TS v AS & Ors (Art 21 Findings of Fact)

This matter is listed for a finding of fact hearing in the context of an application by the father made under Art 21 of the Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereafter “the 1980 Hague Convention”). The application concerns MS (aged 15 years), LS (aged 13 years) and HS, known as H (aged 8 years). The application under Art 21 follows the withdrawal by the father on 25 February 2025 of his application for summary return of the children to the jurisdiction of Country A under Art 12 of the 1980 Hague Convention. The withdrawal by the father of his application for return orders followed the granting of the mother’s protection claim in this jurisdiction.

The finding of fact hearing is listed to determine the mother’s allegations against the father of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour. The allegations are incorporated into a Schedule of Allegations. An additional Schedule of Allegations has been pleaded by the Children’s Guardian, alleging emotional harm to the children.

The mother is represented by Mr Michael Gration of King’s Counsel and Ms Alexandra Halliday of counsel. The children are represented through their Children’s Guardian, Ms Daisy Veitch, by Ms Cliona Papazian of counsel. The father failed to attend the finding of fact hearing, having dispensed with the services of his English solicitors. Whilst the court was informed that the father was liaising with the Central Authority in order to find alternative representation, there is no indication that the father has instructed new English solicitors.

The father also failed to attend the pre-hearing review on 9 October 2025, despite having been notified of the hearing and provided with a video link to the hearing. Ahead of the pre-hearing review, and by an email dated 8 October 2025, the father had made an application to adjourn the finding of fact hearing. For the reasons given in an ex tempore judgment at the pre-hearing review, I refused the father’s application for an adjournment. Following the pre-hearing review on 9 October 2025, the father filed a number of further documents with the court, including a Schedule setting out findings he sought against the mother.

On Sunday 26 October 2025, a lawyer that represents the father in the proceedings the father continues to pursue in Country A sent to the court four emails to which were attached what purported to be applications made pursuant to Article 21 of the 1980 Hague Convention. Those purported applications were advanced on behalf of Dr AS, Dr CS and RS, described as uncles of the children, and OS, the children’s paternal grandmother. None of those applications had been made via the foreign Central Authority; none were made in Form C100; none sought permission of the Court to make those applications; and none of the applications had been issued by the court. Further, the documents were sent only to the court and had not been served upon the solicitors for the mother or the solicitors for the children. In the circumstances, I declined to deal with those purported applications. On 27 October 2025, the father sent a case summary and a chronology to the court. Within the email attaching those documents, the father made a further request for an adjournment of the finding of fact hearing.

As I have noted, on 27 October 2025 the father failed to attend the finding of fact hearing, despite being sent a video link by the court, the court having provided an interpreter to assist the father and, to ensure that the mother was not cross-examined by the father with respect to her allegations of domestic abuse, the court having appointed a Qualified Legal Representative (QLR) to undertake cross examination on behalf of the father. At the hearing, the QLR attempted to contact the father to notify him that the hearing link was open and that he should join the hearing. The father did not join the hearing.

At the outset of the finding of fact hearing, I refused the father’s further application to adjourn the hearing for the following reasons:

Having refused to adjourn the hearing, I directed that the hearing would re-commence on 28 October 2025, that only documents filed pursuant to directions made by the court would be admitted into evidence and, again, made clear on the face of the order that the hearing may proceed in the father’s absence if he did not join the hearing on 28 October 2025.

On 28 October 2025, the father again failed to join the remote hearing link. The QLR indicated that in communications between himself and the father, the father had stated that he did not intend to join the hearing because he did not want his attendance to be interpreted as participation in the hearing. In these circumstances, the father having indicated he did not intend to participate, I decided to proceed with the finding of fact hearing in the father’s absence for the reasons set out in the ex tempore judgment I gave on 28 October 2025, a transcript of which I have directed.

In addition to the failure by the father, as the applicant, to attend the finding of fact hearing, there has been an ongoing issue in these proceedings of whether or not the father contests the jurisdiction of the court.

When giving to the father permission on 25 February 2025 to withdraw his application for return orders, the court declared that the children were habitually resident in England and Wales and that the courts of England and Wales therefore have jurisdiction in relation to the children pursuant to Art 5 of the Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (hereafter “the 1996 Hague Convention”) to which both the United Kingdom and Country A are party. There has been no appeal by the father against that decision.

The father’s application in Form C100 for a Child Arrangements Order for the children to spend time with him issued on 4 April 2025, raised no issue as to the jurisdiction of this court to make welfare orders with respect to the children. Further, in his statement to the court concerning jurisdiction dated 29 July 2025, the father made clear as follows:

“[9] I confirm that I do accept that the English court has exclusive jurisdiction in respect of decision-making concerning the custody and access of the children until the end of the Art 21 contact proceedings on the basis that they are habitually resident in England and no longer reside in Country A.”

Notwithstanding this stated position, it has become clear that the father continues to litigate with respect to the children in Country A (where it is clear he has also failed to attend a large number of hearings, including non-attendance at a hearing in Country A on 23 October 2025). A statement prepared by the father, dated 17 October 2025, now appears to challenge the jurisdiction of the English court to do anything other than enforce access and custody decisions made by the foreign Court. This notwithstanding that the English court has jurisdiction in relation to the children under Art 5 of the 1996 Hague Convention based on the children’s habitual residence in this jurisdiction and that Art 21 of the 1980 Hague Convention does not confer jurisdiction on the domestic court to recognise and enforce foreign orders for access (see G (A Minor)(Hague Convention: Access) [1993] 1 FLR 669).

Most recently, it would appear that the father has sought and obtained an order in the foreign proceedings which requires the mother to present herself at hospital in Country A for a mental health assessment. As I shall come to, a persistent assertion of the father has been that the mother is mentally ill and requires treatment in a psychiatric hospital. As I will also come to, there is no credible evidence before this court that the mother suffers from any mental health difficulties or that she lacks capacity to litigate.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am satisfied that this court has exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the children pursuant to Art 5 of the 1996 Hague Convention based on the children’s habitual residence in the jurisdiction of England and Wales. For the avoidance of doubt, I am also wholly satisfied that the mother has capacity, including capacity to litigate.

In determining the issues of fact in this case, I have had the benefit of four court bundles (the main trial bundle, the bundle from the proceedings for return orders under the 1980 Hague Convention, a bundle of documents from the foreign proceedings, a bundle of disclosure from relevant police forces and local authorities in this jurisdiction and an authorities bundle). In addition, I have had the benefit of Position Statements filed on behalf of the mother and on behalf of the children, the documents filed by the father and a note of a discussion between the Guardian and the children’s allocated Social Worker on 23 October 2025. The father relies on a significant number of witness statements. In circumstances where he failed to attend the hearing, those witnesses have not been called by the father.

The mother is 38 years of age, having been born on 2 August 1986. She is a national of Country A, as are each of the subject children. The father is 52 years old, having been born on 7th February 1973. He is a national of Country A. The parties met in Country A and were married there. The mother contends they were married by virtue of an arranged marriage in 2008 (as she did in her asylum interview on 11 September 2024). The father denies the parties had an arranged marriage in the classic sense, and met through family and friends. The father was thus 13 years older than the mother when they married, the mother being 23 years of age.

