A Father v A Mother (No2) (Art 21 Findings of Fact)

I am concerned with an application made under Art 21 of the Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereafter the “1980 Hague Convention”) to make arrangements for organising or securing the effective exercise of rights of access to P, born in 2012 and now aged 12, and Q, born in 2014 and now aged 10. The children are US citizens. Q has diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder and ADHD. P has been diagnosed with learning difficulties. The children are represented by Mr Michael Gration of King’s Counsel and Ms Charlotte Georges of counsel. The application is made by the father of the children. He is represented by Ms Anita Guha of King’s Counsel and Ms Helen Compton of counsel. The children’s mother is represented by Mr Henry Setright of King’s Counsel and Ms Julia Gasparro of counsel. The matter comes before the court for a finding of fact hearing.

The application before the court is made in the context of the dismissal of the father’s application for a return order pursuant to Art 12 of the 1980 Convention summarily returning the children to the jurisdiction of the United States by Ms Khalique KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge, on 29 April 2024 (see A Father v A Mother [2024] EWHC 991 (Fam)). The father now seeks to exercise his rights of access to the children although, for reasons I shall come to and subject to hearing further submissions from the parties, the findings that the court has made in this case will necessitate the court making a wider range of orders under the Children Act 1989 than those sought by the father.

In determining the facts in issue in this case, the court has had the benefit of reading the court bundle, of hearing evidence from the mother, the father and the paternal grandmother and of hearing comprehensive and helpful oral submissions from leading counsel. It is important to note at the outset, that the court’s task in determining the facts in issue in this matter has been significantly complicated by the difficulties inherent in obtaining forensic evidence from another jurisdiction, in this case the United States.

In light of the extent and complexity of the factual issues in dispute between the parties, I reserved judgment and now set out my findings and my reason for making them.Given the substantial number of relevant matters in dispute between the parties, this judgment is somewhat longer than is ordinarily desirable.

The background to this matter is set out in the judgment of Ms Khalique KC in A Father v A Mother [2024] EWHC 991 (Fam). That judgment should be read with this judgment. Ms Khalique KC refused the application under the 1980 Hague Convention on the basis that the father had not established that the removal of the children was in breach of his rights of custody. The court also found that the mother had made out the exception of the children’s objections. Whilst the court was satisfied that there was a grave risk of psychological harm to both P and Q on return to the USA when the mother’s allegations were taken at their highest, the court further concluded that it would have been possible to put protective measures in place to prevent the grave risk of harm, assuming the court had concluded that the removal was in breach of the father’s rights of custody.

As Ms Khalique KC noted when giving judgment on the father’s application for a return order under Art 12 of the 1980 Hague Convention, this case is characterised by the chasm that exists between the facts as contended for by the mother and those contended for by the father. The parties disagree as to almost every factual issue.

On the mother’s case the father is a high level, violent member of MS13 (Footnote: ¹) who has trafficked and dealt drugs internationally, trafficked the mother across national borders, fed a corpse to alligators in the Florida Keys in the presence of the mother and the children as a means of intimidating them, sexually abused the mother and the children and who is able to engage a worldwide network of criminal associates to track and threaten the mother with impunity wherever she is, including in this jurisdiction. On the father’s case, having met online following his conversion to Islam and thereafter having undergone an Islamic marriage in London and a civil marriage in Bolivia, the parties led a largely uneventful family life over the course of a decade, first in Florida and then in Colorado before the mother’s behaviour grew more extreme, at which point the father took steps towards separation and divorce prior to the mother wrongfully removing the children to jurisdiction of England and Wales. The mother thereafter applied for asylum in this country. The Secretary of State for the Home Department denied this application, although the mother and children were granted leave to remain in the UK until 14 March 2026.

The mother now seeks the following findings on the balance of probabilities set out in a Schedule that is before the court:

The father denies each of the findings sought by the mother. He seeks findings that:

In addition to the findings sought by the parties set out above, the disparity between the parties’ versions of events has required the court to consider and determine issues as diverse as the mother’s date of birth and nationality and the extent to which the father has historically been involved in domestic violence proceedings with his own mother.

The legal framework within which the court undertakes its fact finding exercise in this case is well settled and can be summarised as follows.

To prove a fact asserted by the mother, the mother 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. The same principles apply to the father in relation to the facts he asserts.

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. As has been observed by the House of Lords, 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]). In this case, this includes consideration of the inherent improbability of a parent sexually abusing their children.

Any findings of fact made by the court in this case 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 by the mother and father 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.

In family proceedings of the type with which this court is concerned, 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 mother and the father, and of the paternal grandmother, 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. The court is likely to place considerable reliability and weight on the evidence and impression it forms of the mother and the father, and of the paternal grandmother (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 court must, however, guard against an assessment solely by virtue of the behaviour and demeanour of the mother and the father, and of the paternal grandmother, in the witness box (Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1147 at [11] and [12]).

In circumstances where the father asserts that the mother has fabricated the allegations against him, and lied to the court more widely, the legal principles to which the court must have regard in this case include 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 and of the sexual abuse 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 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.

With respect to the mother’s assertion that the father sexually abused Q and P, the court must determine two questions of fact. First, having regard to the evidence, did sexual abuse of Q and/or P take place? If so, having regard to the evidence, who perpetrated that sexual abuse on Q and/or P (see Re H (Minors); Re K (Minors) (Child Abuse: Evidence) [1989] 2 FLR 313 and Re H and R (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1995] 1 FLR 643). In this case, there is no evidence of physical signs of sexual abuse, the evidence being confined to the account given by the mother, including allegations of drug taking at the time of the alleged acts of sexual abuse, and certain statements made by P.

In this case, whilst the alleged sexual abuse is said to have occurred in the United States, neither child made any allegation in that jurisdiction. P has made unparticularised allegations of sexual abuse with respect to the father in this jurisdiction. In the foregoing context, in Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27 at [572] to [588] this court set out the principles that apply in this jurisdiction with a view to securing a reliable account from a child making an allegation of sexual abuse and recording that account reliably. As this court noted in Re P at [573] (emphasis in the original):

“The courts have long stipulated, and continue to demand, that very great care is taken when dealing with allegations of sexual abuse made by children, both in the initial phases and at the ABE interview stage (see for example Re E [2017] 1 FLR 1675 at [45]). This conclusion has been drawn from long experience and having regard to the results of a body of research into the way a child registers, processes and recalls memories, and the way in which a child may respond to figures perceived by the child to be in authority when questioned about such memories.”

Finally, the court is not bound by the cases put forward by the parties, but may adopt an alternative solution of its own (see Re S (A Child) [2015] UKSC 20 at [20]). Judges are entitled, where the evidence justifies it, to make findings of fact that have not been sought by the parties, but they should be cautious when considering doing so.

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 once again 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.

Having considered carefully the extensive evidence and submissions in this matter, I am satisfied that the mother has failed to satisfy the court to the requisite standard of proof in respect of any of the findings she seeks. I am further satisfied, and I so find, that the mother has repeatedly lied to the court by fabricating or exaggerating her evidence in the manner particularised below. In addition, I am satisfied that, by her actions, the mother has deliberately obstructed the relationship between the father and the children. Finally, I am satisfied, pursuant to s.37(1) of the Children Act 1989, that it may be appropriate for a care or supervision order to be made in respect of P and Q. My reasons for so deciding are as follows.

In stating my conclusions, I have carefully borne in mind that a victim of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour may not have a perfect recall of such behaviour, especially where such behaviour has been extreme in nature, given the limits on the reliability of human memory. In that context, I have also given full weight to the fact that, as observed by Peter Jackson J (as he then was) in Lancashire County Council v C, M and F [2014] EWFC 41 at [7], that the court should be wary of attaching forensic significance to “story creep” as memory fades and accounts are repeated over time. I have likewise been careful to bear in mind that the court must be cautious with respect to placing weight on the manner in which an alleged victim of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour gives their evidence in court.

I have also considered the contents of PD12J and have, in addition to examining the individual allegations made by the mother set out in tabular form, been careful to consider whether there exists in this case a pattern of controlling and coercive behaviour, bearing in mind the insidious scope and manner of this particular type of domestic abuse and the need to look for repetition and patterns of behaviour. In this case, I further bear in mind that if the mother’s accounts of childhood abuse are true (which this court is not in a position to determine), then as a victim of previous sexual and physical abuse she would have been poorly equipped to assert herself by, for example, seeking to leave the father or by reporting every incident to the police.

However, even with each of these allowances, I am satisfied that the evidence of the mother as a whole cannot support the findings she now seeks.

