para 26. That is;
the burden of proof lies on the person making the allegation, if there is one and in most aspects, this lies squarely on the Local Authority,
the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities (i.e. it is more likely than not that the event occurred) and this "must be applied with common sense",
findings of fact in these cases must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation. However, the court can have regard to the inherent probabilities. If the LA rely on evidence contained within records or reports which is disputed by a parent giving oral evidence and the LA do not call the witness who can speak to it first hand the LA may face difficulties in proving that fact.
the court must take into account all the evidence and furthermore consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence. The court invariably surveys a wide canvas. A judge in these difficult cases must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to a conclusion. If a matter is not proved to have happened I approach the case on the basis that it did not happen.
[Expert evidence – not relevant on this fact finding]
Seventh, the evidence of the parents and any other carers is of the utmost importance. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability and explains how and why their oral evidence was relevant.
It is common for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress, and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything (see R v Lucas [1981] QB 720). The fact that someone has lied about something prove the reverse of that lie; the lie must be viewed in the context of the wider canvas to determine what inference can legitimately be drawn from it. Credibility generally is relevant not just to establishing the facts but also to the evaluation of the welfare issues where one is considering risks and capability in particular.
All the evidence is admissible notwithstanding its hearsay nature, including local authority case records or social work chronologies is hearsay, often second- or third-hand hearsay. The court should give it the weight it considers appropriate: Children Act 1989 s.96(3); Children (Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence) Order 1993; Re W (Fact Finding: Hearsay Evidence) [2014] 2 FLR 703.
Both Ms Chaudhry and Mr Cassidy have directed me to the MOJ publication ‘Achieving Best Evidence in criminal proceedings: guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses, and guidance on using special measures’. The position in relation to evidence contained within ABE interviews was considered by the Court of Appeal in Re E (a child) (evidence) [2016] EWCA Civ 473. Lord Justice McFarlane in that case said that the departures from the ABE guidance required the judge to engage with a thorough analysis of the process in order to evaluate whether any of the allegations that the children made to the police could be relied upon. It is clear from that decision that what the child says within such an interview is admissible. The issue that the court must grapple with is whether it can be relied upon. In that case the evidence was of sexual abuse and formed the dominant part of the evidence on which the case hinged. Both Ms Chowdhury and Mr Cassidy invite me to conclude that the evidence contained within the December ABE interviews is entirely unreliable and is rendered so by the failure to preplan the interview, to ask for a short summary of the child position at the outset, by the failure of DC Cherryman to maintain an appropriate ‘distance’ from N and by the circumstances in which the interviews were carried out. They say that the combination of factors in this case are such that the entirety of the interviews are rendered unreliable as evidenced by the children subsequent retractions of them.
In respect of the children’s evidence along with that of Q (a vulnerable witness) I bear in mind that special measures have been taken to enable them to give their best evidence. The measures that were adopted were agreed by all parties, and in respect of the children endorsed by Dr Latif and ultimately in accordance with the recommendations of the specialist intermediary. I am therefore satisfied that all the appropriate steps have been taken to ensure that vulnerable witnesses could give their evidence in an appropriate manner.
When I turn to the evidence I bear all these factors in mind in reaching my conclusions on the Threshold and outcome.
Assessment of the Evidence
I have considered a very considerable amount of documentary evidence the principal elements of which are referred to in some shape or form in the chronology, which is included at Appendix A.
I have had the benefit of hearing oral evidence from
N,
P,
Q,
the mother,
the father,
DC Cherryman
O
A very considerable difficulty in this case in my view is that all of those who have been able to give a direct account of events which form the foundation of both the threshold and the forced marriage allegations have not given accounts on which I feel confident in relying. In respect of N and P self-evidently they have given diametrically opposite accounts. In respect of both the mother and father they clearly have a motive to minimise or deny what happened and the evidence clearly demonstrates that in some respects they have not been truthful. In respect of Q she has clearly become so angry and frustrated that her oral evidence was tinged with this. In respect of her written statements there were clearly aspects which were difficult to accept; her assertion that the father had engaged his daughters for financial gain and that she had been aware of an engagement but had never spoken to either her mother or her sisters about N’s engagement because she was not of that culture were particular examples. Although DC Cherryman I’m satisfied gave me honest evidence, the contemporaneous documentary evidence which would often be found in a police investigation was not present. He did not have notes made of his conversations with N in anything other than the most perfunctory form in respect of 13 October conversation. In respect even of that, the way the note reads suggests that in fact that is a note of his conversation with Q not of his conversation with N. He quite frankly accepted that he had not made many notes of his conversations with N. Given the allegations that have now been made against him in terms of his reassurances that N would be able to go home and the suggestion that she should make up detail that is unfortunate from his point of view. It is also unfortunate from this court’s point of view and from the family’s point of view. The whole purpose of contemporaneous notes is to seek to enable the court the parties and the police to have a reliable record of what took place. DC Cherryman’s explanation that he did not like to interrupt the flow by taking truly contemporaneous notes is understandable. Writing up the notes afterwards though would have been possible. I got the impression from DC Cherryman that the very many demands on his time was probably the underlying explanation for the lack of record-keeping. He himself was unable to recall whether the photograph at G 19 was showing the engagement ceremony or was merely for identification purposes. On balance he thought it was for identification purposes although it is clear from Q’s statement and the fact that the photographs were provided on 13 October 2017 that it is more likely that it was provided by Q to show the ceremony, even if originally it was provided to Q by N to show her what B looked like. Nor is the documentary evidence in any sense complete. Police records in relation to the complaints of domestic violence are not present. There is no evidence from P’s school as to his conversations with them about N’s situation. There is no record from the FCO, forced marriage protection unit of their involvement, save for the note of the conversation when P rang them on 7 December. In particular there is not a note of their visit to N in about October 2016.
The Witnesses
The Mother
The mother gave evidence in a combative and defiant fashion. She often resorted to saying she did not want to comment on a matter or did not want to answer a question. She is clearly a forceful personality and is determined to have her say and I think get her way. That she married the father without discussion with her father and without inviting her sisters demonstrates that she will do what is necessary to get what she wants. Her denial of what she said about domestic violence and the father’s anger was not at all convincing. Many aspects of her answers were unconvincing or evasive. Her explanation for why N could not come back to England in September 2016 when she had a ticket and was due to return to school was implausible. Her account of why they remained in Pakistan and how she came to decide that she would not return to live in England but make her home in Pakistan again was unconvincing. Her evidence in relation to the telephone in the house was frankly risible. I am afraid she was a far from impressive witness. At times obstructive, defensive, self-entitled, self-centred and argumentative. She demonstrated an almost complete absence of insight into the impact of events on her children and seemed to accept no responsibility for anything that occurred. The Guardian observed that there was no trace of emotion or connection with the children and I am inclined to agree although this may have been the environment as the contact notes and the assessment of Dr Latif suggest that the children are attached to her and she to them. In respect of any matter which might reflect badly on her I’m satisfied that I cannot rely on her unless her evidence is corroborated by independent and contemporaneous evidence.
The Father
In the witness box the father was generally measured and attempted to answer the questions asked of him more fully than the mother had. He resorted less to no comment. In consequence of being less guarded he found it very difficult to give a clear explanation in relation to one of the central issues; namely whether N and B were girlfriend/boyfriend or engaged. His explanation that culturally such a relationship would be effectively taboo and so he tried to discourage it did not sit well with his written statement that due to N’s persistence they had eventually told friends and family that B and N were boyfriend girlfriend. His account of never having spoken to E about her numerous conversations with N did not ring true but felt like a rehearsed script. Nor did I think he was being frank when he spoke about the extent of the domestic arguments or his treatment of the children. His evidence smacked of minimisation. Saying that he and the mother sat down to discuss issues but perhaps in loud voices flies in the face both of the other accumulated evidence in this case, this court’s experience in general and also the characters of the mother and father. It is clear, from the body worn video, that the father tends to hold his feelings in until they reach a point when they erupt. That he is capable of behaving angrily and noisily in front of uniformed police and others suggests that away from the eye of authority he would be capable of behaving in this way at the very least; probably he would be less restrained. On the other hand, aspects of his evidence appeared to have a ring of truth about them. He spoke, I thought, sincerely about the value of education. I also thought he spoke sincerely about what was said to him by N and T when he was in Pakistan for E’s wedding. He also seemed unable to relate to how the children may have felt about being separated although he at least appeared to recognise that they would have been distressed by witnessing arguments between their parents. In respect of the father he came across generally as a much more reserved individual who does not cope easily with his emotions. In respect of the central allegations therefore I am satisfied that the father was not telling the whole truth and in some respects was either minimising what had happened or being untruthful.
Seeing the parents give oral evidence supplemented the impressions I’d been able to get of them from their witness statements, the descriptions of them from other documents including Dr Latif’s report and from the body worn cameras.
N
I have viewed both of N’s ABE interviews. I have also seen the video of Q’s recording of N’s message. I have also received from Mr Cassidy an email from N in which she asks him to point out that she made a mistake in one of her answers in oral evidence and that she wanted to correct it given she had touched the Koran.
N’s ABE interview I have summarised in the chronology. She comes across as more composed and coherent than P. Her account of her family and life in the family home is more spontaneous and coherent. It has a ring of authenticity to it. For reasons which I am not entirely clear about there is a pause in the interview when DC Cherryman and N go outside. When the tape recommences DC Cherryman says that N has asked how much information she needs to give and that he has told her to give as much information as possible and as she is comfortable with. Mr Cassidy links this to N’s belief that if she gave sufficient information she would be able to go home. N now says that in effect she was tricked into giving a false narrative on the promise that she would then be allowed to return to her parents. Having seen DC Cherryman give evidence I’m satisfied that he did not in any way hold out such an offer to N. I am concerned though that he allowed himself to become too close emotionally to N and that this may have caused him to be less frank with her than he ought to have been. Given the level of distress that she was in, which emerges clearly from the foster carers notes and given what he said about seeking to reassure her I can see that N may have got an impression that she was likely to go home even if DC Cherryman did not intend to create that impression. The break in the interview and that unrecorded discussion outside together with the absence of a plan to tend to undermine the reliability of what was said. On the other hand, as Ms Taylor points out this was not an instance where N was led. The picture which emerges from the interview is of aspects which appear to be truthful and reliable and other aspects of which I’m more doubtful.