Throughout proceedings both in this jurisdiction and in Country A, the father has taken great pains to emphasise what he considers to be his high status and his purported credentials, qualifications and, as he sees it, his educational standing in Country A. The father describes himself as someone with a:

“...serious background of knowledge and experience owing to his rather superior and qualified positions as the Vice President of the Investment and Trade Centre, Faculty Member in Law, Lawyer, Newspaper Columnist, TV Commentator, and Manager of a Strategic Think-Tank.”

Within the proceedings in Country A, his lawyers have described the father as a “scholar of distinguished standing, with an elite career and a reputation of the highest esteem.” The father attaches to his statements in the foreign proceedings pictures and videos of him appearing on national television in Country A. In the proceedings for return orders under the 1980 Hague Convention, the father set out his various positions and titles at the outset of his statement. In these proceedings he describes himself as an “experienced international lawyer” and signs off his emails to his lawyers and Cafcass with a long list of his professional achievements. In the material from the foreign proceedings is a document in which the father objects to a judicial fine imposed on him as a result of the complaint by the mother in circumstances where he is “both a lawyer and an academic” and “a representative of my country before the United Nations and a respected member of the legal profession”. The father asserts that he has “a deep set respect for the law.”

The witness statements relied on by the father tend to describe the father in glowing terms. HN deposes that the father is “a perfect husband and a perfect father who makes every sacrifice for his children.” At almost all points, the father’s witnesses support the father’s account of disputed events, even where it would not have been possible for the witness in question to have been present. All witnesses adopt the father’s view that the mother is mentally unstable, whilst painting the father as truthful, child focused and a victim of the mother’s serial machinations.

Against this, the mother alleges that, during the marriage, she suffered serious domestic abuse which included physical, sexual, psychological and financial abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour. In her asylum interview on 11 September 2024, the mother described the issues starting some four months after the parents were married in 2008, when the paternal grandmother sought to control the mother’s access to her own family and to the father, the mother stating that:

“...the problems started right away after this incident my in laws stopped seeing my family and mother in law kept saying bad things about me to my husband and why don't you just drag her by her hair and kick her out of the door and what kind of girl did we get from a family like that. a couple of times I tried to talk to them and my husband didn’t let me talk to my in laws [saying] even if they shit in your mouth you will not say a word back to them.”

Thereafter, the mother alleges that she was subjected to physical assaults, that left bruises and marks on her body and which included an incident of strangulation, sexual assault and coercive and controlling behaviour. The mother asserts that the father decided what she wore and who she spoke to. In her asylum interview the mother stated the father was “was controlling of everything where I’m going what I’m going to do.” The mother further alleges that during the course of the marriage the father would smash up the parties’ property. She asserts that, on a regular basis, the father told her that he would make her disappear, going so far as to say, in the presence of the children, that he would stage a road traffic accident to end her life. Documents from divorce proceedings in Country A in 2024 demonstrate that the mother has maintained broadly the same account of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour by the father over an extended period of time.

The father emphatically denies that he has been domestically abusive towards the mother. The father also denies coercive and controlling behaviour and asserts that the mother “has always had freedom to do as she pleased; she always had access to a vehicle as and when we required it, and had her own credit card and bank account”. The father likewise denies physical abuse of the mother. The father also denies that he sexually abused the mother and asserts that the mother developed “a mental block where she became ashamed of having sex.” The father relies on a WhatsApp message dated 26 November 2023 in which he asserts that mother makes clear that, notwithstanding his assertion the mother had become ashamed of having sex, the mother wanted to have sex with him.

The mother states that she finds it difficult to recall the specific dates on which the father’s sexual and physical assaults occurred but sets out in her statement a number of episodes that occurred in Country A that are broadly dated:

With respect to the mother’s allegations of sexual abuse by the father, those allegations are not particularised by incident or date. However, when speaking to the police in England the mother is recorded as giving the following account to police on 5 May 2024 when police were called after the father had attended the family home:

“When DASH was being done with the victim she stated that during intercourse the suspect ends up biting, scratching her and physically hurting her. Shen then tells him ‘no’ to which he will continue to have sex with her either way. During the sex there is penetration. She sometimes will not tell him no as she knows that he will have sex with her either way. She also stated that she was taught that the male will have sex with her despite what she wants.”

The mother asserts that she did not speak out about her abusive treatment by the father whilst in Country A in circumstances where the father is a well known public figure in Country A and that to admit that she could not “meet my husband’s needs and demands” would bring shame on the family. There are, however, a number of items of corroborating evidence with respect to the conduct alleged by the mother against the father whilst the family were in Country A. In addition to the matters set out above, the mother exhibits to her statement photographs that she says show the bruises she sustained over this period of time. Those photographs show bruising to her upper arm, her eye and her chin. They also show marks, abrasions and cuts to her neck and to her forehead and eye. The father states that the mother has manipulated these images but adduces no evidence to make good that assertion.

In 2023 the family made the decision to relocate to England so that the father could start his employment. The family relocated on 29 July 2023. The father contends that the relocation was on the basis of this employment as he had a skilled worker visa.

The mother asserts that the father’s domestic abuse and sexual abuse of her and his and coercive and controlling behaviour became worse when the family arrived in England. When speaking to social workers, the mother stated that whilst in England the father would repeat a cycle whereby he would verbally abuse her, for example on one occasion telling the mother in front of the children that he would “fuck her back into her mum’s pussy”, before periods during which the father would pretend that nothing had happened. In September 2023, the mother returned to Country A for an abortion after the father had told her that it was not time to be having another child. The mother asserts that the father pressured her into having an abortion.

The mother alleges that in England the father would constantly hit her, push her and make her fear for her safety, which happened on multiple occasions each week and in the presence of the children. The following incidents are particularised in the mother’s evidence:

The mother alleges that the children were frequently exposed to incidents of domestic abuse by the father, and would often cry and try to intercede to protect her. The mother alleges that the children have witnessed her being physically assaulted, have vocalised fear of their father, have expressed fears about being separated from their mother and that their primary fear is that their father will kill their mother. The father denies physically abusing the mother in front of the children but concedes that he “may” have had verbal arguments with the mother in front of the children.

The father was made redundant on 29 April 2024. The court also has before it the father’s WhatsApp exchanges with the mother in April and May 2024 at the time the marriage broke down. These tend to be corroborative of the mother’s account regarding the father’s view of what he considered to be the mother’s position in their marriage and his absolute authority over the mother, the children and the household. The messages stand in stark contrast to his statements before the court in which the father seeks to portray himself as progressive and enlightened with respect to the role of women and asserts that he has “been nothing but a loving father and husband.” A number of examples can be drawn from the material that has been disclosed into these proceedings:

“FATHER: 19:22 By your sister constantly telling you not to be oppressed / not to let yourself be pushed around, then when the woman who is rude and humiliates the father in front of his children in every possible way, it’s only natural that the child would also feel entitled to behave disrespectfully towards the father.