I consider the evidence of the mother to be entirely lacking in credibility. Her evidence was characterised by repeated and extensive inconsistencies, embellishments and significant and multiple changes of account. In the witness box, even when confronted with irrefutable proof of her having lied about a particular matter, the mother either sought to change her story once again to meet the inconvenient facts put to her or to simply refute the assertion she was being dishonest. On occasion, her accounts in the witness box became ever more florid and introduced new allegations, for example that Q was conceived through rape, a serious allegation with long term implications for Q that had been made nowhere before. Of further concern, the mother gave the impression in both her written and oral evidence of having deliberately sought to create, and to continue to create, a false narrative around the father to suit her case, albeit at points she appeared to lose track of the different versions of events she had given, resulting in further changes and contradictions in her evidence. As I will come to, that false narrative has been provided by the mother not only to this court but also to agencies and authorities in the United States, to the UK Border Force, to the Home Office and, most harmfully, to the children.

I have, of course, borne in mind the principle articulated in R v Lucas. People do sometimes lie, out of shame, fear or embarrassment. I am, however, satisfied that the lies told to the court by the mother have been deliberate. As will become apparent, those lies plainly relate to material issues before the court. It is equally apparent that the mother’s motivation for lying is that she feared the truth of the nature, extent and quality of the relationship between the father and the children would undermine her case. Finally, I am satisfied that the lies told by the mother are demonstrated by other evidence before the court clearly demonstrating them to be lies. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the lies told by the mother are capable of amounting to corroboration where relevant. Further, save where corroborated by other evidence, given her propensity to lie I have treated the mother’s evidence with very considerable circumspection.

By contrast, the evidence of the father was straightforward. He made concessions where necessary, even in circumstances where they did not assist his position. For example, he readily accepted that if the mother’s allegations were true they would represent “absolutely outrageous and unacceptable” examples of behaviour towards the children. By way of further example, he did not seek to disguise the fact that he had owned firearms despite there being no independent evidence to prove his ownership of them in the context of the mother alleging he had threatened both her and the children with guns. In contradistinction to the evidence of the mother, the father’s evidence was generally consistent with the other sources of evidence available to the court in the form of documents, and with the evidence of the paternal grandmother. In the foregoing context, I am satisfied that I can place considerable weight on the evidence of the father, particularly where it is corroborated by other evidence.

Given the stark disparity of narrative between the parties and where, in contradistinction to the task facing the court with respect to the father’s application for a return order under Art 12, this court is engaged in a fact finding exercise, in order to explain the findings made by the court it is necessary to state my conclusions in some detail. However, as made clear by Peter Jackson LJ in Re B (A Child) (Adequacy of Reasons) [2022] 4 WLR 42, it is not necessary for the court to recite each and every piece of evidence it has heard and I do not do so.

It is symptomatic of the scope of the factual disputes in this case that there is no agreement between the parties even as to the mother’s date of birth, ethnicity, nationality and childhood background, nor as to whether and, if so, when and in what circumstances the parents were married.

The father states that he was born on 9 February 1985 and is now aged 40 years old. The mother claimed in evidence to not know her date of birth, in circumstances where she was never given that information by her parents. However, she also stated that she uses the date of birth 9 November 1982, although could not explain why she had chosen that date.

I am satisfied that the mother’s date of birth is 9 November 1982. The date of 9 November 1982 is the date of birth given in the mother’s Bangladeshi passport, which I shall come to. It is the date of birth provided in respect of the mother on the parties’ Bolivian marriage certificate. The date of 9 November 1982 is also the date of birth that is contained in such of the mother’s US medical records as are before the court and the date of birth she gave to the emergency operator during her 911 call in Colorado on 24 June 2020. The mother gave that date of birth to UK border officials in September 2020, the mother denying to UK Border Force officials that she had ever used any other date of birth. It is plain that 9 November 1982 is the date that the mother has used consistently with US and UK authorities and I am satisfied that is the date on which she was born.

The father is a naturalised American citizen of Bolivian origin. He became a US citizen in 2012. The father asserts that the mother is a Bangladeshi national. The mother denies she is a Bangladeshi national and states that she was born in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (hereafter “UAE”), does not have Bangladeshi nationality and has never been to Bangladesh.

The bundle contains a copy of a Bangladeshi passport in the mother’s name. The mother disputes the authenticity of this Bangladeshi passport. However, in oral evidence the mother confirmed that the photograph in the passport is of her. The passport, issued by the Bangladeshi Consulate in Dubai on 27 May 2006 and renewed by that Consulate until 31 December 2015, states the mother’s date of birth as 9 November 1982 which, for reasons I have given, I am satisfied is correct. In addition, the mother’s denial of the Bangladeshi passport must be viewed in the context of her account with respect to her nationality having changed over time such as to reduce her credibility on this issue.

In the 911 call made by the mother on 24 June 2020 at 9.48am the mother stated that “I used to have a passport from my country”, although she did not specify which country. In the Schedule of Findings, the mother contends that when she was in Bolivia her passport (of which no details are given) was taken from her as an aspect of the father’s coercive and controlling behaviour. In the report of the Colorado Division of Child Welfare of the same date, the mother is recorded as being “from Lebanon”. In her Initial Contact Asylum Registration Questionnaire dated 5 December 2020 and her Asylum Support Application dated 8 December 2020 the mother claimed never to have had another nationality. In answer to the question “What is your race/ethnicity/tribal group?” during her initial asylum interview, the mother replied “A mix of Middle Eastern and Asian”.

In these proceedings, the mother has contended that the father arranged a Bolivian passport for her when they arrived in that jurisdiction after they met and she was subsequently “forced” to travel on that passport when the parties relocated to the United States. With respect to how she was able to enter Bolivia when she arrived in that country with the father, in the proceedings before Ms Khalique KC the mother claimed to have used a travel document enabling her to travel across the UAE if accompanied by an adult. The mother made no mention of a forged Bolivian passport or a travel document enabling her to travel across the UAE if accompanied by an adult to UK Border Force Officials when she entered this jurisdiction.

The father denies that the mother ever had a Bolivian passport obtained for her. The father says that when the parents first met in London, the mother had travelled to the United Kingdom from Dubai on her Bangladeshi passport. The father contends that the mother thereafter travelled to Bolivia using her Bangladeshi passport. The father further contends that in 2012 he applied for a spousal visa for the mother at the US Embassy in Bolivia, presenting her birth certificate from Dubai and her Bangladeshi passport to which the visa could be attached to enable the mother to enter the United States. The paternal grandmother corroborated this account. The father states that thereafter the mother travelled to the US from Bolivia using her Bangladeshi passport and the US visa stamped in it. The copy of the Bangladeshi passport contained in the bundle is not a complete copy and there is no copy of the US visa. The mother conceded in an interview with the District Attorney on 10 August 2020 that she had a visa for the United States obtained whilst she was in Bolivia, but claimed it was a tourist visa that she herself obtained in La Paz.

In the foregoing circumstances, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the mother is a Bangladeshi national with a US spousal visa. In circumstances where it would not have been possible for the mother to travel to London, Bolivia and the US without a passport, it is more likely than not that the Bangladeshi passport covering the period of these journeys, and containing the mother’s photograph and date of birth, is her passport. I reject the allegation that the mother was forced by the father to obtain a Bolivian passport.

The circumstances of the mother’s childhood are opaque on her account. The mother denied having two brothers, notwithstanding the father produced photographs of those individuals (which the mother asserted were “fakes”) and that the paternal grandmother stated she was aware of them and spoken to the mother’s brother [N]. The mother asserts that she was subjected to sexual abuse from a very young age perpetrated, she alleges, by her ‘stepfather’, a man her mother met after her parents separated. The mother alleges that the abuse began from when she was approximately six or seven years old. She contends that her own mother was aware of the sexual abuse but refused to take action regarding this for fear that she would be punished for committing adultery in a relationship outside marriage. At the age of 12 or 13, the mother alleged she was forced into a marriage with an elderly man who was approximately 85 years old. According to the mother, throughout this forced marriage, she was expected to perform sexual acts on her husband until, when she was approximately 14 years old, her husband died. Thereafter the mother alleges that her maternal grandparents attempted to arrange another forced marriage. It was at this point that, in some of her accounts, the mother states she decided to flee her family and thereafter stayed with a friend in Dubai, through whom she met the father.