In her second interview she comes across as far more anxious and less expressive. She emphasised that she considered she had been misled by DC Cherryman although she also said that she made the allegations because she wanted to come home. She said ‘I just want to take the allegations back and I request to apologise for all of this to the judge and I really want to go home…’ I don’t have any issues with them [my parents]. She tells the police she has had no contact with her parents other than face-to-face with supervisors. She denied her account of domestic life had been true and said all of that was false and suggested that DC Cherryman told her to put really bad details in so that they could go home. She maintained that Q knew the truth which was that none of it was true. Given her demeanour it is hard to know what to make of this interview. There is little that can be inferred from her body language.
In her oral evidence she confirmed what she had said in her interview but said she did it so that she could get back to England because her mother had not fulfilled the promise that she had made to bring her back. She said her second interview was the truth. There were moments in her evidence when she spoke about unconnected matters which seemed more spontaneous and authentic. Her account of struggling in school because it was taught in Urdu was clearly in my view genuine. Likewise, her description of the house in Pakistan and some aspects of life there. In other respects such as when asked about her parents she was keen to absolve them of any responsibility for anything that occurred. Much of the rest of her evidence though simply consisted in her confirming things she had said in interview and then denying their truth. Mr Cameron was unable to really make any inroads into her account though she did accept that she had had telephone calls with her mother after she went into foster care and that they had happened without the foster carer knowing. She clearly was stressed and anxious and needed a break as she was starting to get a migraine.
P
P’s ABE interview was undertaken on 12 December 2017 when N was still in Pakistan. It lasted 73 minutes. Having gone through the standard introductions illustrating he understood the difference between truth and lies he almost immediately made an allegation that B had sexually abused N every day and that B’s younger brother had sexually abused T and that he had told them not to do it again. Both of these allegations I’m satisfied are untrue. It is during this part of the interview that he makes the allegation that he heard his father calling his mother suggesting that they get N married ‘this Friday’. He gave varying accounts of whether he heard his mum or not precisely what was said and where and how it was said. His interview varies from saying he never spoke to N about the engagement to say she normally shares everything with him. Midway through the interview he refers almost as an aside to his Nan having mentioned that his dad had said he would get married to (B’s sister) but he quickly moved on from that subject. P jumps from subject to subject at one point the police officer says I just need to, so I don’t get this confused in my head I’m just going to take you over what you’ve told me quite slowly P if that’s all right. In contrast his account of being hit by his father at the shops was more coherent and detailed, likewise his account of the conversations with N once the court order was made. These are of course corroborated either by the father or by the WhatsApp messages.
In his oral evidence I was unable to gain very much insight into the truth or otherwise of the allegations. His evidence largely consisted of agreeing that he had said things in the ABE interview and then saying that he made up the details because he thought it would help get the girls home. He maintained his composure, indeed I thought he was very anxious and that made his delivery quite wooden. There were very few moments of spontaneity - when he spoke of going to Pakistan for E’s wedding and seeing N and T, he livened up. In his evidence he made what I thought was a most unlikely allegation that O had promised him that if he told the Guardian he didn’t want to go home that she would let him have the Internet all night.
It is very apparent from all I have heard that P has developed a tendency to make up stories. This emerges from the chronology historically and more recently. It has found expression in this case in serious allegations of sexual abuse given with some detail which appear according to N and T to have no foundation at all. For the purposes of this hearing it means I need to be cautious about P’s evidence where it is not corroborated by someone else or something independent or contemporaneous. What is more concerning is how he has developed this habit. Having seen the mother and father give evidence P may well have learnt from them that not telling the truth is acceptable behaviour.
Q
The circumstances in which Q came to give evidence were far from conducive to her giving an impartial and balanced account. She had wanted to retain her anonymity and is plainly extremely cross with the local authority and the court for having confirmed the parents’ suspicions as to the source of much of the information that the police obtained. Attempts to avoid coming to give evidence illustrate both her anger but also a lack of regard for the legal process. When she did give evidence, she was combative in the extreme. Like her sister she clearly has a very strong personality and is used to holding her own and indeed getting her own way. She clearly does have a grudge with her sister and with the father. She clearly is capable of hyperbole and the construction of explanations without an evidential basis. However, notwithstanding the deficiencies in the way in which she gave evidence I’m satisfied that there was a core of truth to them. I do not accept that any animus towards the mother or father was to such a degree that she effectively created this whole situation. It seems clear that the children turned to her for support along with their other aunt G. Why would they do this unless there was a problem with their parents. Why would Q or G contact the authorities with concerns about N becoming engaged unless there was something on the family grapevine to that effect. The parents own account corroborates that there being a situation in which their 13-year-old daughter was being linked to an older cousin. Perhaps it was G who contacted the NSPCC in May 2017; N’s phone records show frequent contact with both M and G after her return. Had Q really been fabricating the whole story she would have given it much more embellishment. I thought she was telling the truth when she said that there had been no conversations in October 2017 about N getting married next. Equally she was probably telling the truth when she said there had been no intra-family discussions about the engagement. A fabricated forced marriage would have gone further in its extent and detail than Q gave. Somewhat surprisingly perhaps she emerges (other than O) as the most reliable witness.
I have addressed DC Cherryman’s evidence in considering N’s evidence and the circumstances in which the allegations arose and were investigated. I’m satisfied that DC Cherryman is an honest witness. However because his record-keeping was poor and because we are now some eight months on from events his recollection was at times patchy. He accepted with hindsight that aspect of the investigation could have been better handled. Given the expectations of a professional police witness and the problems with his record-keeping and recollection his evidence was not as reliable as it should have been or could have been. That is far from saying, as is alleged by N that he deliberately or knowingly misled her. At worst he may have allowed his sympathy for N’s plight as a distressed child to bring out his protective instincts in a way which resulted in him being closer than was ideal.
So I have had to put together the very many and often contradictory or partial fragments of a very large jigsaw in order to seek to arrive at conclusions as to what is more likely than not to have occurred in respect of the contested issues. The detailed chronology which is appended to this judgment provides the backdrop against which I have sought to understand the dynamics of this family, why people did what they did and why people said what they said. I’m satisfied that there are aspects in which each of the witnesses are telling the truth. Trying to stitch together a balance of probabilities picture from parts of what each has said and adding it to what others have said and interweaving it with the documentary evidence has been no easy task but I’m satisfied that I have been able to obtain a sufficiently accurate picture (albeit incomplete) to make findings on the basis of likelihood.
I think it is important to say that inevitably this part of the judgment, possibly the entirety of this judgment, is focused on what is said to be bad about the parents or how they have exposed their children to harm through unreasonable parenting. This is of course only part of the picture. I would like to put down a marker at this stage though that from what I have seen of the children and what I have read about the parents and what I’ve seen of them that they do have qualities as parents. In their interviews and in evidence the children were polite and cooperative. T in particular came across as an appropriately naive, confident and open little girl. No parents are perfect. Some are very good. Some are very bad indeed. Most fall between the extremes either because of their personalities or life circumstances.
So drawing all the threads together from my evaluation of the witnesses, my observations on the evidence in the Chronology (see Appendix A) and below these are my conclusions.
Finding One
The children have been exposed to domestic abuse between the parents.
A162, A163, A166, A167, C49, G242,
Dr Latif report paras 13.5, 14.9
Mother’s Response
The mother accepts that there have been arguments, but these have not been physical or violent but she does not accept that the children have been exposed to domestic abuse
Father’s Response
The father accepts that the children have been exposed to arguments between the parents. The father denies any physical violence between the parents.
A131, A154, A162, C49
FINDING
The contemporaneous evidence taken together with the parents’ admissions and what the children said in their ABE interviews satisfy me that the atmosphere in the household was at times toxic and on two occasions spilled over into physical violence perpetrated by the father on the mother. The mother’s denial of the account given by her at F 78 was not convincing. Her reasons for denying what she had said, namely the father’s name was wrong and the children couldn’t have said they were pleased when the father went out because he was no longer living there appeared to me to be desperate attempts to avoid the reality of what she had said. Her account of the father becoming very angry with the children is consistent with what the children have said. I’m satisfied that regular and very heated arguments took place between the parents in which they abused each other. These took place with the children in the home and the children were scared by them. It seems likely that the children’s behaviour towards each other and towards their parents was at least in part a product of seeing and hearing their parents arguing in the most heated terms. The concerns expressed by P’s school about his attitude to girls and disrespect for women teachers suggests he witnessed behaviour at home from which he learned. For the mother to call the police because the father had lost his temper and she was worried about what he would do illustrates the severity of the situation. From seeing the mother and father’s response to the service of the FMPO and having seen them give evidence I’m satisfied that both of them are capable of loud and angry outbursts. Having said that whilst this was undoubtedly unpleasant and scary for the mother and particularly the children on the spectrum of domestic abuse this was at the lower end of the spectrum. I do not conclude that there was physical violence used save in isolated incidents; If there had been I am sure the children would have spoken of it and I think the mother and Q would have done. The mother did not suffer physical injury, she does not appear to have suffered particular psychological harm. She was robust in her evidence, is capable of standing up for herself, and I do not get the overall impression of a significant power imbalance in the relationship between the mother and father.
Finding Two
The mother and the father have physically abused P and N.
G60, G83, G84, G85, G140, G141
Mother’s Response
The mother does not accept these allegations
Father’s Response
The father denies physically abusing P and N.