MOTHER: 19:26 I am not going to respond to you anymore.

FATHER: 19:26 You and your mentors don't even have the foresight to comprehend what kind of poison you have spread in this house. Such is the respect of a child for a father who is tried in a criminal court by the prosecutor’s office. Apply henna on your mother's pussy.”

A further WhatsApp exchange between the father and the mother evolved as follows:

“FATHER: 19:40 If the head of the house does not have a reputation in a family, if the woman does not carry the honour, decency and dignity of the house.

FATHER: 19:42 Like a motherfucker, you see the dishonourable ones in your house who say DAD DON’T BARK AT ME.

FATHER: 19:42 Be proud of your creation / work.

FATHER: 19:43 Applyyyyyy henna on your mother’s pussy.

FATHER: 19:43 Send these to your dishonourable family Sayyyyy my son, your grandson, your nephew is not saying to DAD, DON’T BARK AT ME LIKE A DOG to his father.

FATHER: 19:43 They should be proud of their work / creation.”

MOTHER: 19:44 Impudent / rude.

FATHER: 19:45 You are the imputed / rude one. This is the state you got the house / family into. You are not even in a position to comprehend this.

FATHER: 19.45 Instead of sitting and crying until morning, without seeing your floors ... you continued to bark.

FATHER: 19:46 Applyyyyyyy henna to your mother’s pussy.”

The WhatsApp messages sent by the father also included the following series of messages to the mother in April 2024 which set out the father’s expectations regarding the mother’s behaviour:

“FATHER 10:41 Your family, especially that filthy sister of yours kept saying don’t let anyone walk all over you / don’t allow yourself to be oppressed you and that is what has made you shameless. The troublemaker made me look like the enemy...

FATHER: 10:41 A decent, honourable, dignified woman:

Doesn’t sayyyyyyy vile things behind her husband’s back that breaks up a family.

She doesn’t keep people like whores and sons of whores in her life, she cuts them off completely !! !! !! !!

She does not hideeeeee her telephone from her husband !! !! !! !!

She does not have conversations that she hides from her husband, she does NOT DELETEEEEE the messages !! !! !!

A woman acts with the awareness that with EVERY STEP she takes; she carries the family’s honour, dignity, validity and pride !! !! !! !! !!

A women doesn’t bark in the presence of her husband, the husband is the head of the family, those who say do not allow yourself to be oppressed, are the enemies of this family, if the husband is treated like a dog at home (incomplete sentence).

FATHER 10:44 A woman does not barkkkkk in front of her husband at home, the husband is the head of the family, those / your sister who says (tells you) don’t allow yourself to be oppressed, are the enemies of his family, if the husband is treated as a dog in the house, then the fruit of that says DAD DON’T BARK AT ME LIKE A DOG The child who says...

MOTHER 10:45 May God have mercy on you, give you goodness, give your peace, and I hope you stop poisoning your family and yourself in this short life.

.../

FATHER: 11:14 The rules and boundaries of my house and my life are clear. Don’t allow yourself to be oppressed ‘my sister’ does not according with understanding of family.

MOTHER: 11:16 Through your messages MS, I have clearly seen the insults and swearing you directed at us and exactly how you see me.

MOTHER: 11:18 How much love can someone who harbours so much hatred towards me and my family possibly have. Constant messages of hate, constant swearing how much love can really be behind that.

FATHER: 11:18 I don’t agree with a lifestyle where one dismisses ones’ husband, gets a restraining order through the police, files complaints with the prosecutor service, has him tried in a criminal court and feels no shame in doing so, thinking that it is normal. I will not allow you to ruin the home with the words of a filthy person who tells you not to allow yourself to be oppressed did we give you away as a slave.”

On 1 May 2024 the father messaged the mother as follows after she had stated she would not be leaving England with him:

As I have noted, the foregoing exchanges demonstrate that the father had been preoccupied with the incident in on 21 April 2024, in which LS referenced his father “barking at him like a dog”. When LS tried to apologise over WhatsApp the father refused to accept that apology and sent back to LS a diatribe against the mother:

“LS: 21:30 I'm sorry, Dad, it slipped out of my mouth by mistake. Said in a moment of anger, it won't happen again, I'm sorry.

FATHER: 21:30: I ABSOLUTELY do not accept your apology...I will not forget this sentence of yours until I die.

In three days, you will also be a father, God willing, you will understand me then. Find out about these things form now:

I have entrusted to God THE FILTH AND THE INSTIGATION of those who have disrupted my home life namely that filthy mother of yours and that sister of hers who is a bitch/whore, the dishonourable, disreputable man who is her father, the despicable scum who will be your brother, the lowlife brother, the leashed dog who will be your brother-in-law, and the entire DISHONORABLE, DISREPUTABLE, UNDIGNIFIED, SHAMELES, DISRESPECTFUL low life family culture of theirs, along with their ill-bred ignorance. God will punish them all and everyone will see it.

In an honourable family, a woman does not talk to that whore/bitch that sister of hers saying degrading or matters which break up marriages behind her husband’s back or to make him feel uneasy. She does not talk in ways that would provoke strife or discord with She avoids constant conversation speech which could destroy the home or create instigation and corruption....!! !! !!

In an honourable family, the father is a self-sacrificing man who strives for the home and for his family, and the whole family sees and respects it as such. The father is a man of great vision, who has serious manners/decency, a man who is respected and possess both career and charisma, who teaches his family a great sense of decency and manners.

In the dishonourable, dishonourable, despicable family, do not oppress my sister, starting with those who call themselves [prostitute] and continuing with the mouth of the children of the house.

To those dishonourable, disreputable, lowlife family members who say, don’t oppress yourself sister, for the whores and son’s of whores who start and continue (this behaviour) with the mouths…”

Within the foregoing context, during the case management stage of these proceedings, the court granted the mother permission to rely on covert recordings of the father’s video contact with LS during the period over which the parties’ marriage broke down. The father does not dispute that the videos are a genuine depiction of his conduct. He likewise concedes that his conduct would have caused the children upset. Against this, the father goes on to blame the mother for these exchanges by alleging that the mother had “had coached LS on what to say to me in order to upset me and make me angry.”

The following examples serve to indicate the tenor and approach of the father statements to LS in those exchanges. Within the context of these messages, it is of note that the father now denies that he put pressure on the children to return to Country A and, again, claims to have been “been nothing but a loving father and husband”:

“FATHER: She’s lying through her teeth about everything. She’s lying to me, too, about everything. Given all that, it’s over.

I will now send her the fuck away to her father’s dump, because it turns out she didn’t marry me to build a home with me or to be a mum for my children. She married me to be a grovelling dog for her father and to bark in our home for her slut of a sister. I’ll send her the fuck away. The hell with her!

All I’m saying is that the mother of my children cannot go and marry another man. Are you so undignified as a woman?

[She says] “I am, too, entitled to build a family.” I’ll show her what building a family looks like.

Why [is all this happening]? Because your slut of an aunt has been saying “Sister, get divorced and come live with me” since the day we married.

