West Sussex County Council & Anor v F & Ors

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 :

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.

Legal Framework

Care Order

( 2) 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.

63A Forced marriage protection orders

(1) The court may make an order for the purposes of protecting –

(a) a person from being forced into a marriage or from any attempt to be forced into a marriage; or

(b) a person who has been forced into a marriage.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

(4) 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.

(5) 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.

(6) In this Part –

'force' includes coerce by threats or other psychological mea ns (and related expressions are to be read accordingly); and

'forced marriage protection order' means an order under this section.

63B Contents of orders

(1) A forced marriage protection order may contain –

(a) such prohibitions, restrictions or requirements; and

(b) 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’

(2) The terms of such orders may, in particular, relate to –

(a) conduct outside England and Wales as well as (or instead of) conduct within England and Wales;

(b) 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;

(c) other persons who are, or may become, involved in other respects as well as respondents of any kind.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) examples of involvement in other respects are –

(a) aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, encouraging or assisting another person to force, or to attempt to force, a person to enter into a marriage; or

(b) conspiring to force, or to attempt to force, a person to enter into a marriage.

63C Applications and other occasions for making orders

(1) The court may make a forced marriage protection order –

(a) 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

(1) 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.

(2) In deciding whether to exercise its powers under subsection (1), the court must have regard to all the circumstances including –

(a) any risk of significant harm to the person to be protected or another person if the order is not made immediately;

(b) whether it is likely that an applicant will be deterred or prevented from pursuing an application if an order is not made immediately; and

(c) whether there is reason to believe that –

(i) the respondent is aware of the proceedings but is deliberately evading service; and

(ii) the delay involved in effecting substituted service will cause serious prejudice to the person to be protected or (if a different person) an applicant.

(3) The court must give the respondent an opportunity to make representations about any order made by virtue of subsection (1).

(4) The opportunity must be –

(a) as soon as just and convenient; and

(b) at a hearing of which notice has been given to all the parties in accordance with rules of court.

[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 230and 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.

Fact -Finding

[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.

Assessment of the Evidence

The Witnesses

The Mother

The Father

N

P

Q

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 13^th 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 2^nd 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 13^th 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 7^th December about the Forced Marriage Unit and the call to the FCO on 7^th 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.

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.

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 23^rd to 24^th 25^th of December 5th 9^th 10^th 13^th 20^th 21^st 22^nd 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.

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.

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.