A131, A163, C49, C50, C59-60, C110-112, E43-44, G219-234
FINDING
As I’ve said before the situation in the household was at times toxic and dysfunctional. Perhaps there were financial difficulties, perhaps the mother’s ill-health, perhaps the children’s poor behaviour all contributed to a very stressful situation. Given that I’m satisfied that both parents are capable of losing their temper it takes little imagination to see them at times transferring their anger and taking this out on the children. The account of the children being quiet because they were fearful of their father, the children’s account of the father ejecting them from the house, slapping them when they were being noisy after a night shift, the father punching P to the shoulder and causing a red mark, the mother slapping P for coming in with muddy feet all I’m satisfied are true. The details of the accounts given by P and N both seemed spontaneous; P’s account of the shops incidents was close in detail to what the father himself said about it save he denied any force. The evidence from T in 2016 from her school about her anxiety and other historical records all corroborate what the children say. I’m satisfied that much of this went beyond what some people might consider to be reasonable physical chastisement within a parent-child relationship because of its pervasive nature not because of the level of force used or injury inflicted. Given there is no evidence of any injury amounting to ABH – save possibly the redness and swelling P described would satisfy that criteria - it would not constitute an offence. Some of it fell within the boundaries of reasonable physical chastisement. See Archbold 19-237. Given the children themselves speak of being hit only on rare occasions and the language they used (‘beaten up’) they modified on clarification being sought I am satisfied that physical violence was isolated. However, I am satisfied that at times and for lengthy periods (although not all the time) the children walked on eggshells in the house particularly around their father but that also their mother was capable of taking out her anger on them in a way which went beyond ordinary parent/child scolding or telling off. This like the domestic abuse was at the lower end of the spectrum.
Finding Three
The mother and the father have been verbally abusive to the children.
G60, G84, G85, G138-139
Mother’s Response
The mother does not accept these allegations
Father’s Response
The father denies being verbally abusive to the children.
References as above.
FINDING
See above. The fact that the parents were both capable of losing their tempers, the fact that the household was stressed, that the children were at times behaving in challenging ways that it is more likely than not that both parents were on a fairly regular basis shouting at the children, and occasionally swearing at them. Whether it was as a result of the household chores not being done, or being noisy, or being in trouble at school, there were multiple flashpoints which I’m satisfied would have generated verbal rebukes from the parents.
Finding Four
N's school attendance was poor before she was taken to Pakistan in 2016.
F5, A163, A168, C49
Mother’s Response
The mother has accepted that N was having difficulties at school
Father’s Response
The father accepts that N's school attendance was poor prior to going to Pakistan in 2016. The father confirms that N would leave home for school and was then found to be hiding in the toilet at school to avoid attending classes. The father was only made aware of this afterwards.
FINDING
I do not accept that a 72% attendance rate is solely due to N hiding in the toilet having gone to school. The low attendance would have been raised by the school far earlier than her attendance hitting 72% and the parents were aware of an issue. Both sought to shift responsibility from themselves to N. It seems to me that her lack of attendance was a combination of the dysfunctional situation at home and its impact on her together with a lack of commitment by the parents to getting N to school. Perhaps they simply had too much to cope with. Perhaps the mother welcomed N being at home to assist with the chores. The father had not been living in the home for a period prior to April 2016 when he became the mother’s full-time carer and it seems likely from what N said – indeed what all the children said to social services in the period 2013-16 that the mother struggled to cope on her own. E emerges as a strong personality – like her mother perhaps – determined to do as she chose and N may being less assertive and younger have picked up the burden of helping the mother. In any event there was a failure to prioritise N’s education in the way that it should have been. I am satisfied that the father did and does value education; curiously the mother seems not to.
Finding Five.
P's attendance and behaviour at school was poor and he was moved to the care of his uncle and aunt because the parents were unable to provide appropriate guidance and boundaries for him.
A163, A168, F6, C49
Mother’s Response
The mother was in Pakistan during this time and was unable to provide appropriate guidance and boundaries for him.
Father’s Response
The father accepts that P moved to stay with his uncle following a family meeting in which this plan was agreed as a way to address P's behaviour and support him.
A163, C49, G251, G244
FINDING
It is clear that P’s behaviour at school and at home has been a problem for some time. Both the mother and father downplayed this. It seems likely that this is a product of the dysfunctional household that he lived in. Given the mother and children had all expressed concerns about the father’s strict approach to discipline which as I have found converted into excessive discipline it must have been something of a surprise to P that he ended up living with his father without his mother and sisters. The pre-existing behaviour must have been compounded by the separation from N and from T and from his mother. It must have been very hard for him to understand why his mother had not returned from Pakistan particularly given he does not believe that she is as ill as she claims. The father was left in England seeking to bring P up along with E whilst the mother N and T remained in Pakistan. I’m satisfied that the father was unable to cope with P and hence he moved to live with H and G. There is nothing wrong per se with P being cared for by relatives; not only is it common across cultures when parents are struggling to cope it is a sensible response. The problem in this case is both that the father did not reach out for help to keep P at home and failed to understand that a further separation from his father and E might be harmful but that was in combination with a separation from N and T. Given the father was not working and was not caring for the mother he had little calls upon his time and yet could not find a way to help to P and was not prepared then to ask for help from the authorities. I did not detect any empathy or understanding from the mother or father about P’s position.
Finding six
Following concerns being raised by professionals in July 2016 about the care given to the children by the parents, N and T were placed by the parents in Pakistan, spending a lengthy period separated from their family in the UK and were not returned to the UK until December 2017 (when their return was required by the court) even though N had wished to return to the UK earlier.
G26, G29,
G142, G153
Mother’s Response
The mother accepts the children were in Pakistan. However, this was not because of concerns raised by professionals.
Father’s Response
The father accepts that N and T went to Pakistan in 2016, he does not accept this was as a result of concerns being raised by professionals.
The father does not accept that N had indicated to him a wish to return to the UK prior to her return in December 2017.
A150, C50, G219-234, G251
FINDING
It is certainly the case that the local authority was involved with the family in the summer of 2016. In April T expressed concerns about her father to her infant school. A child and family assessment was completed in July 2016. The mother and N and T travelled to Pakistan for a family wedding but did not return. The father said it was originally planned he would travel to the wedding of his nephew and given it was his blood relative the change in plan seems strange. The medical certificates confirm that the mother was unwell but I am not satisfied that this was the sole reason for her non-return. Her evidence about the medical situation and her operation was not at all convincing either as to the detail of her medical condition or its impact on her and her ability to travel. The medical certificates were produced for ‘administrative’ purposes which the mother was not clear about – indeed I thought deliberately so. It seems most probable they were produced in relation to benefits claims as both the mother and father were existing solely on benefits from April 2016 and her absence from the jurisdiction for some 10 months would have called into question her eligibility for housing and other benefits and the father’s eligibility for a carers allowance. In particular I am not satisfied that the mother’s medical condition was the reason for the girls’ non-return. It seems to me most likely that a combination of factors persuaded the mother that it was better to remain in Pakistan. The ongoing difficulties in her relationship with the father, the background presence of the local authority, the calmer atmosphere generally in Pakistan compared to the home in England, her ill-health all combined to lead her to conclude that she would prefer to stay in Pakistan and more importantly that she would keep the girls in Pakistan. This it seems to me ultimately was a selfish decision. It meant leaving P alone in England. No arrangements were made for him to join her in Pakistan. She chose to keep N and T with her thus disrupting their education in England. The idea that it was sensible for N who already had educational difficulties in England to transfer into a school system using Urdu a language with which she was not familiar is farcical. If the mother had been medically incapable of travelling it was perfectly possible for the girls to return to England to re-join their older sister, their brother and their father and the relatives, including Nan who were there to care for them. The father was himself at home full time. It seems to me most probable that the mother chose to keep them there because she liked to have them around and would have been lonely on her own. N being able to help out around the house given her medical issues must have been a bonus. I’m satisfied that N became increasingly disenchanted with life in Pakistan. She was in school only for a short period of time and then studied beauty for three months she was then out of education for eight or nine months before returning to England. Life must have been fairly dull for a developing teenager. I’m satisfied that she wanted to come home and that her mother in particular but also her father knew of this but they had decided for their own reasons that it was better for the family to live like that for the time being. The mother’s evidence in relation to what she knew of N’s desires was wholly contradictory as between her oral evidence and her statement. Most likely N had regularly expressed a desire to return to England but had eventually given up. The mother’s account of having promised N that she could come home when they got some money together after E’s wedding was another fobbing off. If N had been promised a return that could have been achieved by December, in particular given that the school holidays were as the mother told me in November. N could have been returned in September 2016, she could have returned with her mother in May 2017, she could have returned with family members after E’s wedding, she could have returned in November. She did not return because the family did not want her to return. They were returned only after the court order and following on family meetings in England and Pakistan.
Finding Seven
The parents caused N to be engaged to a cousin without her consent whilst in Pakistan and made arrangements for N to marry without her consent, attempting to force N into marriage or failing to protect her from a forced marriage.
G24-29, G27, G28, G59-93, G137-167
Mother’s Response
The mother does not accept these allegations.
Father’s Response
Not accepted.
A131, A150-155, A164, C50, C52, C55, C59-60, C110-112, G219-234, G242, G244, G251-252.