We are now in this mess because your undignified dog of a grandpa has been urging [your mum] to get a divorce and go live with them.

That bastard [N] called her and said “Sister, I can come and pick up you and your children and get them to school in [location given].”

I told her, “Look, if anyone so much as touches the hair on one of my children, I’ll fuck up their entire family.”

I said, “Don’t make me spill the blood of that son of a bitch.”

I said, “If I ever see you talking to anyone about my children without me knowing, I’ll break your bones.”

I said, “I am these kids’ father, and I’ll raise them myself.”

That sodding punk is not the man to raise my children. If that ox were a man, he wouldn’t have left [location given] and moved to [location given]. We left [location given] for [England], while that ox left [location given] for [location given]. He’s an ox, plain and simple. Now, he’s not satisfied with his own boorishness, and will attempt to make oxen like him out of my own children. Son, this is where we are. I’m not telling you everything, as you’re too young for now, OK?

CHILD: Uh huh.

FATHER: In time, you’ll see, you’ll know, and you’ll understand. This is the approach befitting a man of honour, respect, and dignity.

If you still remain silent, as I know, it’s your mum who keeps poisoning you against me, right, I’ll close the chapter in England.

I’ll send your mum the fuck away to her father’s dump, because she’d been keen on going back to her father’s house since we got married. I’ll bury her back into her mum’s pussy, OK?

Since we got married, I’ve been saying, “Woman, a family can discuss divorce only for once. A couple discusses divorce once, and then, they get a divorce. A woman simply cannot talk about going back to her father’s house every day.”

CHILD: Uh huh.”

A further video call from the father to LS contains the following exchange with the father in which he places pressure on LS to choose between the father and the mother:

The final video message giving a flavour of the manner in which the father addressed LS about his mother is as follows:

“FATHER: Don't say, ‘You’re lying.’

CHILD: I didn’t say that you were lying. I just asked you to show me.

FATHER: OK, you said, “I don’t believe you.” Whatever I say to you is true. This is the culture of immorality your mother brought to our home.

CHILD: Dad, can you please realise what we are talking about here? How can I be sure about anything?

FATHER: LS, you must be sure when your father says something. Your father won’t lie to you. I am always sure when my son says something to me, because you won’t lie to me.

What is the problem here? It is that your mum has turned our home into this mess by lying over and over again. Can you have a look at what we’ve come to? The child says to the father, “Dad, I don’t believe you.”

This is the whore culture your mother has brought into this family. In a household of dignity, a father talks only once. Whatever the father says goes. Nobody questions him. That’s it.

You will get married and have children in the future. Wouldn’t you be offended if your child turns to you and says, ‘Dad, I don’t believe you’?”

It is important, when seeking to understand how the children would have experienced these exchanges, to listen to the video recordings to obtain a sense of the tone and tenor of the father’s voice during the foregoing exchanges. Having done so, it is even clearer that the exchanges would have constituted an emotionally fraught and harmful experience for LS, in which his mother was called a “whore” by his father and he was pressurised to choose between his parents.

As I have noted, the father was arrested on 7 May 2024 in respect of alleged offences of threats to kill, assault (ABH), rape, strangulation and coercive control. The father contends that the bail conditions were removed at the end of July 2025, although this has not been confirmed. The father returned to Country A in June 2024.

At the end of April 2024 the mother approached X County Council (hereafter “the first local authority”) in this jurisdiction and reported that the father had been physically and sexually abusive towards her and emotionally and physically abusive to the children. The mother reported to the first local authority (via translation undertaken by a friend) that, in addition to being abusive to her in front of the children, the father had previously grabbed them by the throat and would shout and swear at them. The mother alleged that the father had injured LS at Christmas 2023 by grabbing his face. The first local authority was informed by the school that:

“...communications with Dad historically have been quite heightened with the language he would use such as when contact the school to say that LS was being bullied. Dad’s immediate response was to say that there was a terrorist cell within the school, it needed to be extinguished and he wanted the school to remove the students involved from the roll.”

A referral was made by the first local authority for the mother to an Independent Domestic Violence Advocate (hereafter “IDVA”). The mother informed the IDVA that on multiple occasions the father had had sex with her both after she withdrew her consent having initially consented and where she had not consented at all. She informed the IDVA that she had not previously made reports to the police as she was terrified of the father, who was a lawyer and had told her he could pay to get himself out of trouble.

The children themselves made a number of statements to the first local authority which corroborated the mother’s account of the father’s conduct:

When the social worker spoke to the father in Country A, he contended that the mother had only started to raise issues when they were returning to Country A. The father alleged to the social worker that the mother “has bi-polar disorder” and “every year she goes mad”. The father stated further that “He lost control himself and he couldn’t control her mental problem”. The father denied threatening the mother and asserted that she was falsifying assaults in order to remain in the United Kingdom.

As I have noted, it would appear that the father has now sought and obtained an order in foreign custody proceedings which requires the mother to present herself at hospital for a mental health assessment. A persistent assertion of the father during the course of proceedings in Country A and the return proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention was that the mother is mentally ill (which, as appears above, he seems to assert was seasonal in nature) and that her allegations of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour were the product of that mental illness. The father asserts in terms that “The difficulties in our relationship often stemmed from [the mother’s] difficulties with her mental health”.

Such evidence that has been produced by the father with respect to the mother’s mental health comprises information from Country A. Specifically, a report from one GG, a psychologist who the father alleges assessed the mother privately on 6 September 2023. The father asserts that the report of GG is evidence that the mother suffers from a condition that “could lead her to kill or harm the children or people around her”. The father also purports to rely on a report from Dr HDD (although the report itself is signed by a Dr HD), a psychiatrist, and Dr TK, a neurologist, who the father contends have “assessed” the report of GG and the mother’s witness statements and thereby verify “the facts and validity of [GG’s] first report”.

At the conclusion of its chid protection investigation pursuant to s.47 of the Children Act 1989 the local authority drew the following conclusion:

“The children and [the mother] have clearly been victims of domestic abuse having witnessed it in the home both in the UK and in their country of origin. The children's father appears to display behaviour that would be harmful to the children and from the conversation with the children he appeared to be trying to use them to control their mother which would obviously have an emotional impact on the children. The family have now been reunited and the father has been arrested and placed under bail conditions that add additional layers of protection to the family. The family have been placed in a safe place of safety by the IDVA service and social care is supporting the family until they are able to seek support from the home office. This provides a good level of safety to the family and reduces the risk of significant harm therefore I am making the recommendation that while the concerns are substantiated there is no need to progress to the initial child protection conference. However, they do not have recourse to public funds and so need to be further assessed under section 17 and the no recourse to public funds protocol.”

The mother made an application for humanitarian protection in May 2024. She had her initial screening asylum interview on 30 May 2024 and her asylum interview on 11 September 2024. The children were named in the protection claim as dependents. Following her asylum interview, on 25 September 2024 the mother was discussed at a Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) due to what the police described as “serious concerns that police and other professional agencies have” for the mother.