As with other aspects of the mother’s account, her evidence as to the circumstances of her childhood has changed and evolved significantly over time, including how many times she has been forced into marriage. Cross-examined on behalf of the mother by Mr Setright KC, the father stated that the childhood abuse alleged by the mother was never brought up with him and that he was “surprised” to read the mother’s statement on this topic. Whilst the broad account of a traumatising childhood has been maintained by the mother, the court is not in a position to make findings regarding the mother’s assertion that she was the victim of forced marriage and sexual abuse as a child (not least given the manifest problems with the mother’s credibility) and none are sought.

During the course of the evidence, the court also had cause to examine aspects of the father’s history. Records from the United States, which are incomplete, show that the father was involved in proceedings in 2005 and 2013 between himself and his own mother. Screenshots evidencing these proceedings were admitted into evidence following an application made by the mother and I directed short statements from the father and paternal grandmother addressing the evidence. The documents, which comprise case dockets, categorise both cases as concerning “Domestic Violence”.

With respect to the 2005 proceedings, both the father and paternal grandmother assert that these arose out of a dispute between them as to whether the father’s two younger brothers should be sent to boarding school in Bolivia or not. The father was frank in cross-examination that he had tried to stop his brothers from being sent to Bolivia and that he “was interfering” with the paternal grandmother’s parenting. The 2005 docket further records the father making a sworn statement concerning possession of firearms. Both the father and paternal grandmother assert that the father did not own firearms in 2005 and the sworn statement is not available to demonstrate whether it deposed to the father owning firearms or not owning firearms. However, a police report contained in the bundle dated 31 November 2005 records that the paternal grandmother and the father had been involved “in a verbal dispute ref. family matters” and were calm and separate when officers arrived. The police report records no firearms being involved. The proceedings in 2005 resulted in an injunction against the father lasting approximately two years. This is consistent with the accounts given in the short statements directed by the court. Neither the paternal grandmother nor the father have any recollection of the 2013 proceedings and, from the docket, the application appears not to have been served.

Whilst relied on by the mother, I do not consider the proceedings between the father and his own mother, the first of which was now over 20 years ago, to be probative of a controlling or coercive approach by him generally. Both the documentary evidence and the frank evidence given by the father and the paternal grandmother support the contention that the proceedings arose out of a family dispute regarding the schooling of the father’s young brothers. The fact that the father had strong views about this does not, in my judgement, amount to corroborative evidence that he acted in a domestically abusive or coercive and controlling manner towards the mother.

The differences between the mother and the father evident in their respective accounts regarding questions of birth, backgrounds and nationality continue to be apparent when it comes to the circumstances of the parents’ relationship.

At this hearing, the mother has maintained that the parties met in Dubai in 2017 when she was 17 years old. However, as Ms Khalique KC noted in her judgment, this would have meant the father was 14 or 15 years old when the parties first met. The father states he has never been to Dubai so could not have met the mother in that jurisdiction. He maintains that the parents met online in 2009 on a website identifying Muslim marriage partners, the father having converted to Islam in around 2008. After being in contact by phone, email and text, the father states that he travelled to London on 30 April 2010 and married the mother at a ceremony at her sister’s house at the beginning of August 2010. The father produces a photograph which he asserts depicts the wedding. The father’s account is corroborated by an email from the East London Mosque and London Muslim Centre dated 27 February 2024, confirming that an Islamic marriage took place. Thereafter, the father asserts the parties were married in a civil ceremony in Bolivia to enable him to make an application for the US spousal visa for the mother to which I have referred. Again, the father produces documentary evidence of that marriage in the form a copy of a marriage certificate dated 15 February 2012 (together with Bolivian document detailing the parties later divorce in 2023 following breakdown of their relationship).

The mother, at this hearing, maintained her denial that the parents have ever been married. However, whilst the mother asserts that the documents relied on by the father from East London and Bolivia are forgeries and that his photograph does not show a wedding in London, it is plain from the information available to the court from the United States that in the past the mother consistently maintained that she and the father met in person for the first time in, and were married in, London and did so until the father issued his proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention.

For example, the mother stated to the DA in Colorado in 2020 that the parents met in London (in oral evidence the mother alleged for the first time that she gave this account to the DA as a man named ‘Ryan’ had made threats to kill her and the children). On 10 August 2020, to officials in Colorado and to the District Attorney, the mother confirmed that the parents had been married in a Mosque in London in 2010. There are multiple other documents in the bundle that record the mother making references to her and the father being married, including her petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence in 2017 and her application for a Civil Protection Order in 2020, her 911 call on 24 June 2020, the affidavit of probable cause on 18 July 2020 and such of her medical records as are before the court. The mother repeated this account in this jurisdiction to UK Border Force officials when seeking asylum, stating that she and the father married on 1 August 2010, and to the local authority and the Home Office. Within this context, it is further clear from the evidence before the court that the mother only began asserting that the parents had met in Dubai and that she was not married to the father after he issued proceedings under the 1980 Convention. The mother now seeks to argue both that the father “coached” her to give an account of meeting and marrying in London when in the United States and that she was too scared on arrival in England to reveal the truth as she “received lots of threats”.

I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the parties met in London in April 2010 and were married in an Islamic ceremony in London shortly thereafter. There is no evidence that the parents met in Dubai, and the dates provided by the mother would mean that the father was in his early teens when the parents met. The father has produced photographic evidence of his wedding to the mother and an Islamic marriage certificate from the East London Mosque. He likewise produces the marriage (and divorce) certificate from Bolivia that preceded the mother being granted a spousal visa in Bolivia for entry into the US. Prior to the issue of proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention, the mother herself confirmed to agencies in the US and the UK that the parents met and married in London. I reject the mother’s assertion that she gave these accounts under duress.

The threats alleged by the mother with respect to the accounts she gave regarding the parents’ marriage form part of her wider contention that the father is a high level member of a notorious criminal gang, MS13, involved in the trafficking and selling of narcotics in Bolivia and the United States and able to himself and by his criminal associates intimidate the mother into submission. Once again, the allegations are grounded in diametrically opposed accounts from the parents.

The mother implies that the father had criminal dealings in Bolivia, she alleging that it first became apparent to her on arrival in that country that the father was involved in trafficking drugs. There is no corroborating evidence to support those allegations. The father states it was necessary for the parties to live in Bolivia in order to obtain a civil marriage certificate so as to enable the mother to obtain a spousal visa to move to the United States, the marriage certificate from the East London Mosque being a religious document only. The highest Mr Setright was able to put these matters when cross-examining the father was that his travel to and from Miami on three or four occasions in or around 2011 and 2012 was in itself evidence of his involvement in criminal activity. The father denied this and stated that he made these trips as part of the process of becoming an American citizen, having to attend in person for his interview and to take the Oath of Allegiance.

The mother maintains that the father was also heavily involved in criminal activity once in the United States. Again, the mother’s account has evolved over time. When in the United States, the mother suggested to the Assistant DA in August 2020 that an associate of the father told her the father knew “MS something”. However, by the time the mother was giving an account, and whilst in her asylum interview she stated she did not know the father’s position in the organisation, she told the local authority in June 2021 that the father was the “leader” of a prolific criminal gang in the United States associated with murder, drug dealing, sexual assault and human trafficking. The mother further alleged that the father’s membership of the criminal gang had allowed him to bribe the US authorities to avoid the consequences of the two specific incidents of alleged domestic abuse I shall come to. In her statements to this court, the mother deposes that the father himself told her that he is a member of MS13, and that he has been a gang member for many years. The mother further relied on the father’s tattoos as being probative of his gang membership. In her oral evidence to this court, and by reference to one of his tattoos, the mother continued to assert that the father is a high ranking member of MS13. The mother further alleges that the father was a drug user as a result of his criminal associations.

One of the most striking allegations made by the mother regarding the father’s alleged criminal associations concern what she alleges were the father’s attempts to intimidate her both in the United States and following her arrival in this jurisdiction.

The mother alleges that, shortly after Q was born in 2014 (although in another version of the account she contends it was after she and the children had fled to Colorado in 2017) the father took the family to Key West and threatened them that if they ever stepped out of line, he would throw them to the “crocodiles”. During this occasion, the mother alleges the father took a black bag out of his boot and threw it in a canal, demonstrating what he would do to his family. She further alleges that there was something in the bag, that she could initially not tell whether it was a human or an animal, and if a human a child or an adult, and that she believed she saw something that looked like a hand after the father threw the bag into the canal and the “water became bloody” as she “saw the crocodiles coming to grab it”. There is no corroborating evidence in support of this allegation, although in her application for a restraining order in April 2017 the mother alleged that the father “has threatened the [mother’s] life by telling her that ‘he will dump her body in Key West’”.