FINDING
This aspect of the case has been the most troubling; it is like picking up mercury in the sense that it is hard to get a firm grasp on unlike other aspects of the case. Regrettably this is in part because the evidence is far from complete in terms of what might have been obtained in terms of contemporaneous and particularly digital material. N’s and P’s phones which would have likely contained the records of the communications in WhatsApp or other digital media were not taken by the police and interrogated although P left the house on 8 December with his. N’s was not taken from her on her return – DC Cherryman said she was unhappy and he didn’t want to remove her phone and make her unhappier. He accepted in hindsight this was a poor decision. No questions were asked about the ring N claimed she had exchanged with B; an item which would physically corroborate her account was not asked for or asked about. Was it removed by the family? Did it ever exist? The contemporaneous material that exists is very limited in its extent; the messages shared between N and Q pre October 2017 and messages after the order was made. The contemporaneous material in terms of contact with authorities is also incomplete. The FCO records of the visit in October 2016 are not present. There is no material from P’s school although it seems in October 2016 that he raised an issue with his school counsellor about Turkey and it is likely it was this source that led to the concerns about N which led to the FCO inquiry. E has not given evidence. The one photograph which might relate to the issue is clouded in obscurity. DC Cherryman said he thought it did not show the ceremony but was simply to identify B. Q thought it showed the ceremony. The father and I thought his evidence on this was accurate was clear that it related to his nephew's wedding when B was a ‘best man’ and he identified the individuals and location in such a way that this seemed genuine. N has never been asked about the picture; in neither ABE interview or in her evidence. So the picture is incomplete and the trail now cold. Looking at all the material from the beginnings of the trail in September 2016 when the issue first emerged and the FCO visited, through to the NSPCC complaint through to Q’s contact with DC Cherryman on 13th October 2017 it seems clear that there was an issue to do with N being engaged which someone in the family was concerned about. The parents’ case is that Q has fabricated all this out of grudge or spite. This I could understand if there had been nothing at all about N and a relationship and she was simply a 13 year old going to school. But the parents themselves accept there was an issue over N having a ‘relationship’ with her cousin. So there is a kernel of accepted family history in something going on between B and N. However was it truly an engagement in the sense of a formal commitment to marriage in the near future or something less? N herself in her interview describes a formal ceremony but with no obligations. The parents describe something akin to a formal family acknowledgement that they were an item. However in cultural terms I don’t believe this amounted to anything like a relationship as I would understand it. It seems not to have involved any sort of actual relationship at all other than perhaps some social media contact and acquaintance through family contact. It seems probable that N met B at either the wedding or at E’s engagement and through the paternal family assisting the mother in her illness. I accept there was an issue over her medical condition because the children themselves spoke of it albeit saying she exaggerates it. She has obviously made a good recovery as she sat apparently without difficulty through 3 days of hearing and gave evidence without any sign of disability. Because the mother was in Pakistan in the bosom of the paternal family and reliant on them perhaps it suited her to enter a loose commitment or acknowledgement for N and B to perhaps marry in the future. But a loose commitment I conclude it was. N’s description of a ceremony seems to me to be given in a way which doesn’t speak of her recalling the emotions and details in a connected way - a lived experience – as opposed to an observed experience and I am conscious this account is given almost immediately after the break where she asked about what level of detail to provide. If it had truly been an engagement – a welcome or very unwelcome one it would have been one of the most significant experiences in her life and her connection with the event and the associated emotions would have been more real. N herself spoke of the consequences only in the sense of very loose obligations; quite unlike a formal engagement. I am fortified in the conclusion that it was not a formal engagement by the fact that it left no footprint in the family. Q said she had never had cause to speak to her mother or her sister or anyone else about it. She said it was not a topic of conversation at E’s wedding. I think it beyond comprehension that if within this family there was an understanding that N was formally committed to a marriage (and she would hit the legal age in November 2018) that there was no reference to it in the celebrations of E’s wedding over several days. Q says it was not mentioned and she asked no one. Neither P nor N say anything was said. Interesting T who I thought was entirely genuine and was artless when talking about her family, made absolutely no connection between B and N in her interview. No ‘he’s N’s boyfriend’ or ‘they’re getting married’. Not a hint of connection between N and B; indeed T was clear and I again I though she was guileless – in saying boys and girls weren’t allowed to play together in Pakistan. So in terms of the close family the concept of N and B getting married had left no mark at all. If there was no formal engagement was that approaching a marriage in late 2017? The source of this suggestion is P. He spoke of a conversation when his father and mother were talking; The details of this are confusing. It is said to happen when in the car park at Tesco and he overhears it. At one point he says he can hear his mother say N at another he cannot hear the voice. His account appears to me to be inconsistent. He is the only source of a firm commitment to marry as far as I can tell. N in her interview says P told her he had overheard this. But by this time P was cranking up the level. He was saying he was subject to a risk of being forced into marriage. He said N and T were both being sexually abused. He said N was threatening to commit suicide and he was going to self-harm. The contemporaneous records from WhatsApp do not show N expressing concerns about an imminent marriage or indeed her being committed to an engagement but only of her desperation to get home. The call on 13 October (which was not recorded simultaneously) and DC Cherryman’s statement suggest she was not unhappy with the idea she had been going to get married but was now. The mother and her sisters and E all married for love. There is no history of arranged marriages. The family were on the radar of the FCO and police and knew it; the mother herself went to the police on 2nd October to ask for the passport orders to be lifted. The father knew the legal age for marriage was not less than 16. He values education and I accept he had expressed views to E on marriage and education. It would show breath-taking chutzpah or disregard for authority for the mother to go to the police to remove port alerts made in relation to forced marriage fears and then to go off and arrange another daughter’s forced marriage. Although I have not been impressed with the mother’s attitude I do not believe she is either that stupid or that arrogant. The thrust of the call on 13 October and the WhatsApp messages and Q’s account and what P and N both said and now say is that N was desperate to come home, wanted to resume education. This is what P was saying to Q in November. Her parents were not listening to her. She wanted to be educated like her older sister who has done very well at school, a beauty course did not match her aspirations. As time went on and they were not listened to the children took matters into their own hands. N and P engaged Q to assist – she is a strong character, is prepared to stand up to the parents and fight for her nephews and nieces and she calls out poor behaviour. As matters dragged on – and the police referral did not occur for some 3 weeks after the 13th October and then led to no immediate action so N’s desperation increased and so P and Q and N were left on hold. The texts between P and N illustrate her becoming increasingly frantic and telling P if he wants to see her alive he needs to do something and him responding that the team is on it. None of the WhatsApp either in October or in early December refer to N being concerned about an imminent wedding ceremony. I conclude that the kernel of truth that was the loosely arranged ‘engagement’ was transmuted by P into an imminent marriage supplemented by risks to himself and sexual abuse added in for extra impact; hence the discussion with Q on 7th December about the Forced Marriage Unit and the call to the FCO on 7th December. This conclusion seems to me the only one that makes sense out of all the many fragments of evidence before me. It means that the central allegation of the forced marriage application does not amount to a forced marriage or any imminent risk of that at all in November/ December 2017. In terms of Sir Nicholas Wall’s observations about the distinction between consensual arranged marriages and forced marriages involving serious human rights abuses this was far closer to the arranged marriage end of the spectrum but taking the form of a loose commitment not undertaken with N’s consent but not with the intention subsequently of her being forced to marry B whether she wanted to or not. The nature of the arrangement was such that had it endured to an age when she might legally have married I am satisfied she would have had a say and had she not wished it, it would not have proceeded. That may beg the question of if had she remained in Pakistan whether and how she would then have been able to express her true feelings but that stage has not been reached.
Finding Eight
N received no education in Pakistan after she was taken there, save for a brief period when enquiries were made by the authorities and attendance at a short beauty course.
G27, G147, G149, G152
Mother’s Response
The mother does not accept this allegation. N was enrolled in school and attended for a couple of months and then transferred to the beauty course.
Father’s Response
Not accepted.
A164, G219-234, G245, G251-252.
FINDING
It seems clear from what N herself says together with what her mother father and the school say that she was enrolled in school in Pakistan in late September 2016. She had of course been expecting to return to her school in England. It is also clear that she only stayed in school for some three months. I accept that this was probably because she was struggling given that she does not speak Urdu and she had been experiencing problems in school in England. It ought to have been self-evident to the mother that N would not be likely to thrive in such circumstances. I also accept that she then did a beauty course for three months. However this must have come to an end prior to the mother returning to England on 1 May 2017. The mother and father’s account of having to wait for a certificate to sign on to a further course in November 2017 did not seem to make sense. In any event the net result was that N remained out of education until she returned to England. She did not commence a beauty course in November 2017 although she was still in Pakistan at that point. Her education was sacrificed by the mother so that N could remain there with her. As I have said earlier it seems likely that N was the mother’s main physical support for many tasks and this may have contributed to the lack of priority given to her education. In contrast T was placed in school remained there throughout and appears to have thrived. I’m prepared to accept that N herself suppressed unhappiness in terms of schooling but this is hardly surprising. The parents’ attempt to shift responsibility and to say that it was all N’s choice is a further illustration of their inability to take responsibility for their own actions.
Finding Nine
The parents and/or family members have placed pressure on N and P to not tell the truth and to withdraw their allegations.
C57, C58,
G147, G159, G256-258
Mother’s Response
The mother does not accept these allegations.
Father’s Response
Not accepted.
A153-154, A164-165, G219-234.