The father applied for a Summary Return of the children to Country A under the 1980 Hague Convention on 18 October 2024. The children were joined as parties to the proceedings and the Secretary of State was invited to intervene following the Court being informed that the mother had made an application for asylum in respect of herself and the children.

In circumstances where the father managed to locate the whereabouts of the mother and the children, the mother and the children were moved by the Home Office to alternative accommodation in the area of Y City Council (hereafter “the second local authority”). The records from the second local authority record that the mother was alleging that she had received threats to kill from the father and from his family in Country A, as well as from his friends in the United Kingdom. The mother alleged that the father was frequently breaching his bail conditions by contacting her. The mother is recorded as being “very receptive to any support.”

The second local authority also undertook a s.47 child protection investigation in November 2024. The father was spoken to during the course of the s.47 investigation and denied that there had been any domestic abuse or threats to kill. The bundle contains a detailed and extensively capitalised and underlined document prepared by the father on 11 November 2024, in which he asserts that the mother’s allegations of domestic abuse are ”fraudulent” and that she is mentally ill (the document includes an extensive exposition by the father on ‘The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’ by Robert Louis Stevenson, which the father appears to rely on to demonstrate that the mother suffers from mental illness). The document also appends the reports of GG, Dr HD and Dr TK.

On 12 November 2024, the father contacted the NSPCC to assert that the mother’s allegations of domestic abuse were false and that he was aware that the mother was residing in the area of the second local authority. On 27 November 2024, the police were contacted by the father, who tried to ascertain the precise whereabouts of the mother and the children, claimed that the mother was a significant risk to the children and stated that, having seen the mother in court the day before, “she was in psychosis”. The father again mentioned the reports of GG, Dr HD and Dr. TK.

During the course of the s.47 investigation undertaken by the second local authority, LS told the social worker that “his dad was trying to hurt them and he didn’t want to be near his dad.” The social worker further recorded that:

“MS spoken to he stated that things have been very bad. He said that his dad is very abusive to his mum and to them. He stated that he doesn’t want to go back to Country A and he doesn’t want to go back to his dad.”

On 3 January 2025, a Child Protection Conference held by the second local authority concluded unanimously that the children would be made subject to a Child Protection plan, under the category of Physical Harm.

On 23 January 2025 the mother (and the children as her dependents) were granted asylum and were given leave to remain as refugees for a five-year period. Prior to the grant of asylum, the father prepared an extensive document entitled “Immigration Fraud” in an effort to oppose the granting of asylum for the mother and the children, alleging over the course of fifty-seven pages that the domestic abuse allegations that formed part of the protection claim were false and that the mother’s “significant mental health challenges” included a “documented history of Bi-Polar Disorder, Schizophrenia, Paranoid Personality Disorder, Anxiety, Psychopathy, Instinct / Emotion / Conduct Disorders”. The father again relied on the report of GG.

Following the granting of the mother’s asylum application, the father withdrew his application for a summary return at a hearing on 25 February 2025. As I have noted, on 4 April 2025 the applicant father made an application in Form C100 for a Child Arrangements Order for the children to spend time with him. In light of the matters set out above, this court considered it necessary to hold a finding of fact hearing to inform the decision of the court with respect to the father’s application for a child arrangements order, which includes his seeking to spend time with the children in the jurisdiction of Country A.

Within the foregoing context, the mother seeks the following findings of fact from the court:

Within the context summarised above, the Children’s Guardian seeks the following findings of fact from the court:

Finally, in his Form C1A the father alleges that the children are being subjected to emotional and psychological harm. In addition, and as I have noted, the father has provided to the court a Schedule of Findings he seeks against the mother. The father seeks the following findings of fact from the court:

The mother concedes that she has used cupping therapy on the children, which is not painful and forms part of their tradition. The mother exhibits photographs of this activity in which the father himself can be seen in the background during the cupping therapy. The evidence from the local authorities that have been engaged with the mother and the children demonstrates no concerns with respect to the mother’s parenting of the children.

To prove a fact, the party asserting the fact must establish that fact on the balance of probabilities. Neither the seriousness of the allegations nor the seriousness of the consequences makes a difference to the standard of proof to be applied in this context.

In determining whether a fact is proved on the balance of probabilities, the inherent probability or improbability of an event remains a matter to be considered when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred. Common sense, not law, requires that in deciding this question regard should be had, to whatever extent appropriate, to inherent probabilities (Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35 at [15]).

Any findings of fact made by the court must be based on admissible evidence, including those inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence, and not on suspicion or speculation (see Re A (A Child, Fact Finding Hearing, Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12 and Re A [2015] EWFC 11 at [8]). In R v Kilbourne [1973] AC 729 at 756 Lord Simon of Glaisdale observed that:

“Evidence is relevant if it is logically probative or disprobative of some matter which requires proof…relevant (i.e. logically probative or disprobative) evidence is evidence which makes the matter which requires proof more or less probable.”

In determining whether the findings sought are proved to the requisite standard, the court is required to consider “the wide canvas” of the evidence before the court (see Re U (Serious Injury: Standard of Proof) [2005] Fam 134 at [26]) including the wider context of social, emotional, ethical and moral factors (see A County Council v A Mother, A Father and X, Y and Z [2005] EWHC 31 (Fam) at [44]). The “wide canvas” considered is that made up of admissible evidence and, again, does not include suspicion or speculation.

Evidence given in connection with the welfare of a child is admissible notwithstanding any rule relating to the law of hearsay (see the Children (Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence) Order 1993). The weight to be attached to a piece of hearsay evidence is a question for the court to decide (Re W (Fact Finding: Hearsay Evidence) [2014] 2 FLR 703). Within this context, a serious unsworn allegation may be accepted by the court provided it is evaluated against testimony on oath (Re H (Change of Care Plan) [1998] 1 FLR 193). It is very important to bear in mind at all times that, notwithstanding its admissibility under the 1993 Order, the court is required to treat hearsay evidence anxiously and consider carefully the extent to which it can properly be relied upon (see R v B County Council ex parte P [1991] 1 WLR 221).

The evidence of the parents, and where applicable the children, is of utmost importance in determining whether the facts in issue have been proved to the requisite standard. Within that context, it is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability when considering whether to make the findings sought, including the age and understanding of the children where the children have made statements about the facts in issue. The court is likely to place considerable reliability and weight on the evidence and impression it forms of the mother and the father (see Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd Anor [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm) at [15] to [21] and Lancashire County Council v M and F [2014] EWHC 3 (Fam)).

The legal principles to which the court must have regard when determining whether to make findings of fact include, where appropriate, those that pertain to the manner in which the court deals with lies. The following principles will apply having regard to the decision in R v Lucas [1982] QB 720:

In this case, the findings against the father sought by the mother include findings of both domestic abuse and coercive control of the mother of the children. With respect to the allegations of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour, the same standard and burden of proof applies. As noted by Cobb J (as he then was) in Re B-B (Domestic Abuse: Fact Finding) [2022] 2 FLR 725, in private law cases the court needs to be vigilant to the possibility that one or other parent may be seeking to gain an advantage in the battle against the other. This does not mean that allegations are false, but it does increase the risk of misinterpretation, exaggeration, or fabrication. At all times, the court must follow the principles and guidance set out in PD12J of the FPR 2010.