Within the foregoing context, it is notable that the findings pleaded by the mother in respect of these matters are limited. As I have noted, the mother seeks the following findings as set out in the Schedule:

The father emphatically denies that he is a member of MS13 or any other criminal gang, whether in Bolivia, the United States or anywhere else in the world. He further denies any involvement with drug dealing or any other criminal activity. With respect to his tattoos, the father does have a number of tattoos, including an image of an Uzi submachine gun and an image on his back of woman holding a knife but contends these were done when he was approximately 15 or 16 years old as a misguided youth and do not “mean” anything, especially not that he is a member MS13 or any other criminal organisation. The court has no evidence before it, expert or otherwise, to suggest that the father’s tattoos should be given that particular meaning.

Despite the father having been arrested on two occasions in the United States as a result of allegations of violence made by the mother, there is likewise no evidence before the court from US law enforcement agencies suggesting that the father is a member of MS13 of another criminal gang. Disclosure from the FBI completed on 17 August 2023 revealed that the father had been convicted for traffic violations, including knowingly driving without a license between 2004 and 2006. There was no evidence, however, of the FBI recording any gang or drug-related convictions, notwithstanding that in her oral evidence the mother implied for the first time, by producing an article, that the FBI had “created a task force” in response to her allegations about MS13. The father asserts that he has never taken non-prescription drugs and has not drunk alcohol since he converted to Islam. He points to the fact that he is a commercial truck driver subjected to random drug tests, which he has never failed. The father denies ever throwing a body into a canal in Key West or engaging members of MS13 to intimidate the mother in the United States and in this jurisdiction.

I am satisfied that the mother has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the father is a member of MS13 or any other criminal gang. There is no evidence to support the mother’s allegations in this regard, and ample evidence that undermines such allegations. The highest the case could be put to the father was that his air travel to and from Miami was in itself evidence of his involvement in criminal activity. Beyond the mother’s allegation, there is no evidence to support that contention. The father does have a number of tattoos, but the court has no evidence before it to suggest that they evidence membership of MS13 or another criminal gang. As I have noted, disclosure from the FBI completed on 17 August 2023 revealed no gang associations or involvement in drug or people trafficking.

I am further satisfied having regard to the matters summarised above, that the mother has fabricated her account of the father being a member of MS13, including her implication that the FBI had “created a task force” in response to her allegations about MS13, her account of the father throwing a corpse to alligators in Key West. There is no independent evidence to corroborate the mother’s allegations of MS13 membership, of an FBI “task force” created in response to her allegations or of the father throwing a corpse to alligators, which is an inherently unlikely event. That lack of corroborative evidence falls to be considered in the context of the mother’s predilection for telling lies.

The parties’ time in Bolivia is the starting point of the mother’s allegations against the father of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviours, which form the core of the findings that she seeks, the mother contending that the father revealed his true character only after they arrived in that jurisdiction.

The mother alleges that when the parents were in Bolivia the father began to abuse her and would leave her alone and locked in the house, meaning she was a virtual “prisoner”. In giving an account of this period to the DA in August 2020, the mother further implied that the father had caused her to lose a child by reason of the physical violence he perpetrated against her. There is no other evidence to corroborate that allegation and it is not pleaded in the Schedule. Within this context, the following allegations made by the mother are contained in the Schedule of Findings:

The father denies the mother’s allegation that he kept the mother prisoner and controlled her throughout their time in Bolivia, stating that the mother would socialise and secured part-time employment at a bakery until she became pregnant with P. He likewise denies causing the mother to have a miscarriage.

I am not satisfied that the mother has proved on the balance of probabilities that the father engaged in domestically abusive and coercively controlling behaviour in Bolivia. There is no evidence to corroborate the allegations made by the mother. Whilst I have been careful to remind myself that it is often the case that incidents of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour lack corroborating evidence by reason of the nature of that conduct, the mother’s allegations fall to be evaluated in the context of the court’s view of the mother’s credibility, including aspects of her evidence concerning Bolivia that are undermined by documentary evidence or the absence thereof, in particular the marriage certificate and the absence of the Bolivian passport she contends for. The mother’s allegations are also not consistent in some respects with later evidence. Her assertion that she was not given money and not permitted to work by the father in Bolivia as an aspect of his coercive control is inconsistent with the clear evidence that she worked and earnt money following the family’s arrival in the US that I shall come to.

The mother contends that the father continued to be domestically abusive and coercive and controlling of her when the parties moved to the United States in 2012, which continued until 2017. The mother further alleges that during this period the father sexually abused both her and the children.

Consistent with the overall tenor of this case, the mother asserts she travelled to the United States from Bolivia, telling the Children’s Guardian she was forced to carry drugs for the father that were then stolen at Miami International Airport by a rival gang. Again, there is no evidence to corroborate that serious allegation of criminal behaviour. As I have noted, the mother alleges that in order to make this move, the father obtained a Bolivian passport for her of which she was not aware.

The father contends that the mother travelled to the US via England, as she wished to visit her mother and sister ahead of P’s birth, with whom the mother was then pregnant. He relies on photographs of the mother, pregnant, that he says depict the mother pregnant with P in London in 2012. The paternal grandmother corroborated the account of the mother going to the US via England in 2012 when pregnant with P. The father disputes he obtained a Bolivian passport for the mother, asserting that it would not be possible for him to obtain a Bolivian passport for the mother without her participation in that process. There is no evidence that the mother had difficulties entering the United States on a spousal visa as the wife of the father.

I accept the evidence of the father and am satisfied that the mother travelled to the US via England, as she wished to visit her mother and sister ahead of P’s birth. I am further satisfied that the mother has fabricated her account of being forced to carry drugs for the father that were then stolen at Miami International Airport by a rival gang

One of the few facts which is not disputed is that the parties lived in Florida between 2012 and 2017 and that that this is where P and Q were born in 2012 and 2014 respectively. The mother seeks the following findings with respect to the period in Miami between 2012 and 2017:

The mother gives no specific dates for the incidents she alleges and the court has no other evidence to corroborate the allegations of domestic abuse beyond the two specific incidents to which I will come. During her oral evidence, the mother also alleged for the first time that Q was conceived as the result of her being raped by the father in 2014. The mother had not previously made that allegation and did not do so when she mentioned the birth of her son Q to the Deputy DA on 10 August 2020. The mother appeared to have no conception whatsoever of the gravity of the impact on Q of making such an allegation if it were untrue.

The father denies that he was domestically abusive to the mother. With respect to the mother’s allegation that she was not able to leave the family home save when the father was absent and had no opportunity to work, the father exhibits to his evidence a photograph of the mother wearing a ‘Macy’s’ uniform and screenshots of a 2013 tax return evidencing that the mother worked at Macy’s, which includes details of the mother’s wages. The mother now asserts that she undertook a voluntary job at Macy’s whilst living in Florida and that she was never employed by Macy’s, notwithstanding that she stated in the police interview in Colorado following the 24 June 2020 incident that she had been employed as a sales associate at Macy’s.

I am not satisfied that the mother has proved the allegations pleaded with respect to the family’s period in Florida between 2012 and 2017 on the balance of probabilities. Once again, I have taken account of the fact that it is often the case that incidents of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour lack corroborating evidence by reason of the nature of that conduct. However, and once again, the mother’s allegations fall to be evaluated in the context of the court’s view of the mother’s credibility in the context of the other evidence available.

There is no evidence beyond the mother’s assertion that the father denied her access to antenatal care when pregnant with the children. Likewise, there is no evidence to support her allegation that the father assaulted her whilst she pregnant with P. The Regional Medical Centre at which the mother states she was treated has no record for her. Whilst the mother’s name is spelt incorrectly on the correspondence, the mother has taken no steps in these proceedings to deal with that issue. Further, the Miami Dade police Domestic Violence Supplemental Report completed on 26 April 2017 contradicts the mother’s account of a long history of domestic abuse from 2012 to 2017. In that report, in answer to the question “Is there a history of domestic violence” the report records, the answer given is “No”. The mother’s assertion that she was only able to leave the family home when the father was not present and had no identity card of her own is directly contradicted by the evidence that she has a driving licence and social security number and the photograph of the mother wearing ‘Macy’s’ uniform and a 2013 tax return evidencing her wages. As I have noted, the mother stated in terms following the 24 June 2020 incident that she had been employed as a sales associate at Macy’s.

In these circumstances, I decline to make the findings sought by the mother with respect to the period between 2012 and 2017 in Miami.