FINDING
It is immediately apparent from the body worn video of 8 December when service of the order was effected that both the mother and the father were angered by this further intervention into their family life. When served with the documents it would be immediately apparent that it was being suggested that the parents were forcing not only N to marry but also P and that it was being said they were in serious danger. It is not entirely clear what evidence was placed before Ms Justice Russell on 8 December as neither the note of the ex parte hearing [B14a] or the order itself refer to it. The making of the order clearly prompted a flurry of activity in both England and Pakistan. N describes a meeting taking place at her grandmother’s home. The mother’s immediate reaction in England was to pick up the phone to H. Given my finding that there was no threat of an imminent forced marriage, there was no suggestion at all that P was being forced into a marriage it is not surprising that in the hours and days which immediately followed the service of the order the mother father and other members of the family would have been speaking to each other and to N asking why she was saying these things. That there was a kernel of truth to them would no doubt have been overlooked in the panic. I am therefore satisfied that N’s description in her ABE interview of telephone calls in which she was urged to say there was indeed nothing untoward at all going on in Pakistan were made. It would be extraordinary indeed had they not questioned her and urged her to withdraw the allegations. Both the mother and the father’s account of having had no contact with her save supervised is not the truth. The telephone records showing the communications from N to the family home and from P to the family home showed just how regularly the children were in contact with the family. The mother says that the family landline was in E’s room and that she paid for it out of her wages. That might be so; given E’s husband was in Pakistan I think it is likely that landline or social media-based communication was the cheapest way they could keep in contact. However that does not mean that the landline phone was not available outside that room to all members of the family. I note from the body worn video of 8 December that the mother picks up and calls H on what appears to be a landline handset which was in the living room. It may well be that the landline base set was in E’s room but one way or another, whether through other handsets placed throughout the house, or otherwise I’m quite satisfied other members of the family had access to the landline. And so when multiple calls are made to the home landline on the 23rd to 24th 25th of December 5th 9th 10th 13th 20th 21st 22nd of January and February lasting from seconds through to half an hour I’m quite satisfied that these were not just E and N. Likewise calls from P in February to the home landline lasting up to an hour were I am satisfied not just to E. By this time it would have been clear to the parents that not only was forced marriage an issue but also sexual abuse of N and T as well as allegations of domestic violence and abuse of the children. Precisely how pressure was exerted on the children I cannot determine. E may at times have been used as a conduit for parental pressure. It may have been that the mother in particular may also have exerted pressure. Given that the mother is a more forceful character and prepared to assert her rights to a higher degree than the father it seems probable that she more than the father took the lead on this although I’m quite satisfied that the father well knew this was being done. Again in a sense it is understandable because some of the allegations they had made plainly were untrue and so they were entitled to feel they could tell the children they ought to withdraw them. However there were also significant elements of the complaints the children had made which the mother and father knew to be true and where the only purpose in exerting pressure was to absolve themselves of responsibility and to avoid criticism and involvement of state authorities in their family. Given the position they had put the children in, even in respect of the false allegations placing the children under pressure was unfair or unwise at best. As if the children were not under enough pressure as a result of the situation that had been created for them their parents further added to it. In respect of the true allegations that the children had made the pressure they exerted on them was unconscionable. Although the majority of this conduct took place after the commencement of the proceedings it was mirrored earlier in 2016 and between 8 December and the commencement of the care proceedings.
Finding Ten
As a result of pressure from their family and/or in an attempt to achieve a return home, the children have retracted the allegations (which were true) made in their original ABE interviews and are not in a position to provide a full, free and accurate account of the relevant events or to express their true wishes and feelings.
G219-234
Mother’s Response
The mother does not accept these allegations.
Father’s Response
Not accepted.
A165, G219-234
FINDING
I’m satisfied that the withdrawal of the allegations was in part, significant part, caused by the actions of the parents and the extended family. In respect of the untrue allegations or the exaggerated allegations (the forced marriage) perhaps the children would have confessed in any event. In respect of the true allegations the combination of the unexpected removal into foster care and their unhappiness there, their separation from each other, the general pressure and stress of being in the eye of a storm and the displeasure and disapproval that they had incurred from other members of their family in particular their mother and father must have created an intolerable pressure for them which they felt could only be relieved by withdrawing the allegations in their entirety. N’s demeanour in her second ABE interview was telling. She was flat, often monosyllabic. It is clear from the notes of O that P did tell her of a conversation with his mother in which his father in the background said he should drop the allegations. I see no reason to disbelieve either O or P in this regard. His subsequent denial of the conversation when it was brought up in front of social workers is perhaps no surprise. That he was as O said wavering as to whether he should withdraw the allegations or not is also no surprise. Given that some of them were true it must have been very difficult for him to contemplate saying they were not. Likewise N. The evidence that they gave in court I also found to be stilted and lacking a connection with their emotions; more repeating a mantra than speaking to the truth.
Any one of the findings that I have made might not have fallen within the definition of significant harm or risk thereof attributable to unreasonable parenting. I think it is likely, had the forced marriage and other allegations not surfaced that the family would have remained off the local authority radar. It is unlikely that care proceedings would have been commenced based on exposure to domestic violence, emotional abuse and educational neglect. However the constellation of findings that I have made satisfy me that the threshold was crossed at the relevant time. The combination of all the matters but in particular the suppression of N’s desire to return home, the enforced separation of the siblings and the consequences for them and the parents complete disregard for the emotional impact upon them against a backdrop where the children’s earlier exposure to a toxic domestic atmosphere made them particularly reliant on each other and vulnerable have caused significant harm to these children. That the parents allowed a situation to be created where their children were so desperate that they were prepared to make such serious allegations against their parents illustrates the point of how profoundly the parents were ignoring their children’s emotional needs.
However, although the threshold is met that is not an end to the matter. The fact that the threshold is met does not answer the question of what is now in the children’s best interests. That has become a particularly complex issue in the unusual circumstances of this case and will need careful consideration. The children want to return home. The parents want them home. Perhaps the parents will be able to acknowledge the responsibility they carry for this situation. If they can and are thus able to remove any burden of responsibility from the children, and are indeed able to say sorry to their children there may be a way forward. Acceptance of their responsibility - or at least some move towards acceptance - will be likely to be a prerequisite for the children to return to their care. How could this court place the children back into the situation which existed prior to December 2017 without some insight from the parents into their responsibility? How could the children cope emotionally with living in a household in which they were held to blame? It seems to me it would be very difficult indeed to contemplate that. The parents, as the adults, but in particular as the parents, must create the conditions in which a return becomes a possibility. That will have to be determined at a later date. There is much that will have to occur before that decision will be capable of being taken.
Appendix A
This Chronology is a composite drawn from information in various Chronologies in the Bundle together with evidence drawn from the Bundle and from the oral testimony of the parties. It is not the principal document which records my findings of fact but does include observations which have informed my conclusions on the Threshold. It does however set out some of the background and sets the context for the whole case.
M born | ||
F born | ||
Mother and father marry for love. (Q, the mother’s sister, says her family married of their own choice.) F says the mother’s younger sisters took an immediate dislike to him. Q says M and F married without telling the family and the MGF was very upset. The sisters and MGF were not invited to go to the wedding. Having seen M, she is obviously determined and can see she would be used to getting her own way. After their marriage they lived with the MGM and extended family for some 12 years. | ||
1999 | E born | |
2002 | N born | |
2004 | P born | |
2008 | T born | |
2012/ 2013 | M and F obtain their own accommodation. | |
6 Jan 2012 | M and F have split up. P with Gran as F very cross with him | F84 |
15 Feb 2012 | Police attended argument between parents who were separating, no concerns raised about welfare of children. No further action. | |
30 Aug 2012 | Police report: domestic violence by father who allegedly hit his brother in law (H), slapped his daughter (E) and kicked his wife. It is said he was arrested and on bail. Urgent initial assessment required | F84 |
12 Sept 2012 | Father is no longer living in the family home and is said to not be welcome back. Mother was adamant that she would not return into a relationship with her husband. Case closed with the view Core Assessment would need to be considered should they reconcile. | |
26 Apr 2013 | Domestic violence incident allegedly committed by (father) on (mother). The police report suggests that father was back in the family home and therefore 14,10,9 and 5-year-old children are at risk of significant harm (physical and emotional) due to this and further DV incidents between their parents.