In the foregoing circumstances, the role of the court at this finding of fact hearing is, accordingly, to consider the evidence in its totality and to make such findings on the balance of probabilities as are appropriate. This means that, in accordance with the foregoing general principles, when assessing whether the allegations are proved to the requisite standard, the court must consider each piece of evidence in the context of all of the other evidence (Re T [2004] 2 FLR 838 at [33]). In Re A (Children) [2018] EWCA Civ 1718, the Court of Appeal emphasised the overarching importance, when determining whether or not the case has been proved to the requisite standard, of the court standing back from the case to consider the whole picture and ask itself the ultimate question of whether that which is alleged is more likely than not to be true.

I am satisfied that the following findings of fact sought by the mother are made out on the balance of probabilities:

My reasons for being satisfied that the foregoing findings of fact are made out on the balance of probabilities are as follows.

The court has treated the mother’s written statements as her in evidence in chief pursuant to FPR 2010 r.22.6(1). The father did not attend the hearing or provide instructions to the QLR to enable the cross examination of the mother. In the circumstances, the mother’s evidence that the father exhibited coercive and controlling behaviour and perpetrated physical abuse, sexual abuse and verbal abuse against her, and verbal abuse against the children, is unchallenged.

It is nonetheless important for the court to form a clear assessment of the mother’s credibility and reliability, and of the credibility and reliability of the father, when considering whether to make the findings sought. With respect to the mother, there is no credible evidence before the court to suggest that the mother suffers from a mental illness that would undermine the credibility of her evidence, or that she lacks capacity to litigate. Rather, I am satisfied that the father’s assertions of mental illness and lack of capacity in the mother amount to no more than a tired and antiquated trope directed at a woman the father considers not to be submitting to his will.

In her initial screening asylum interview on 30 May 2024, the mother reported that the father had threatened to “get a medical report to say I am crazy”. She repeated this assertion during her asylum interview on 11 September 2024. I am satisfied that such evidence that has been produced by the father with respect to the mother’s mental health is wholly lacking in credibility.

The mother contends that she has never met or been examined by Dr HD, or Dr HDD, or by Dr TK. Dr HD has confirmed as much to the mother. In response to an email from the mother, Dr HD confirmed he was an author of the report bearing the name of Dr HDD but also confirmed that he had not seen or examined the mother before offering his medical opinion of her. The authorities in Country A have confirmed that a Dr. HDD is not registered as working under the foreign Ministry of Health. The authorities further confirmed that Dr. TK was serving as a Chief Assistant of Neurology but retired from his position under the Ministry on 28 May 2021. Dr. TK likewise at no point appears to have seen the mother before offering his medical opinion of her.

With respect to the purported report from GG, the mother denies seeing that person on 6 September 2023, despite the claims made in the purported report. The father has produced a statement dated 25 June 2025 purporting to be from GG confirming that she saw the mother. However, that statement also contains an incredible offer by GG to contact other of her clients whom the mother is said to have spoken to in the waiting room on the day of her alleged visit, who “may be able to disclose what [the mother] told them about her mental state.” A search by the mother for GG online and using a service in Country A which allows citizens to obtain information, has been unable to locate her. The foreign authorities have confirmed that GG is also not registered as working under the Ministry of Health. The purported report of GG contains the father’s citizen number rather than her own citizen number. The mother further provides mobile phone evidence that, on the date in question, she was travelling on a train at the time she is meant to have had an appointment with GG.

In addition to the foregoing matters, the report of GG appears, conveniently, to align almost completely with the father’s case against the mother in these proceedings. The report puts in the mother’s mouth admissions that reflect in detail the father’s case that the mother has created false evidence, committed slander against the father and has made false accusations against the father:

“As a precaution against this fear [of the children being removed] she stated that, with the advice of her lawyer, she slandered her husband, and made fabrications to create false evidences (she tried to provoke her husband to portray him as a person with violent tendencies, brought up sensitive issues, made her husband angry and recorded these moments that she complained by slandering etc.) She said last year, she slandered her husband by saying “my husband punched me even though her did not hit her” and that she had him tried by complaining about her husband, and that his lawyer said that this way she ensured that the children would stay with her, but that she felt very remorseful and regretful about it. She said they designed these scenarios together with her lawyer, that her lawyer found the implementation of this scenario very successful, and that if she continued with this complaint, it would not be possible for her husband to take the children. Her lawyer’s advice is to create constant tension at home from now on, fight with your spouse at every opportunity, constantly badmouth their father to your children, act in a way that the children will perceive their father as bad in their minds, slander that her husband is beating me, slander that her husband will kill me and my children, your skin is sensitive and you will bruise easily by using this, hit yourself and say ‘my husband has beaten me’, ‘my husband is sexually abusing me and my children’, and utter the heaviest slanders you can think of. If you do these things, the courts will see you as a victim, you will be given the children and we will get compensation, says her lawyer.”

Finally, during the course of its involvement, the first local authority was satisfied that there was nothing to suggest that the mother was mentally unwell. The local authority noted that the mother had been in the United Kingdom since 2023 and has not accessed mental health support or sought medication and that, other than the stress of the current situation, there was no evidence of the mother having poor mental health or putting the children at risk.

The father denies fabricating the evidence from GG. However, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the father has fabricated the purported report and the purported statement from GG or, if the documents were created by a GG, that their contents have been substantially dictated by the father, based solely on his own malicious aim of falsely painting the mother as mentally ill. With respect to the report of Dr HD and Dr TK, in so far as that report is genuine it is forensically redundant in circumstances where neither doctor examined the mother and each based their view on the purported report of GG.

In the circumstances, there is no evidence to suggest that the mother suffers from a mental illness or lacks capacity such as to reduce the weight the court can accord to her evidence. Further, the finding of the court that it is more likely than not that the father has fabricated the purported report and the purported statement from GG or, if the documents were created by a GG, that their contents have been substantially dictated by the father, significantly undermines the credibility of his evidence more widely.

I am further satisfied that no reason emerges from the evidence before the court for the mother to fabricate or exaggerate her allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour, physical abuse, sexual abuse and verbal abuse against the father. Whilst the father asserts that the mother has made her allegations in order to fraudulently obtain asylum, the mother’s allegations of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour predate the parties’ arrival in this jurisdiction and were sufficiently cogent to persuade the foreign authorities both to grant a protection order for the mother and to instigate criminal proceedings against the father.

Further, the mother’s allegations are, I am satisfied, corroborated by a number of strands of evidence before the court in addition to the evidence of the mother herself that was unchallenged in cross-examination.