The mother alleges that the domestic abuse that the father perpetrated against her in Miami culminated in an incident on 26 April 2017. She alleges that on or around that date the father threatened to beat her with a belt if she refused to take part in a sexual act with another woman at a party at the family home. When she refused, the mother alleges the father raped her as a punishment whilst high on drink and drugs. The mother further alleges that the following morning the father attacked her by slapping her in the face, calling her names and choking her to the extent that she passed out. The mother alleges that the father also threatened her and the children with a gun.

On 26 April 2017, the mother made no allegation in respect of the sexual abuse of P or Q. In proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention however, the mother introduced an allegation that the father had attempted to anally rape Q on that date. Further, and over seven years after the event, P wrote a letter for the Children’s Guardian the subject matter of which concerned the father’s alleged treatment of her, her mother and her brother. In the letter, P alleged that her father had sexually abused both her and Q, including engaging in the sexual abuse of P in the presence of or with another women, with whom the father had been engaging in sexual activity, and forcing her to “smell some white powder”. In her oral evidence, the mother alleged that the father made P consume cocaine, after which P fell asleep. The mother was not able to assist the court with why P fell asleep immediately having been allegedly given such a powerful stimulant narcotic.

As with her other evidence, the mother’s various accounts of the alleged incident on 26 May 2017 vary greatly, are replete with inconsistencies and appear to escalate in severity each time her account is given:

As I have noted, it is only within the proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention that the mother began to allege that the father attempted to rape Q on 26 April 2017 (in oral evidence, the mother claimed this was because a lawyer had told her she too would be charged if she made allegations of sexual abuse). In her statement dated 19 October 2023 the mother alleges that the father assaulted Q and put a gun to her and the children’s heads. When speaking to the Children’s Guardian on 8 November 2023, the mother alleged that when Q was 2 years old, she and P caught the father trying to have anal sex with him.

During cross-examination by Ms Guha, the mother claimed that her changes of account as summarised above were consequent upon the Court Clerk in Miami informing her that she was only allowed to include three allegations in her filing for a civil injunction. When further pressed by Ms Guha as to why she only began raising allegations of sexual abuse against the children in the proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention, the mother ascribed this to threats from the father and his associates, notwithstanding that she had previously raised allegations of rape and serious violence against the father.

In her statement of 19 October 2023, the mother further alleges that following the incident on 26 April 2017, the mother and the children were taken to hospital. The mother asserts that her eyes were all swollen and bruised as was her jaw from where the father had hit and beaten her. The mother has produced no hospital records from that alleged visit. The court does have some of the police records pertaining to the examination of the mother on 26 April 2017. That evidence in respect of the mother’s alleged injuries is difficult for a number of reasons.

First, and as I have noted, the Miami Dade police Domestic Violence Supplemental Report contradicts the mother’s account of a long history of domestic abuse from 2012 to 2017 in that in answer to the question “Is there a history of domestic violence” the report records the answer “No”. Second, the mother alleges that the father used a gun during the incident and that police retrieved two firearms from the property on 26 April 2017. However, in answer to the question “Type of weapon used in the incident” the answer is entered “none”. Again the question dealing with any weapons impounded the office has entered “N/A”. A separate ‘Offence-Incident’ report records that there were no weapons. Third, the report states that the mother was not transported to hospital, contrary to her evidence in these proceedings. Finally, whilst the mother is described in the police documents as exhibiting “Bruise(s)”, in two photographs of the mother taken by police and set out in the Offence-Incident Report it is difficult to identify any injuries on either photograph. Whilst the mother has a dark area under each eye, I note that a medical report following the alleged incident in June 2020 the mother’s eyes are said to “have dark circles and appear to be sunken”, which the pictures associated with that later medical report depict.

As a result of the alleged incident on 26 April 2017, the father was arrested and placed in custody. He was charged with assault and entered a not guilty plea. A ‘stay-away order’ was granted by the Miami court on 27 April 2017.

Within the foregoing context, the mother seeks the following findings of fact with respect to the alleged incident on 26 April 2017:

The father denies the allegations made by the mother relating to 26 April 2017. He asserts that it was the mother who was being verbally abusive towards the father and the children on 26 April 2017, threatening the father that she could destroy him. I pause to note that evidence of the paternal grandmother is that the mother was volatile, often losing her temper “with anything”, such as the father taking the children to visit the paternal grandmother. The father alleges that the mother threw the children’s breakfast away on 26 April 2017, which made the children scared. He further states that caused him to cook breakfast again. Before doing so he turned on the video camera on his phone, which recorded an interaction between the parents at 10.05am, in which the father asks the mother what is wrong in response to her appearing unhappy with the father and she responds with “fuck you”. The mother accepted in cross-examination that she swore at the father and was angry on that morning.

The father asserts that on 26 April 2017 he thereafter left the property with the children to get some milk to give the mother “time to relax and settle”. When he returned, he states that the police were there, the mother having called them at 10.31am and reported a physical altercation. The paternal grandmother stated in her oral evidence that the father told her that he had left the property to buy milk and returned to find the police present. It was clear from the evidence of the paternal grandmother that the father had told his mother about the mother’s allegations on 26 April 2017, namely that the mother had alleged the father had hit her with his hand. During her evidence the paternal grandmother stated that the father was never aggressive with the children, did not have a violent temper, and was not controlling in the household. As I have noted, during his oral evidence the father freely admitted that he owned firearms and that they were kept at the family home. The father stated that this was in the exercise of his rights under the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and as a result of him formerly having worked as a security guard. In this context, I note that the 2013 tax return contained in the bundle indicates that the father had a security business called “Black Knight Protection Inc”.

The mother thereafter applied on 16 June and 10 October 2017 to dismiss the civil injunction on grounds that she was endeavouring to engage in marriage counselling and no longer felt in any danger. That motion was initially denied by the court on the basis that the case involved serious allegations of domestic abuse. The injunction was ultimately dismissed on 30 November 2017. On 27 September 2017, she signed a non-prosecution affidavit stating it was her desire to have the charges against the father dropped. The mother signed a declaration on the affidavit that she was not put under any pressure to withdraw the criminal charges. The mother now contends that she was pressured by the paternal grandmother into withdrawing her criminal complaint. The mother asserts that the paternal grandmother both offered not to trouble the mother after she moved to a different state if she dropped the prosecution and that the paternal grandmother had told her she was “crazy, filing orders against [the father] because she knows how dangerous he is and what he can do.” The paternal grandmother denied having said any words to this effect when cross-examined. By way of explanation, the paternal grandmother stated that:

“I am not on anyone side, I always protect women, but a few days later she said the children wanted to stay at home, and she was regretting it and it had got out of hand and she wanted to speak to the authorities.”

I am not satisfied that the mother has proved her allegations in respect of 26 April 2017 on the balance of probabilities. The mother has given multiple different accounts of the incident in question, which accounts are both internally inconsistent and inconstant as between accounts. The mother’s accounts are so replete with inconsistencies such that it is impossible for the court to rely on them absent corroborating evidence. Beyond the mother’s accounts in police reports, there is no such corroborating evidence. The medical material relied on by the mother, including the photographic evidence, do not corroborate the injuries the mother alleges she sustained. In particular, the credibility of the mother’s allegations is undermined by the fact that they appear to escalate in severity each time an account is given and that it was only once the father had issued proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention that the mother began to allege that the father attempted to rape Q on 26 April 2017. Within this context, the fact that the mother withdrew civil and criminal proceedings with respect to the father must attract some weight. I am conscious that in her letter to the Children’s Guardian, P makes allegations of sexual abuse that could relate to the 26 April 2017. However, and as I will come to below, there are significant difficulties with P’s statements made seven years after the event.

I am further satisfied that the mother has fabricated her account of the father attempting to rape Q on the morning of 26 April 2017. Despite the gravity of that alleged abuse, the mother did not mention to any law enforcement officer on the scene on 26 April 2017 nor thereafter, nor to UK Border Force officials. Further, the allegation was only made after it became apparent that the father was seeking the return of the children to the United States under the 1980 Hague Convention. In these circumstances, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the mother fabricated the allegation that the father attempted to anally rape Q in an effort to discredit the father and undermine his case.