| |
6 June 2013 | M very upset as neighbors had complained about shouting and screaming at the house. The mother reported problems with the children’s behaviour at home. The children agreed at a meeting that they were shouting swearing screaming and fighting and not listening to their mum. They said they would work together better. | |
22 Aug 2013 | The risk of further violence has been reduced as father has moved out of the family home. Mum has shown willingness to engage with relevant services to improve outcomes for children and herself. During a meeting with social services on 11 September 2013 the mother said domestic abuse was horrible and that she had been hit on two occasions and the police had been called out twice. She said that there had been a lot of arguing and the children heard them arguing. She said that they would shout and scream at each other around twice a week; the father would call her a bitch. She said that the children would all argue, T would hit the mother but that when the father was around they would become very quiet and behave really well because they knew that get into trouble and the father would shout at them. F68-70] at this time P’s behaviour was described as a bit off the wall. E was missing school to help her mother. The mother denied this was an accurate record of what she said. M told Dr Latif that arguments were heightened and she called police to simmer it down [E53] The mother’s explanation of this was not credible – she sought to say it couldn’t be right as the father’s name was wrong and why would the children talk about being relieved when the father was out; he wasn’t living there then. During a later session in October the mother said that her family did not believe in arranged marriages. P had finished his counselling. T was very challenging in school. | F68 |
20 Jan 2014 | (mother) reported 11-year-old daughter (N) causing problems at the home address. Letter sent out to parent by Children’s access point. No further action | |
23 Mar 2014 | Police report mother is having trouble dealing with the children but there are no child protection concerns. No further action | |
11 May 2014 | Police report fight between siblings; police gave advice. Logged for info only. | |
July 2014 | P’s behaviour was recorded as deteriorating. He admitted hitting all of his sisters and his mum. There were concerns about P spreading lies about someone possibly a classroom assistant. P was internally excluded at school. | |
19 Sept 2014 | E’s friend tells school that E has said she is going to be taken to Pakistan for an arranged marriage in September or October. E denied this when spoken to but said she might be going to Pakistan to bring her mum back home after having had an operation. The police concluded that E was not being truthful with them in particular about the extent to which her father was involved in their lives. The police investigation was closed though. E had said that whilst her mother was in Pakistan people had come to ask for her hand in marriage but she told them that she did not want to get married as she wants to continuing education. E told the police that nobody in her family believed in forced marriage. H had been cooperative and told the police that although there had been interest in E they did not want her to marry until she was old enough to make her own decisions. | G1 |
22 Sept 2014 | PPO taken (E) whilst investigations undertaken; in LA accommodation. - E says she was shocked as her passport had expired 5 years before and she couldn’t travel. | |
6 Oct 2014 | S.47 enquiry completed; throughout the investigation both E and her parents have been open about the fact that (Mum) did receive a wedding proposal for her daughter, however all parties reportedly rejected the idea as E was too young and she should concentrate on her education. E home + safety plan in place. | |
14 Nov 2014 | Referral in relation to N. (Mum) has gone to Pakistan for an operation on her back and possibly left two children with their father. Child and family assessment to be completed. | |
18 Dec 2014 | CFA completed; N is safe in the care of her uncle whilst her mother is in Pakistan. H and his wife are financially secure + are happy with the arrangement. Parents have both confirmed that they are happy with their arrangements for the care of N whilst the mother has the operation in Pakistan. Outcome: Case to close. | |
July 2015 | M and F separate for three months. F says this was due to false allegations and meddling by G and Q | |
8 Aug 2015 | Referral from police; police called to reports of E + N arguing. No offences committed. Concerns for apparent lack of practical parenting skills. Outcome: Letter of advice sent. NFA. | |
30 Oct 2015 | Police report received; the mother called police as during an argument with P she was fearful he would assault her. | |
April 2016 | F returns home | F’s evidence |
28 Apr 2016 | Referral from School; T talking to her teacher about her worries around her Father. It would seem that he is in and out of the house and is verbally abusive when he is home. T has also spoken about her worries for her older sister E. She has suggested that their Father expects her to marry their cousin. | |
F gives up work to become full-time carer for M. Returns to live in the family home. | F6 | |
18 Jul 2016 | CFA completed; concerns about children's school’s attendance, their emotional presentation + possible domestic violence, however none of the children have made a disclosure. ‘hit a female student. Cheated in an exam, hit a teacher, no respect for women’ Concerns there is something going on in the family that is impacting on the children. Outcome: Child + family plan required. | F6 |
July 2016 | Child in need document refers to P being happier angry and wanting to return home. | |
August 2016 | Mother takes N and T to Pakistan for a family wedding. M returns in April 2017. Q says she was told N had a return ticket booked for fourth of September so she could return for school term but she did not return. | |
20 Aug 2016 | Medical Certificate that M is bed-ridden and severely debilitated and unable to return to UK M says operation was end Aug/beginning Sept and her in-laws all looked after her. She described a number of individuals in the father’s family who helped to look after her; none from her side were mentioned. | F79/G111 |
THE ACCOUNTS OF ENGAGEMENT - F says this was January. In his statement the father said that the mother contacted him to tell him that N had started chatting with B on the phone. N asked her mother to call him to tell him that N like him. The father says he told the mother to tell N that she was too young and she had no business chatting to boys and had to stop. He says that N then called him and pleaded with him and that he told her she was too young, she had her life ahead of her and there was lots of time before she needed think about marrying. He says that N continued to push the mother and so he spoke to his brother, B’s father, who also agreed that they were too young. (At this time N was 13 B was about 20) the father says that he and the mother decided to tell close family members that N and B were boyfriend and girlfriend so they understood what was happening. The father repeated this accounting evidence although was unable to give an adequate explanation of how they were able to reconcile the inappropriateness of the relationship which initially caused him to oppose it with a subsequent decision to tell people they were boyfriend and girlfriend so that if they were seen together people would understand. - The mother gave a similar account in her statement [G251] although she says that she gathered her immediate family together who lived close by and told them that they liked each other and were boyfriend and girlfriend. She’s told N that it was a matter for her what she wants to do when she was 18. She says that B’s mother said she would be happy for N to be her daughter. The mother says she told B’s mother that it was too early to even think about that. - In N’s interview [G146] she said that there had been a ceremony when everyone from the boy’s family and the girl’s family were there. She told DC Cherryman the boy and the girl get a ring and they each put it on each other. She said that it didn’t mean that there still husband and just means that they might be together but it could be broken stop she said the rings are made for you. She said that she wasn’t happy about the ceremony but she was he tried to be happy. DC Cherryman asked her whether she had told anyone at the time that she didn’t want to get engaged and N told him that she told her auntie. When she initially spoke with DC Cherryman 13 October he records a slightly different emphasis. The principal thrust of what N told him related to her not being in education and wanting to return home. It is recorded that “she advised me that she had been engaged to marry her first cousin on her father’s side in 2016 and he was 24 years old. I asked her if she wanted to be married and she stated not any more’. | G243 | |
P moves to live with aunt and uncle as father cannot manage his behaviour. The parents say that this was primarily because the father was unable to support P with his education. | ||
At some point in September a referral was made to social services. Having regard to what Q says in her statement it seems most likely that N was texting G who spoke to Q who then made a reference to social services. | ||
19 Sept 2016 | Meeting with father who strongly denies that N is engaged + stating information is malicious referral from family member. E stating T + N are happy in Pakistan + are enrolled in schools. E says she was engaged to her fiancée at this time. | |
27 Sept 2016 | School in Pakistan state N was admitted to school on 21 Sep 2016. M says she was in school for 3 .5 months and finished in Jan/Feb. - M says N wanted to be in school and expected to be there until M was better and could come back | G114/G113 |
Oct 2016 | P tells school he is going to be taken to Turkey by F and doesn’t want to go. Police involved who speak to P and he denies any knowledge of any conversation regarding Turkey. P told the police that his mum had a back problem and that she wasn’t able to travel. The police also spoke to E spoke about the support she had from her dad to get her education sorted before she decided to marry and that she had never been pressured or forced into any relationship marriage or engagement fun. She said there had been discussions about Turkey because they had cousins there and P wanted to go and that P had posted information on Facebook about going to Turkey but she’d make it made him take it down because it wasn’t true this. The father was also spoken to and confirmed why the girls were still in Pakistan. He told police they had always married for love in his family. The school later reported to police that P had told them about a telephone conversation between his father and sister his mother in which he said a visit was planned by the British high commission and that the father suggested the mother creating impression of somebody who was unwell and that they needed to deny that N’s engagement ever took place. | G21 |
Oct 2016 | BHC visit (?) N seen in school. She was relaxed and enjoying her stay. When seen with M they both said there was no engagement or marriage It is alleged that parents put pressure on N to give a positive account to BHC and promised things. The parents deny this and say she was happy and subsequently wanted to do the beauty course | G21 |
25 Nov 2016 | Medical Certificate: M is bed-ridden and unable to return to UK. Rest for 10 weeks. | F80 |
Dec 2016 | E flies to Pakistan to meet fiancé. Q says she becomes pregnant and had a termination in January 2017. E says she was questioned on the flight. Parents say E had a miscarriage after her wedding. | |
Jan/Feb 2017 | N does beauty course for 3 months (according to M) (she does not return to education until she returns to England because M said she wanted to remain in Pakistan to study beauty) | |
10 Feb 2017 | Agreement for case closure - T and N emain resident in Pakistan therefore out of the jurisdiction of WSCC. Concerns in relation to forced marriage have been investigated by the police. No further action will be taken at this time. | |
May 2017 | M returns to UK. Children remain in Pk and MGM goes to look after them M says N wanted to stay to continue with a further beauty course as did T. N was not in education at the time – she had finished to beauty parlour course. M says she was trying to settle in Pk and she was only supposed to be going for a couple of weeks. Then for reasons which M struggled to articulate she didn’t return until October. | |
17 May 2017 | NSPCC contacted by anonymous caller - Alleged F blackmailed M into leaving girls with paternal family by in Aug 2006 by threatening to divorce her - M returned home on 1 May 2017. MGM went out on 29 April. (This ties in with T's description of Nan arriving one day and mum leaving the next) - Referrer says been speaking to N over last 3 weeks – said F trying to force her to marry uncle’s son – had engagement in Sep/Oct 2016 - N said she will get married same time as E - F is mentally abusing mother – M wants to get help- MGM disagrees Police consult FCO – no action taken | F15 G22 |