The father did not seek to challenge by way of cross-examination the mother’s allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour. Those allegations are, I am satisfied, consistent with other aspects of the evidence, and in particular the views of the father expressed to the mother during the course of his WhatsApp messages to her, which the father does not deny sending. Those WhatsApp messages evidence clearly the father’s view that he is the final authority over the mother, the children and the household. Viewing himself as being in “rather superior and qualified positions”, the father stated in terms in his messages to the mother that “A decent, honourable, dignified woman” cuts off contact with her family, does not hide her telephone from her husband, does not hide conversations from her husband and does not delete messages and does not shout in the presence of her husband. He further states to the mother that “The Qur’an commands women on Holiness Hacer to, do what your husband says, do not disobey your husband, do not be rebellious”. In this context, in a further WhatsApp message the father tells the mother “The rules and boundaries of my house and my life are clear.”

These views, expressed forcefully and repeatedly to the mother over WhatsApp, are entirely consistent with, and tend to corroborate, the mother’s allegation that throughout the marriage the father was coercive and controlling towards the mother. I also note that one of the father’s concessions to the social worker also centred on the issue of control, the father stating in respect of the mother that “He lost control himself and he couldn’t control her mental problem”. In addition, it is clear from the content of the father’s own messages to the mother that her family considered that the mother was being “oppressed” by the father. The father telling the mother “that filthy sister of yours kept saying don’t let anyone walk all over you / don’t allow yourself to be oppressed you and that is what has made you shameless” and “those who say do not allow yourself to be oppressed, are the enemies of this family.”

With respect to the mother’s allegations of sexual assault by the father, I acknowledge that the allegations of sexual assault are not particularised by the mother by reference to specific incidents or dates. However, on the balance, I am satisfied that the evidence does demonstrate that on a number of occasions in Country A, and in England, the father had sexual intercourse on the mother despite her either having withdrawn her consent to sex or having refused her consent to sex.

First, the mother’s account of the father’s sexual violence towards her have remained broadly consistent, including the account she gave to the IDVA. The father has not, by reason of his failure to attend the hearing and to provide instructions to the QLR, disputed by way of cross-examination the mother’s account that he sexually assaulted her. In such circumstances, the mother’s evidence with respect to those findings is unchallenged. Beyond this, other matters support the credibility of the mother’s allegations of sexual assault by the father.

Second, in my judgment the allegations made by the mother are consistent with the father’s dismissive and wholly entitled attitude to the mother within the context of the marriage. It is significant in these circumstances that the mother’s allegations arise both within the context of the marriage and in the context of the father’s view of his absolute authority over the mother in that marriage. In that context, it is likely in my judgment that the father did either refused to acknowledge and act on the mother’s withdrawal of consent during sexual intercourse, or ignored the question of consent in its entirety. The mother’s allegation that she tells him ‘no’ but he continues to have sex with her either way is consistent with the father’s sense of entitlement and his view that the mother is there to “do what her husband says”. The father’s sexually demeaning view of the mother is further made clear when, speaking to LS, the father stated that “I am now a dishonoured man who was brought before a criminal court by his whore of a wife.”

Third, rather than simply making a bare allegation, the mother gives a clear reason why she withdrew consent during the course of sexual intercourse, when the father became rough and aggressive, biting, scratching her and physically hurting her and causing her injury. In this context, I am satisfied that the mother’s allegations of sexual assault are further corroborated by father’s aggressively sexualised insults to her, and in particular his threat to the mother that he would “fuck her back into her mum’s pussy”. Having regard to similar language he used in his WhatsApp messages to the mother, namely his persistent and repeated assertion that the mother should “Apply henna on your mother's pussy”, I am satisfied that the father made that sexualised threat.

Fourth and finally, it is also of note that the father seeks to rebut the allegations of sexual assault by placing, in response to those allegations, the blame on the mother by suggesting that she is deficient in some way, asserting that the mother developed “a mental block where she became ashamed of having sex.”

Having regard to the totality of the evidence before the court, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that, on occasion, the father did continue to have sex with the mother notwithstanding her withdrawing consent due to his aggressive behaviour and that the father would have sex with the mother not withstanding she had not provided consent. I attach limited weight to the fact that the mother had not reported sexual assaults by the father prior to these proceedings in circumstances where I accept the mother’s evidence that the mother asserts that she did not speak out about her abusive treatment by the father whilst in Country A in circumstances where the father is a well known public figure in Country A and that to admit that she could not “meet my husband’s needs and demands” would bring shame on the family. As I have noted, the mother also informed the IDVA that she had not previously made reports to the police as she was terrified of the father, who was a lawyer and had told her he could pay to get himself out of trouble. I also accept the mother’s evidence that she was taught that the male will have sex with her despite what she wants. I also bear in mind more generally the contents of PD12J and the information contained therein regarding the impact of domestic abuse on victims. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the fact that the mother did not make these allegations at the time does not undermine their credibility.

With respect to the physical and verbal abuse alleged by the mother, once again the mother’s evidence in this regard was not challenged by way of cross-examination. The court has before it evidence in the form of photographs and, in respect of one occasion, hospital records from Country A which corroborate the mother’s account of the father being physically violent to her. As with the allegations of sexual abuse, the documented communications between the mother the father tend to corroborate the mother’s allegations that the father was physically abusive to her. Once again, the father himself conceded to the social worker that that “He lost control himself and he couldn’t control her mental problem”. When speaking to LS, the father refers to threats of physical violence he has made to others having, telling LS that he had said to maternal family members “Don’t make me spill the blood of that son of a bitch” and “If I ever see you talking to anyone about my children without me knowing, I’ll break your bones.”

In addition to these matters, the mother’s allegations of physical violence are corroborated by accounts that have been given by the children. Whilst the father intimates that the mother has caused the children to give false accounts, there is no evidence before the court to support that contention. During his conversation with the social worker, it is recorded that MS “said he has seen his father be violent towards his mother.” He also stated that things had been “very bad” and that his father is “very” abusive to his mother and to the children. LS stated to the social worker that the arguments between his parents had been physical before and that he had previously seen his mother on the floor. H was not able to relate good things about his father and told the social worker that he did not like his father being rude and saying rude words. He said his father shouts at him, which makes him feel sad and shouts at his mother, which also makes him feel sad.

It is also clear from the documentary evidence before the court that the father cannot stop himself verbally abusing the mother and her family even when speaking to the children, telling LS that “that filthy mother of yours and that sister of hers who is a bitch/whore, the dishonourable, disreputable man who is her father, the despicable scum who will be your brother, the lowlife brother, the leashed dog who will be your brother-in-law”. Indeed, the father blames the mother for these exchanges, stating that she “had coached LS on what to say to me in order to upset me and make me angry.” During the course of the WhatsApp exchanges, the father addresses the mother as “Like a motherfucker, you see the dishonourable ones in your house” and as I have noted, telling the mother after the family arrived in England that he would “fuck her back into her mum’s pussy” and by way of WhatsApp messages to “apply henna on your mother’s pussy.” In this context, I accept the mother’s evidence that the father said to her that “I’m going to straighten you out, either by beating you up or sorting you out.”

I am satisfied that the foregoing matters enable the court, on the balance of probabilities, to make the findings of fact I have set out above. Standing back from the case to consider the whole picture, and asking the ultimate question of whether the father exhibited coercive and controlling behaviour and perpetrated physical abuse, sexual abuse and verbal abuse against the mother set out above is more likely than not to be true, I am satisfied that it is.