As with the alleged incident on 26 April 2017, the parties’ account of events subsequent to 26 April 2017 and specifically the circumstances in which the family came to be in Colorado are diametrically opposed. On the mother’s case, as a victim of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour by the father, she fled Florida for Colorado with the children, via Texas, without informing the father and evaded the father in Colorado for two years before the father, with the assistance of his criminal associates, located them again. On the father’s case, the parents agreed to move to Colorado after the mother expressed a desire to do so, moved their belongings to that area and continued to live and work as a family there until their relationship broke down at a point where mother’s behaviour grew more extreme, at which point the father took steps towards separation and divorce.

On the mother’s case, she remained at the refuge in Miami from 26 April 2017 until she left Florida for Colorado, travelling via Texas. During this journey, the mother alleges that she “was threatened at various times by gang members approaching me and making threats that [the father] knew where I was. I also received calls from blocked numbers and messages which I believed to be from him. I reported these threats to the local police departments.” The mother has, however, adduced no evidence either of an extended stay in the refuge, contrary to the evidence of the paternal grandmother, or of the reports of being threatened by MS13 that she allegedly made to local police departments.

The mother has contended that the father did not know she was leaving for Colorado. When speaking to Police Officer M in Colorado on 26 June 2020 the mother stated that in 2017 she left Florida and came to Colorado to get away from the father and that she did not tell him where she was going because she did not want him to find her. On 10 August 2020 the mother told the Assistant District Attorney that she had asked the judge in Miami if she could move to another state and that the father did not know she was moving to Colorado. However, in his application to dismiss the civil injunction dated 3 July 2017 the father sets out his plan to move to North Colorado with the mother, making plain that he knew at that time that Colorado was the mother’s intended destination.

Within the foregoing context, the mother seeks the following findings in respect of her departure from Miami for Colorado via Texas:

Against this, the father asserts that after the family had moved together to Colorado, in part because the mother was being investigated for perjury arising from the allegations she had made against the father on 26 April 2017 that she had then withdrawn. The father contends that the family thereafter lived together in Colorado between 2017 and 2020, although his employment as a commercial truck driver often meant that he was away with work for periods of time.

In her statement, the paternal grandmother states that at the end of 2017 the mother and father left for Colorado, the mother driving the children in the family car and the father following in a commercial truck with the family’s belongings. During the course of her oral evidence, the paternal grandmother stated that whilst the mother did spend two days in a refuge following the alleged incident on 26 April 2017, the mother thereafter returned to the paternal grandmother’s property. The paternal grandmother stated that the mother, father and children stayed with her for a further seven months in circumstances where each parent had lost their job and had debts arising out of their legal costs following the alleged incident on 26 April 2017, before moving to Colorado together. Within this context, the paternal grandmother further asserts that the family celebrated the mother’s birthday on 9 November 2017 at the paternal grandmother’s property. The father produces a photo and a video which he says depicts that celebration. The paternal grandmother, who is in the video, confirmed that this was a celebration of the mother’s birthday. The mother denied this and states that the video is not of her birthday party, that she has never celebrated her birthday, that she does not know for certain when her birthday is and, further, that the father has never celebrated the children’s birthdays. The mother made these assertions notwithstanding that she is pictured sitting directly in front of the birthday cake and that the video records people singing ‘Happy Birthday’ with the mother seated in front of the cake and not herself singing.

I am not satisfied on the evidence that the mother has demonstrated on the balance of probabilities that the mother “fled” Miami following the alleged incident on 26 April 2017, that the mother encountered ongoing threats and stalking behaviour from associates of the father through his links to MS13, that the mother was informed that the father knew the whereabouts of her and the children or that the father sent messages to the mother and she received calls from “blocked” phone numbers. Rather, having regard to the evidence before the court, I am satisfied that the mother moved back into the paternal grandmother’s home with the father almost immediately after making allegations against him on 26 April 2017. Thereafter, I am satisfied that the parents and children remained with the paternal grandmother until they moved to Colorado. On the evidence before the court, I am satisfied that the family moved together to Colorado, the parents having taken the joint decision to do so.

A particular feature of the mother’s case is her contention that after she left Miami neither she nor the children had any contact with the father, direct or indirect, from 2017 up until the incident that occurred on or around 23 or 24 June 2020 after, on the mother’s case, the father located her in Colorado. Again, the mother’s evidence is wholly inconsistent in this regard.

On the 911 call made by the mother on 24 June 2020, she told the emergency operator that the father had tracked her to Colorado and she believed he was tracking her phone. She further alleged that he “chased me” after she had left Florida to be safe. By contrast, she also told the 911 operator on 24 June 2020 that the father had been looking for a job in Colorado and was blaming her for his inability to secure one, at the same time as giving the operator the details of the company for whom the father worked. When speaking to medics following the incident on 24 June 2020, the mother stated that she had left the father after them living together for the past year.

The father asserts that throughout the period between 2017 and 2020 he had constant contact with the children at home and that, when he was away, he maintained indirect contact with both the mother and the children by way of phone calls, text messages, WhatsApp messages and Facebook Messenger. The father’s assertion is corroborated by other evidence. The father exhibits to his evidence bank statements that show payments from his account to the account of the mother during 2017 and 2018. He also exhibits documents from his bank and payslips showing his address as the address of the family home in Aurora, Colorado. The father produces a series of photos that he relies on as evidence of a happy family life in Colorado with the mother and the two children between 2017 and 2020. The mother asserts that the large majority of these photographs do not depict what the father asserts, alleging that the father has doctored them, as he is capable of Photoshopping photographs and editing official documents. The mother sought to explain the father’s possession of photographs to enable alteration by alleging that he stole a photo album belonging to the mother. The father denies both stealing a photograph album and altering any photographs. In these circumstances, the court permitted the instruction of CYFOR to prepare a report examining the photographs in dispute.

In summary, and subject to certain caveats that I am satisfied are not forensically significant in the current context, the report demonstrates that each of the photographs produced by the father comprises an EXIF (‘Exchangeable Image File Format’) file taken on the father’s mobile phone on the date the father says it was taken and with no evidence of the photographs having been the subject of alteration. In addition to the children appearing on the photographs to be broadly of an age consistent with the claimed date of the photos, on the basis of the expert report the photographs relied on by the father were taken on the father’s mobile phone during the period when the mother contends he did not know where she and the children were and was having no direct or indirect contact with the children. They include the following:

The father also exhibits to his statement a series of videos depicting activities with the mother and the children during the period between 2017 and 2020 when the mother contends he did not know where she and the children were and was having no direct or indirect contact with the children, which include:

The father also exhibits to his statement of evidence a series of messages that he contends were sent to him by the mother during the period when the mother contends the father did not know where she and the children were and was having no direct or indirect contact with her or the children. The messages include those sent from a mobile telephone number ending 5678 from ‘M’. The mother conceded during her oral evidence that the father called her ‘M’ and, subject to the matters addressed below, that the number ending 5678 was her telephone number. The father also produced messages sent from an account called “F”, which he ascribes to the mother. Again, the messages exhibited by the father span the period when the mother contends he did not know where she and the children were and was having no direct or indirect contact with the children. They include the following:

Once again the mother flatly denies that she sent these messages to the father. On behalf of the children, Mr Gration demonstrated during his cross-examination of the mother that she had used the 5678 number in Miami, taking her to the application to dismiss the civil injunction obtained by the mother in 2017 on which she had given the 5678 number. As I have noted, the mother conceded that the number ending 5678 was then her telephone number. In an effort to demonstrate that the messages the father exhibits to his statement from the 5678 number were fabricated by him, the mother then claimed that she stopped using the 5678 number in 2017 when she left for Colorado. She was not able to recall the number she used thereafter but claimed during cross-examination that she was informed by Sprint Mobile that the 5678 number had been allocated to someone else and was not available. However, having drawn that claim from the mother, Mr Gration proceeded to demonstrate that during the alleged incident on 24 June 2020 the mother had given the 5678 number as her contact number to the ambulance crew, the Colorado police and the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services. In the child welfare report conducted by the Colorado Department of Human Services dated 9 July 2020, the mother gave the 5678 number as her “Primary” phone number. Thereafter, the mother struggled to explain why, in the context of alleging a grave incident of domestic abuse, rape and the sexual abuse of the children, she had given to officials a contact number that she claimed she had not used in nearly three years. I further note that in the 911 call made by the mother on 24 June 2020 she gave the 5678 number when asked for her phone number by the emergency operator.