August 2017 | Q visits Pakistan from 4 August until 16 September. She says she spent three weeks with N during which N told her about the engagement. | |
Sept 2017 | P spoke to school counsellor | Oral Evidence |
2 Oct 2017 | M attends police station to ask for passport markers to be removed as they are travelling to Pakistan for a wedding. | G22 |
4 Oct 2017 | mother and father accompany E to Pakistan for wedding. | |
?? Oct | N and Q in contact by WhatsApp about Q going to see someone and N becoming more insistent No reference to engagement, forced marriage or anything other than getting N out ‘so worried and sick of life; ‘I need to get out of here asap’ | G273-286 |
13 Oct 2017 | DC Cherryman commences investigation. Q attends Police Station Photos and screen shots of WhatsApp provided to police. - He spoke to a relative of N who said they needed to remain anonymous as they were fearful of violent reprisals. The relative informed officers that N had contacted them to say she was miserable in Pakistan and want to come home. - DC Cherryman spoke with N via speakerphone. She was very emotional and said she wished to return home to seek education. She said she was not in education and was thus doing household chores. She said her father had told her she would be staying in Pakistan and that she was due to be married when she turns 18. - She said she had been engaged to her first cousin on her father’s side in 2016 and he was 24 years old. DC Cherryman asked her if she wanted to be married and she said not any more. She told him she was not abused there but her passport had been taken. She wanted to return to the UK to obtain an education. The family member said N was considering suicide she was not allowed to be brought back to the UK. | G17 |
19 Oct 2017 | P flies to Pakistan. | |
27th to 29th Oct 2017 | E marries in love marriage. 27 Oct – 450 guests E alleges there was a fall out with Q and ‘nan’ and E. M says this was an unrelated incident over dresses, Q did not say what it as about. Neither Q or N mention anything about conversations when Q was in Pakistan for the wedding. Q says nothing was said by anyone about N being next to get married, no one spoke to her about it, she didn’t speak to anyone else about it. | |
4 Nov 2017 | P returns to the UK with uncle P contacts Q on WhatsApp and says N is not happy and how could they get her back for her education. | G124 |
6 Nov 2017 | Q provides police statement. - She says she became aware from P that N was due to be engaged to her first cousin, the son of her father’s brother. - She says N had sent messages to her younger sister that she was very unhappy and wanted to return to the UK but was being forced to stay there. She says she has seen the messages on her younger sister’s phone she referred this to social services. As a result, the British consulate investigated. - She says N was told that she would be returning after her older sister’s wedding. | |
7 Nov 2017 | E and father due back in UK | |
9 Nov 2017 | Police Legal Department instructed to apply for FMPO. ‘Not urgent’ [DC Cherryman says it was urgent] | |
16 Nov 2017 | Mother due back in UK | |
?? November | N calls DC Cherryman and asks for an update. She was persistent in saying she wanted to return. I explained the system didn’t move that quickly. | Oral evidence |
2/3 Dec 2017 | P was pestering Q for an update. WhatsApp exchanges at G48-53 are consistent with N becoming increasingly desperate, putting pressure on P and he responding saying the team is on it. No reference to imminent marriage in them | G124 G48-53 |
7 Dec 2017 | 10.15am (?) P calls FCO ‘says N is at risk of forced marriage and T was being sexually abused by a cousin. Also, worried that his dad and aunt are talking about him getting married. Call taken from FCO that they had received a call from P who said he had serious concerns about N. He said N had been forcibly engaged to an older man and was in a distressed and suicidal state. Apparently, the wedding was due to occur soon. She did not want to get married and was desperate to return to the UK. He wanted to get urgent help for his sister and had concerns for himself as his parents were talking about arranging a marriage for him P wanted to remain anonymous. | G31 |
8 Dec 2017 | Order made at 11.11am DC Flude. Police serve FMPO. Bodycam video: M is indignant about the allegation. F is quite indignant and frustrated that this has happened before and they have been here 16 years and won’t force their children to get married. F angry. M and F angry at being ordered to return the children within 48 hours (it is a Friday) and don’t have any money. They object to ex parte order. They question how they can afford this. The police tell them they can be arrested or charged if they don’t return them within 48 hours. They query this without a say to the court or getting any opportunity to defend themselves. Why they say has someone come who knows nothing about it. They say they can’t sort things at the weekend when everything is closed. H - Says there are no other direct flights other than PIA – and they won’t do a connecting flight. - H asks about varying. P arrives home. - They speak to P on his own (under s.47) - P says nothing is worrying him aloud, P whispers parts of the conversation. P appears to be worried. Says he’ll tell them everything in the car. P removed under PPO. ‘Ive been saying if you don’t bring the girls back Ill kill myself. She cries day and night N and T wants to come back. My dad beats the hell out of me last time. He beats me day and night. If it was someone elses son he’d be in jail. …. Can you drive me somewhere so no one can beat me up…? I don’t know how to thank you lot…. I am the one who told you…. don’t say it front of my family they think it is my aunt…. ‘ | G319-21 |
??Nov or Dec | WhatsApp between N and Q on another phone. ‘I have come out with the truth; ‘what truth’ ‘that I cant wait anymore’. ‘please get me out in the 2 days’ ‘I report to the police’ ‘N I feel bad I have done something wrong r u happy’ ‘they confirm u coming back next week’ It is not clear if these are sent before the application to court or afterwards. The reference to 2 days suggests afterwards and there is the confirmation of coming back next week. No reference to a marriage ceremony. Last exchange is with E who ‘threatens’ Q. | |
10 Dec 2017 | BWC Police and Q Messages from N - Big family meeting - Her phone withheld - Voice mail: hello … hes getting people to come so can you do something … danger…. - Dad is moving me away … is it possible you can do something ... I am in really bad danger. - They are pressing her to get rid of the phone - Grandma say ‘Are you happy what you’ve done. - Lots of calls between mother and grandmother. - There was a meeting – she was in her room – and all the in-laws father’s brothers and family. All shut their gobs when she came out. - I know they are going to do something to me tonight - P said she is in danger – they don’t know what they are going to so – give her poison - - Q – I am seeing if I can get anyone to get them out. I think she is in danger. There is no interests in bringing them back. N said nothing has been discussed about tickets It seems that this meeting was called to discuss what to do and concluded with agreement that N and T would be returned. | |
11 Dec 2017 | N calls DC Cherryman. N says she is in danger. Line then cut. He couldn’t return call. | G127 |
??? | DC Cherryman says another call was received from N and she was persistent. He said wheels of justice turn slowly. | |
12 Dec 2017 | P interviewed: see judgment for assessment of content. | |
13 Dec 2017 | S.47 investigation into H family on basis that his daughter may have been sexually assaulted. No evidence this had happened. H felt the allegation was malicious. | |
14 Dec 2017 | P goes to O and remains with her until 4th June | C57 |
15 Dec 2017 | N and S returned to the UK, were taken into Police protection and placed in emergency foster care | |
19 Dec 2017 | Interview of N. This took place between 1149 and 1250. Present were DC Cherryman and N. - The interview records that they have had a lot of pre-interview ‘chats’ - N describes in quite a natural way what life was like in their household before they left for Pakistan. She describes it as being hard because her mum was not well. She described being told off for nothing and sometimes being sworn at. She said on two or three times they got hit. She used the word beaten up by dad which would suggest a quite serious assault. Her actual descriptions were of being hit in the form of a slap to the face or a hit on the back with a slipper stop the way she described the events and the detail she gave had a degree of authenticity and spontaneity to it. - She described going to Pakistan for a wedding. Her description of getting engaged is linked into her sister’s engagement. Immediately before talking further about the engagement there was a break in the interview. Upon re-commencement DC Cherryman explains that N asked him how much information she should give and he told her to give as much information as possible. N then describes her paternal aunt saying to the mother that she wanted N as her daughter and that there were then conversations within the family where the father said it was up to the mum to decide what to do. N says that her mother spoke to the paternal family and her mother agreed to an engagement. She said that it took place on Friday, 16 September October or November. [As it happens there is a Friday, 16 September in 2016] N describes a ceremony albeit she describes it in the third person the boy puts it on the girl and the girl puts it on the boy. She said it doesn’t mean that we’re still husband-and-wife it just means like we might be together but it could be broken and just have some fun over their year but rings are made for you like the boy puts it on the girl and the girl puts it on the boy. Although N describes the ceremony quite naturally, she had of course seen her sister’s engagement ceremony in September 2016 which led to E’s marriage in October 2017. - N said she wasn’t happy about it but she tried to be happy and respected her father. This is curious given that she says it was her mother who arranged it. She said she told her auntie Q that she didn’t want to be engaged she says she never told her mother father or B that she did not want to be engaged. - She says that subsequently the British high commission came to visit and that her mum and dad spoke to her before and said’ will get the world’s things for you and stuff just say you’re happy and…’ - She says that after her sister’s wedding in October she spoke to her mum about going back to England a few times but her mother said no. She said that subsequently she got a text from P saying that mum and dad are talking about they going to get you like next October get you married after year they’ll get you married. N would not then have been 16., The legal age for marriage in Pakistan. N says she told her nan and her man said that she would tell her mum. She later said that in her culture some people do get engaged when they’re 13 and stuff and that she didn’t tell her parents she didn’t want to get married that she was scared of what they would do if she did. She said she didn’t mind getting married but she didn’t want to get married yet she wanted to study. - N described how she became increasingly unhappy in Pakistan, she was bored and was worried about her education and that she then got in contact with the police. She said she was worried about how her family would react to her speaking to the police and that she would have been shouted at or sworn at all beaten up. - She said that when the order was served her mum called her Nan in Pakistan and that they had to bring her back within 48 hours or they would get jail and they tried to brainwash her. This is consistent with what the order required. She says that her parents told her to say she was happy or that she wasn’t engaged but she refused to say that. - At that time she said that if a magic wand could be waived she would want to be with her auntie. She said she wouldn’t mind going home but she was scared that should be sent back and get her married off when she wanted to be educated first. - Throughout the interview N appears tense and anxious. There are periods where she is more spontaneous and free-flowing. I do not think that her interview can be characterised as essentially reliable or unreliable based on her demeanour alone. Her interview needs to be woven into the rest of the evidence in the case to create an overall balance of the evidence. | |