I am further satisfied that the following findings of fact sought by the Guardian on behalf of the children are made out on the balance of probabilities:

These findings, I am satisfied, follow from the evidence and conclusions that I have already set out. The video exchanges I have referred to above between LS and the father demonstrate that the father has no qualms about exposing the children to verbal abuse, aggression and his demeaning and abusive comments about their mother. The father denies physically abusing the mother in front of the children but concedes that he “may” have had verbal arguments with the mother in front of the children. The videos detail clearly the father’s approach to the children, including threatening the children that their mother should be sent “the fuck away” and threatens to start deportation proceedings against her. He threatens violence against the children’s maternal relatives and accuses their mother of influencing them against him. Beyond this, the father seeks to place extreme pressure on the children to choose between their mother and him. When LS attempts to apologise to his father, the father rejects out of hand the apology from LS and instead insults his mother and his aunt as “that filthy mother of yours and that sister of hers who is a bitch/whore.” As I have noted, it is clear from H’s statements that all of the children have witnessed this type of offensive behaviour by the father.

As I have noted, the mother’s allegations of physical violence are corroborated by accounts that have been given by the children, MS stating that “he has seen his father be violent towards his mother” and LS stating that the arguments between his parents had been physical before and that he had previously seen his mother on the floor. Whilst the father denies physically abusing the mother in front of the children, he concedes that he “may” have had verbal arguments with the mother in front of the children. I am satisfied that the children saw and heard first hand the verbal and physical abuse that I am satisfied the father perpetrated against the mother.

Once again, I am satisfied that the foregoing matters enable the court, on the balance of probabilities, to make the findings of fact sought by the Children’s Guardian on behalf of the children that I have set out above. Standing back from the case to consider the whole picture, and asking the ultimate question of whether the findings sought by the Children’s Guardian are more likely than not to be true, I am satisfied that they are.

For the avoidance of doubt, I decline to make the findings sought by the father in his Schedule of allegations. The father failed to attend the hearing. I am not able to accept the father’s written evidence as credible having regard to the analysis I have set out above. Where that evidence differs from the evidence of the mother, I prefer the mother’s evidence. Whilst the father has sought to adduce evidence from a number of witnesses, again the father has not attended court and has not sought to call those witnesses. In any event, it is apparent from certain statements made by the witnesses relied on by the father that concerning conflicts of interest arise. To take one example of this, the lawyer instructed by the mother when in Country A, she contends at the behest of the father, to withdraw the protection order the mother obtained in Country A on 25 November 2023, now purports to give evidence against her on behalf of the father.

As can be seen from the evidence set out above, it was the habit of the father to lecture the mother and to the children on WhatsApp and over video calls on his views regarding the characteristics of the virtuous man, at one point telling LS:

“In an honourable family, the father is a self-sacrificing man who strives for the home and for his family, and the whole family sees and respects it as such. The father is a man of great vision, who has serious manners/decency, a man who is respected and possess both career and charisma, who teaches his family a great sense of decency and manners.”

Having regard to the findings made by this court, the father fell a very long way short of his stated ideal. Whilst he persistently sought to blame the mother for that situation, it was the father’s coercive and controlling behaviour and the verbal, physical and sexual abuse of the mother and his verbal abuse of the children, as I have found it to be, that deprived the father of the virtues that he so loudly trumpeted to his family. It is not decent, honourable or dignified to coercively control your spouse, to subject her to verbal, physical and sexual assault and to seek to blame her for deficiencies of character that are not hers. It is not decent, honourable or dignified to harm your children by verbally abusing them and exposing them to serial domestic abuse, fear and emotional harm. It is not decent, honourable or dignified to refuse an apology given by a child.

I make the findings set out in the Schedule to this judgment. Pending any reconsideration at a further hearing listed to consider the welfare arrangements for the children, I shall make a child arrangements order that the children shall live with their mother. I am further satisfied that, pending reconsideration at a further hearing listed to consider the welfare arrangements for the children, the children shall have no contact, whether by direct or indirect means, with their father.

I will invite counsel to draw an order accordingly.

In 2019 in Country A, the father punched the mother several times to the back of the head causing the mother to become dizzy.

In November 2022, the father threatened the mother with arrest, eviction from the family home and divorce. When the mother attempted to record his conduct the father punched her with his fist to her eye, stated that he would “ruin you” and “destroy you” and smashed the mother’s phone and threw it into the garden. As a result of the father’s assault, the mother suffered a 3 x 5 cm hyperaemic area was observed in the right suborbital maxillary region, and a 2 x 3 cm hyperaemic area in the left suborbital maxillary region. The children witnessed this incident and were upset and crying and MS was trembling with fear. The police were called. The family court of Country A issued a protection order and the father became the subject of criminal proceedings in Country A.

The father assaulted the mother on other occasions in Country A, including in the presence of the children, causing bruising to her upper arm, abrasions and cuts to her neck and to her forehead and eyelid. The children would attempt to intervene to protect their mother, causing the children emotional harm. The father also, on occasion, smashed items in the former family home in Country A.

On a number of occasions in Country A and in England the father had sexual intercourse on the mother despite her either having withdrawn her consent to sex or having refused her consent to sex. On these occasions, the father caused injuries to the mother.

On 6 or 7 November 2023, in England, the father physically attacked the mother after she failed to greet him properly, strangled her and, when she shouted for help, placed his hand over her mouth and threatened that if the mother called the police the family would be deported.

On 5 May 2024, having travelled to the United Kingdom, the father tried to persuade the children to go to Country A. When the children refused, the father became upset and angry, causing the children to plead with their mother not to leave them alone with him. The father told the mother that “you will learn what it means to go against the head of the family” and also threatened an Islamic divorce. The mother called the police. The father again sought to force the children to “choose your side”.

On occasions the father would threaten the mother, threatening to make her disappear, by threatening to commence a deportation process in respect of her, by threatening proceedings in Country A. The father regularly verbally abused the mother, including verbally abusing her in front of the children. The verbal abuse included the father telling the mother after the family arrived in England that he would “fuck her back into her mum’s pussy” and telling her by way of WhatsApp messages to “apply henna on your mother’s pussy”.

Throughout the marriage, the father was coercive and controlling towards the mother. The father isolated the mother, sought to dictate to the mother what she wore and to whom she spoke, threatened to “ruin” and “destroy” the mother if he she did not act according to his rules and contacted organisations and agencies in order to try and locate the mother.

The father has relied upon falsified documentation in respect of the mother in the form of the purported psychological report said to have been authored by GG, to advance his position in these proceedings.

The children have been emotionally harmed, and placed at risk of physical harm, through exposure to domestic abuse within their parents’ relationship perpetrated by their father.

The father has attempted to identify the children’s location which has caused disruption to the children’s living arrangements since May 2024.

The Father made threats that the children would be deported which threats would have caused them to be scared, upset and anxious.

The Father pressurised LS and MS to choose between their Mother and Father which would have caused them emotional harm.

H feared that he and his siblings would be taken away from their Mother by their Father which caused him to be worried.