Having regard to the foregoing evidence, I am satisfied that the mother and the father lived as a family in Colorado between 2017 and the beginning of 2020 and that the mother and father were in regular communication via telephone, messaging and social media during that period. I am further satisfied that the father continued to participate fully in family life and to have regular contact with the children when away at work. Finally, I am satisfied that by claiming that she had stopped using the 5678 number in 2017 when she left for Colorado, that she was not able to recall the number she used thereafter and that she had been informed by Sprint Mobile that the 5678 number had been allocated to someone else and was not available, the mother lied and was seeking to mislead the court as to the nature and extent of her relationship with, and her communication with the father during this period and as to the nature and extent of his involvement with the children.

The messages received by the father from the mother’s number indicate that relations between the parents were increasingly strained. The messages from the mother’s accounts include messages demanding the father return home. In her statement the paternal grandmother describes visiting the family in Colorado in 2018 and noticing the mother was combative and verbally abusive towards the father and that the father would endeavour to avoid the mother. Prior to this, the paternal grandmother states she would receive communications in 2018 from the mother stating the father better show up soon. This tends to corroborate messages sent by the mother to the father in which the mother threatens to contact the paternal grandmother if the father does not answer his phone. The documents from Colorado Human Services indicate that as at 24 June 2020 there was an assessment open in respect of the family in response to concerns regarding domestic violence. During this period, the father states that he began working a lot and returning only to take the children out. Ultimately, he requested a divorce.

In June 2020 a further alleged incident took place in Colorado. Once again, the cause, nature and extent of that incident is in stark dispute between the parties. On the mother’s case, having located the mother and children in Colorado after they fled Miami, the father attended the mother’s property in Colorado and assaulted and sexually abused her and the children. On the father’s case, he attended what had always been the family home having separated from the mother but believing the mother to be sick and his children to be hungry, he having been persuaded by the mother through multiple messages that she was ill and needed assistance. I have already found, for the reasons set out above, that the mother did not ‘flee’ Miami to escape the father, but rather travelled with him and the children to live in Colorado as a family. I have likewise found that the mother has fabricated the previous allegation against the father that he assaulted the mother and sexually abused Q in April 2017. It is important to note at this point, that it is in relation to this alleged incident where the forensic difficulties caused by the inability of the court to obtain a complete set of disclosure from the jurisdiction of the United States have their greatest potential impact.

In the foregoing context, the mother now seeks the following findings in respect of the alleged incident in Colorado in June 2020 (which do not cover all of the allegations set out in the mother’s evidence and/or contain additions that are not articulated and differences when compared to the mother’s various accounts):

The mother alleges a number of very serious acts perpetrated by the father throughout the evening of 23 June 2020 and following through until the morning of 24 June. However, and once again, the mother has offered widely differing accounts, each of which contain inconsistencies and elaborations over time:

Cross-examined by Mr Gration, the father asserted that he arrived at the family’s apartment between 9 and 10pm on 23 June 2020, opened the door only to see no one was home after which he left the apartment and encountered the mother and children outside nearby Wendy’s. Once at the family home, the father describes a relatively uneventful evening in which the family ate food together and the father played video games with the children until approximately midnight after which the father fell asleep on the sofa. When the father awoke at approximately 6am, he was unable to find the keys for his truck or one of his mobile phones. The father and children attempted to look for the keys, however, were unable to find them and as a result the father took a taxi to his truck and had his employer provide another key. He then left on an interstate delivery.

The father asserts that the mother’s allegations regarding the events of 23 and 24 June 2020 are fabricated and that the mother had previously informed him that she would find a way to put him in prison, to never see his children again and that she would make up any allegation necessary and that all it would take was a single phone call to the police who would believe her as she is a woman. The messages emanating from the mother’s telephone number do contain a number of such threats. On 12 June 2020 there is a message stating “I am going to file a report”. There are further messages stating that the father’s employer would be approached and pictures of the father’s place of work and his manager’s car. On 15 June 2020 a message was sent from the mother’s number regarding the paternal grandmother saying “I hope [the paternal grandmother] dies of cancer”. The father states that the children reported to him that they were being shown films by the mother in which the father was being undressed by women, causing him to worry she was showing the children pornographic material.

As I have noted, the father further asserts that he attended the mother’s property on 23 June 2020 at her request. Once again, the text messages received by the father from the mother’s number prior to that date show attempts to contact him. On 18 June 2020 there were repeated calls from the mother’s number, sometimes every three of four minutes. The messages evolve from pleas to call to an assertion she is “very sick”. The mother’s sister called the father on 22 June 2020 telling him that the mother was very ill and asking him to telephone her. The court has a recording of that voicemail:

“I wanted to tell you that if you could please call [the mother], she is really really sick. If you could please call her or will you let (inaudible) have a look please call her she is not feeling very well, she is really really sick so try calling her.”

On 23 June 2020 the evidence before the court indicates that the father was receiving a very high number of calls from the mother’s telephone number. The father asserts that on 23 June 2020 he spoke with mother who said she was ill and asked him to attend, collect the children and take her to hospital. The evidence before the court also demonstrates that the father started to receive calls from P, saying the children were hungry and crying from hunger. The court has a recording of two voicemail messages the father contends are from P. In the first she states she is hungry and that Q is crying. In the second she states “do you want me to die of hungries”. In cross-examination, the mother denied that it is P’s voice that can be heard on the voicemails. On 23 June 2020, there is also a further message to the father from the mother’s number stating “I am very sick”... “call me please”. Within this context, I note that on the 911 call made by the mother on 23 June 2020 she informed the operator without prompting that she had texted the father to come to the home as she was ill and that he did so. This is consistent with the father’s later account to the Colorado police.

With respect to the mother’s allegation that the father attempted to rape P on 24 June 2020, and in respect of her later allegation that he attempted to rape Q in Miami in 2017, the following further matters in the evidence before the court are also of note. A message to the father from the mother on 17 March 2018 attaching a video taken by the mother of both children in the bath. In the incident checklist in support of her application for a civil protection order on 26 June 2020, the mother left blank the box which lists the following types of abuse: “Threat by physical or sexual abuse to children’ and ‘Sexually abusing children in household”. The hospital report from 24 June 2020 relates mother stating he hit the children but there is no mention of sexual abuse. When giving an account to medics in Colorado on 24 June 2020, in answer to the question “Does he threaten to harm your children?” the mother replied “he hit my son last night and hit my daughter this morning”. The mother made no mention of sexual abuse of either child.

As I will come to, when spoken to by Colorado Human Services, P denied sexual abuse when speaking to the social worker. When Q was spoken to by Colorado Human Services, the social worker asked if anyone has touched his private parts and Q said no. Following the alleged incident on 24 June 2020, there were multiple calls from P to the father’s phone on 5 July 2020, including volumes of heart and kiss emojis. During this period, the father states that P called the father contending that the mother was hitting her and Q and that she had killed their pet guinea pigs.

In addition to the mother’s various accounts, the court has some of the medical records arising from the examination of the mother on 24 June 2020. As with the alleged incident in 2017, it is difficult to identify from the photographs contained in the records any definitive injuries to the mother, particularly having regard to the alleged ferocity of the assault described by the mother in some of her accounts. Within this context, there is no forensic evidence demonstrating that the marks documented are likely to be the result of inflicted trauma. Whilst the medical records do contain a list of alleged injuries, that list is drawn from the mother’s self-reporting and is not accompanied by any medical opinion confirming or refuting an inflicted injury. Records completed at 11.03am record negative for facial swelling, negative for redness, negative for choking and negative for gait problem and “No overlying evidence of trauma to the back”. Whilst right parietal tenderness and soft tissue swelling is recorded, the mother herself does not attribute that to the alleged assault. It is important to note that the medical records confirm that bleeding was noted from the mother’s vagina, although whilst the mother attributes this to a sexual assault by the father there is again no medical evidence as to the cause. The father contends that the mother had bleeding issues and that she was anaemic as a result of those health issues. The documents indicate that the mother told a police officer that she was anaemic in response to the officer being concerned she looked unwell.

Finally with respect to the alleged incident on 24 June 2020, both children were spoken to regarding the events on that date. A police officer spoke to P at the home, and recorded the exchange as follows:

“I asked P if her father, had touch her mother or her. P who was not upset but very happy, told me, “No”. I asked what happened to her mother? P said “She fell down and hit her head”. I asked P if her father pushed her down? P said, “No”. P went to advised her father was not even there when her mother fell down and again confirmed that [the father] never touched, [the mother]. P said her father never touched her unless she was in trouble and only grabbed her arm to yell at her. I looked at her arms and saw no indication of injury. P again confirmed she was not touched that day.”

And:

“I [went] down to the ambulance and spoke to [the mother] who was still dizzy and had upst stomach...When I told her what P told me, [the mother] did not argue the matter, but just said in the past [the father] had threatened her with a gun. This was the Miami case.”