19 Dec 2017 | T interviewed – a very confident natural performer. She talks very naturally about relatives – aunts, uncles, cousins. E’s wedding: That was her own choice – (out of blue – suggests someone has spoken to her before interview) we had so much fun. She married – my dad’s brother’s son. She mentions 5 cousins including B and D. Eldest is B, D middle. B is older than N. (No mention of any connection between B and N) N is not going to be married (very naturally said) A significant, indeed the majority of the interview is exploring the issue of sexual abuse of T of course P had raised. T’s response to the questioning from whichever angle it was attempted whether by reference to drawings, gingerbread dolls, the larder, what sex is all elicited a response from this little girl which clearly indicated to me that she really had no idea what they were talking about and that sex or dirty things were truly a mystery to her. I got no sense of unease or worry from her. Her response seemed entirely natural. By the end of the interview, it had become uncomfortable to watch given the persistence of the techniques applied. Had she eventually said something I have little doubt that the court would have viewed it with a high degree of skepticism. | |
19 Dec 2017 | Statement of E - Says the family marry for love not arranged. | |
22Dec 2017 | N and T change foster care placements | |
23 Dec 2017 | Telephone records: multiple calls. Ranging from seconds to a n hour. M’s case is that she did not speak to the children. That it was all E. | G287-90 |
25 Dec 2017 | Call from N to home landline 25 mins | |
28 Dec 2017 | Social work statement - N was inconsistent in her view of whether or not she wanted to return home. At this point she said she didn’t mind going home as long as her parents don’t force her to get married. - P; he was consistent in saying he didn’t wish to return home as he was fearful of what his father would do to him. He told his foster carers that he wasn’t having horrible thoughts and feelings anymore and that he felt safe. - T; she has been emotional while in foster placement and is consistent in her wish to return to her parent’s care. | |
29 Dec 2017 | Interim care order for N P and T N threatens to kill herself if she is not returned home. This | |
16 Jan 2018 | Concerns raised by N and T’s foster carers: Local authority spoke to the foster carer initially who advised that the girls are very rude towards them and loud and disrespectful. Carers are finding it very difficult to care for the girls and are feeling that the placement is not sustainable. N remains in her room most of the time and is on her phone a lot, believed she is talking to parents. | |
17 Jan 2018 | N informed her solicitor of her concerns regarding the placement. It appears that she is struggling with the current foster placement and that placement is on the verge of breakdown. | |
29 Jan 2018 | P excluded from school for 3 days | C44 |
30 Jan 2018 | SW statement - Na; she was not happy in foster care wanted to return home. - P: he was still saying that he did not wish to return to the care of his parents. He was assessed to be Gillick competent - T: she wanted to return home - the girls foster placement had broken down by this time and so the schooling which had been arranged was not going to take place. P remained at school, wanted stay there | |
2 Feb 2018 | N gives retraction interview | G220 |
5 Feb 2018 | P left placement without permission. P was unwell and missing his mother and grandmother. He wanted to speak with them but they were at his uncle’s house and his uncle would not speak to him or let him speak to the women. P became upset and cross and began swearing about his uncle. He then left the placement. Aunt Q went to find P after O contacted her expressing her concerns. Q took P back to her house. P expressing concerns that he wants to withdraw his statement and tell people he has been lying, as he wants to go home with his sisters. | |
6 Feb 2018 | P reports to foster carer that his father said to his mother during a telephone call quote tell him to drop his statement. When P was spoken to on 8 February he denied ever having said this P also spoke of wanting to drop the statement so that they could all go home and that he felt he had punished his parents enough he told me he felt sorry for his mother and sisters. | C47/C57 F47 |
7 Feb 2018 | Theresa Seale: CAFCASS Guardian informed local authority about her concerns regarding the involvement of H who has apparently access to P’s SIM so can trace his phone calls. P alleges that H has told him that he and his sisters will be adopted if they stay in foster-care and don’t go home. | |
8 Feb 2018 | SW visits and P denies telling O about conversation with M and D. calls FC a liar. Later FC asks why he denied and he didn’t want top talk about it. | |
9 Feb 2018 | DC Cherryman receives call - Q says P has told her he is retracting. - from P saying he wants to make a retraction statement. He declines to speak to him and says he should speak to the guardian. | G259/60 |
10 Feb 2018 | P tells his foster carer that N was being influenced by her mobile phone by her family to drop her statement. He repeated that the younger children are already having marriages planned for them and said that N and B her fiancé send rude pictures of each other via the phone stop Call to Home Landline from P for slightly more than 1 hour | G296 |
12 Feb 2018 | P told the foster carer that it was all a lie there being forced marriage worries. He said they had to make the allegations to get the girls back as the family had no money. He told the foster carer that he was going to withdraw his statement. The foster carer noted P had taken many telephone calls over the weekend of the 10th 11th of February. Concerns raised by Foster carer with the local authority re: P speaking a lot with his family and deterioration in his emotional well being Foster carer advised P tried to call the Police several times over the weekend, wanting to speak to DC Cherryman about withdrawing his statement. | |
12 Feb 2018 | Guardian’s report. | C91 |
14 Feb 2018 | The mother and father signed written agreements with the local authority agreeing not to contact the children. | F78-9 |
15 Feb 2018 | Contested ICO hearing. Interim care order for N, P and T extended and to remain throughout the care proceedings | |
22Feb 2018 | Viability assessment of maternal grandmother - she said she thought the allegations were false and that she would have found out if N had been engaged to a cousin. She accepted there were periods when she was not caring for them and their mother was. - She said that there had been problems in the past but they were historical | |
27 Feb 2018 | Contested ICO hearing. Interim care order for N, P and T extended and to remain throughout the care proceedings. P became verbally aggressive in placement to allocated social worker plus foster carer. 2 x police officers attended and P seen by mental health nurse. P locked himself in the bathroom. Q informed that N had had an argument with T that morning and was saying to P that she wanted to live with him and not T. GP assessed that P had bottled up his emotions and they had exploded. What started as a request to live with sisters became emotionally unmanageable. | |
28 Feb 2018 | P’s foster carer unable to continue caring for him. P is presenting threatening behavior towards O and the other children within the placement. | |
2 Mar 2018 | P threatening self harm and suicide if he isn’t allowed to return to [town]. Caught train back to [town] and walked to his previous foster carers house | |
5 Mar 2018 | P remained with previous foster carer in [town] over the weekend. He alleged that he had been instructed by a family member of his nan’s family to act like this. Home visit with P. He disclosed that he was given a mobile phone by Q two weeks ago and E (sister) plus P’s parents have been contact him via this mobile | |
15 Mar 2018 | Home visit with P. He disclosed that he was given a mobile phone by Aunt Q two weeks ago. Q has topped the mobile phone up with credit and E (sister) plus Ps parents have been contact him via this mobile | |
17 Mar 2018 | P, N and T: concerns raised from supervised sibling contact re: allegation towards contact supervisor and P pressuring T and N to misbehave. Verbal aggression from all three children towards contact supervisors | |
20 Mar 2018 | P alleged in CLA review that he was being followed into the toilet by contact supervisors and he isn’t happy about this. Contact supervisors refute allegation and state that they wait outside in the reception area of Library and at bowling alley when supervised contact has occurred | |
28 Mar 2018 | College informed that P is at risk of permanent exclusion. He has refused to follow instruction and walks away from staff. He has been internally excluded since Monday 26th March. Today (28.3.18) he was again wandering the site, refusing to follow instructions and encouraging other students to leave their lessons and being rude throughout. P has been excluded from school | |
6 April 2018 | Guardian meets N and T. At this point she had just started attending school in [town]. The Guardian thought she was extremely isolated. When the Guardian met with P he said he wanted to go home now if the judge ordered his father to leave the home. | |
18 Apr 2018 | P excluded from school for five days. P informed his foster carer that he didn’t want to remain at school and his behavior was deliberate | |
24 Apr 2018 | N referred to a consultant regarding her migraines. N advised to wear her glasses, to limit her screen time with interactive devises such as tablets and mobile phones. N to drink more water and eat a varied diet of fruit and vegetables | |
9 May 2018 | Foster carer and SW had a discussion with T around her behavior in placement. Physically hitting N, yelling at the foster carer. T said that she was deliberately misbehaving in placement. T informed that her behavior cannot continue and it would only result in her being separated from her sister (placement move) as opposed to returning to her parents like she has requested. | |
15 May 2018 | Reintegration meeting for P at college. P currently excluded. P was hyper aroused and refused to let the meeting proceed. He told all participants including foster carer to 'stop fucking talking', 'O I fucking hate you', 'stop looking at me’, ‘shut the fuck up’, ‘I hate you all'. P called his Aunty Q and released a tirade of abusive language directed at all participants. Q didn't end the conversation but requested to be put on loudspeaker. Prior to this no one in the room was aware of who P was talking to. P refused to end the conversation. Q informed the participants that the meeting was illegal and P needed to go to his MP and the board of governors. Participants didn't engage with Q and P eventually ended the conversation. Readmission meeting was rescheduled for the 16/5 due to P's noncompliance. P refused to have the APC referral explained to him and shouted that he wasn't going to a mental institution. He called the social worker a liar, threatened to harm everyone and feigned a kick in my (Catriona Sutherland, co allocated social worker) direction (this was ignored). Mother informed of P’s verbal outburst and non-compliant behavior which meant reintegration meeting had to be re arranged. APC referral discussed. Concerns raised that P is refusing to engage with any support that is implemented. He refuses to attend for Educational Psychology assessment, he refuses to engage in any emotional support whilst in the placement P started talking about being bribed by cigarettes. | |
16 May 2018 | P’s reintegration meeting at college. APC referral discussed Outcome: P to commence his reintegration to school tomorrow 17/5/2018 | |
18 May 2018 | P excluded from school for 4 days (4th of June to 7th June inclusive). He was extremely abusive to a member of staff and refused to follow instructions. Readmission 25 May | |
25 May 2018 | P excluded from school for 4 days (4th of June to 7th June inclusive). He was extremely abusive to a member of staff and refused to follow instructions. | |
29 May 2018 | Catriona Sutherland meets P who tells her that the allegations of forced marriage were all lies. He said he and N made it up because N wanted to return to the UK from Pakistan. He said he didn’t want to see his parents in late 2017 early 2018 because he knew he had lied. He said they hadn’t realised the consequences of their actions. He said he wanted to return to live with his parents and didn’t want to remain in foster care. | |
4 Jun 2018 | P moves placements. Concerns raised by SENCO from T’s school: Education: T is behind in all of her levels. Year 1 – developing for reading and mathematics, Year 2 developing for writing. T is in Year 4. She receives individual reading time and 1:1 support is being implemented through the PEP. | |
8 Jun 2018 | P made allegation that previous foster carer: · Z smokes · O and her mother are racist · it has been hard for him to practice his religion · they mock his traditional Arabic dress · When his placement broke down, W was about to hit him · O encouraged P to run away from the [area] placement · O forced him to eat the meat he should not · O forced him to lie and say he did not want to go home | |
13 Jun 2018 | P contacted practice manager and alleged that he had been bought cigarettes by a social worker and that he had witnesses. He wouldn’t accept that this had already been investigated and NFA. P became racially abusive and called practice manager a “fat ugly black git “following this he put the phone down. |