P was also spoken to by Child Services on 26 June 2020. Child Services observed that neither P or Q exhibited any marks or bruises. P gave an account that the father called her mother and said that he is coming to the house, that she went with her mother and brother to get food, that the father was outside and he went straight to her and her brother, grabbed their hands, and took them back home. P stated that her father pushed her mother and slapped her in the face and then went up and then rested on the bed. She said her mother took her father’s phone and locked herself in the bathroom. P stated that in the morning they were woken by their father asking for his phone and car keys. P said she didn’t take his stuff and that her father was really mean to her mother and dad was angry. P reported that her dad made a mess in the room and he said that he will come back for them (it is not clear whether this referred to the keys). Q was also spoken and is recorded as saying no-one had touched his private parts.

It is clear that the account given by P to the police officer at the home was relayed to medical staff at the hospital, the Patient Care Report of the hospital to which the mother was transported recording that “[Aurora Police Department] states they also spoke with pt’s 7 yo daughter, who was on scene, who was adamant that pt’s husband did not hit pt”. Matters are, however, complicated by the fact that the matter appears to have been reinvestigated by a different police officer, Officer M who, on 25 June 2020, was asked to follow up with the mother after the mother informed police that she had “additional information” to give officers and wanted to talk to a female officer instead of a male officer.

The material available from Officer M’s investigation results in a divergence of accounts between the Colorado police officers responsible regarding what P said at the scene, albeit that that material is itself problematic. In her affidavit of probable cause and her Investigator’s Report, Officer M recounts what she says she saw when she reviewed the first officer’s body worn camera footage. On Officer M’s account, the footage does not record any allegation by the mother, who informed the first officer she had been feeling dizzy for the last couple of days. Again, the court has not had the benefit of seeing that footage and it is not clear whether Officer M is describing the totality of what is seen or only excerpts. However, in respect of P, Officer M relates the contents of the first officer’s body worn footage as follows:

“P was happy and jumping up and down. She said her mom was dizzy and she fell down. Officer S asked P to come into the living room area and talk to him. He asked her if mommy and daddy got into a fight and she said, “Yeah, daddy was mean to mommy. He made a big mess in me and my brother’s room”. Officer S asked her if daddy touched mommy and she said, “Yeah”.

Officer S asked what her dad did and she said, “he had two guns and said, hey, don’t go nowhere and then mommy fell down on the steps”. Officer S said “He didn’t touch mommy or push mommy down did he?” P responded, “Yeah, he didn’t”. P said “Yesterday, we were going to get some Wendy’s, he was calling...” Officer S asked her if mommy just fell down and P said year...

... Officer S asked her if daddy touched her and she said, “yeah, remember he use to grab me really hard.” (while using one hand to grab the other arm). Office S asked if that was today and she said no.

P said, “And then, my mom, we stopped at Wendy’s and my dad said soo much, and her dad called sand said WHERE ARE YOU, like that” (as she yelled) Officer S asked he was there of if he called her on the phone. P said he called her on the phone yesterday and he was really mad and whey they went home her mom fell on the stairs.”

Officer M’s affidavit of probable cause also recounts the contents of forensic interviews undertaken with the children. The children were subsequently interviewed by an organisation called “Sungate” on 9 July 2020. Unfortunately, it was not possible to obtain recordings of these interviews in a form that can be viewed on domestic software, nor a transcript. In the circumstances, the only record of them in the papers is in Officer M’s report. In the circumstances the court is reliant on the incomplete, hearsay accounts of the children’s interviews. In addition to the court having no transcript (and therefore no information on what questions were put to the children and in what manner), at the time of their interview the children had been in the care of their mother for 15 days following the alleged incident and prior to their forensic interviews, although when asked by the interviewer P denied that her mother had talked to her about what had happened. The father alleges that the mother threw the children’s guinea pigs in a bin as a means of threatening them. The mother alleges the father threw them out of the window.

Officer M highlights the following aspects of the forensic interview of P on 9 July 2020 with respect to the alleged incident on 24 June 2020:

It is apparent from the affidavit of probable cause that Q was also interviewed. Again no transcript but following matters set out by Office M noting that “Q is very young and hard to understand”:

Following her investigation, Office M filed the case with the Arapahoe County District Attorney’s Office against the father on charges of third degree assault, unlawful sexual contact, child abuse and domestic violence. A warrant for his arrest was issued on 20 July 2020. The father was arrested on 5 August 2020 having handed himself in voluntarily and was remanded in custody thereafter. At a hearing in the criminal court on 6 August 2020 a Mandatory Restraining Order (‘MRO’) was made against the father. On 1 September 2020, the US court granted a Permanent Civil Protection Order (‘PPO’) based on the “preponderance of the evidence that the [father] had committed the acts constituting grounds for the issuance of a civil protection order”. The father was not present at these proceedings, having been incarcerated, although he was represented by a criminal attorney. The court granted ‘parenting time’ to the father, but given the MRO, the civil court recommended no contact between the father and the children. The criminal case against the father was dismissed on 17 September 2021 as the DA was unable to secure the appearance of the mother, who by that time had abducted the children to the jurisdiction of England and did not wish to give evidence. The father had been remanded in custody for a period of approximately 14 months. The charges against the father were expunged from his criminal record by way of a court order.

Having regard to the evidence I have summarised in some detail above, and once again reminding myself of the caution that is required when evaluating the evidence of an alleged victim of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour, I am satisfied that the mother is not able establish the findings she seeks with respect to the 23/24 June 2020 on the balance of probabilities (findings which I note do not cover all of the allegations now set out in the mother’s evidence and/or contain additions that are not articulated by her when compared to the mother’s various accounts).

I am not satisfied that the father attended uninvited and held the mother and children hostage in the family home on 23/24 June 2020. The evidence available to the court clearly shows that the mother made extensive efforts to summon the father to the property on 23 June 2020. I am satisfied on the basis of the messages on the father’s phone, including photographs of his workplace and manager’s car, that the mother had threatened to get the father into trouble, apparently in response to her displeasure at him failing to come home when she requested, as corroborated by the evidence of the paternal grandmother that she would receive communications in 2018 from the mother stating the father better show up soon. The mother’s message to the father at around this time that she hoped the paternal grandmother “dies of cancer” gives an insight into the mother’s emotional state. Within this context, the evidence shows that the mother’s attempts to get the father to attend the property were extensive, and extended to the mother’s sister seeking to convince the father to attend the family home on the grounds that the mother was ill. Indeed, the mother’s own words corroborate these conclusions, she stating on the 911 call made by the mother on 24 June 2020 that she had texted the father to come to the home as she was ill and that he did so. These attempts by the mother to get the father to attend the family home spanned a number of days and the children were also involved in calling the father. In this regard, I accept the oral evidence of the father that:

“I had come to take her to the hospital. She refused to go to the hospital, I suspect that she wanted to make me go to the house, because she talked about our relationship and once all my belongings were gone, she just wanted me to go to the house as I had been avoided (sic) her”.

I am likewise not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the father physically assaulted the mother when he was at the property, at the mother’s request, from 23 to 24 June 2020. I cannot discount the possibility that angry words were exchanged between the father and the mother when the father arrived on 23 June 2020, in the context of the messages he had received from the children, and/or on the morning of 24 June 2020 when he could not locate his phone or keys when he had to return to work. As I have noted, messages received by the father from the mother’s number indicate that relations between the parents were increasingly strained. However, I am satisfied that the mother has embellished any verbal exchanges in this regard when further alleging a physical assault, attempted rape and the sexual abuse of P.

As set out above, the mother’s allegation of physical assault by the father on 23 and 24 June 2020 is wholly inconsistent across her various accounts. In some accounts, he does not feature as a perpetrator, with the mother sustaining a fall as a result of being ill. In some accounts the father accosts the family outside the apartment and compels them to return to it. In other accounts, he comes to the door and forces his way in. On the mother’s various accounts, the father’s initial presentation varies from being aggressive and violent to sad, pleading and threatening self-harm. Her initial accounts do not involve furniture but evolve to having been forced against a kitchen counter or dressing room table. The medical examination that was negative for facial swelling, negative for redness, negative for choking, negative for gait problem and of no overlying evidence of trauma to the back, and the absence of any forensic evidence demonstrating that the marks documented are likely to be the result of inflicted trauma, is inconsistent with the alleged ferocity of the assault described by the mother in some of her accounts.

I have considered very carefully the mother’s allegation that the father sexually assaulted her by penetrating her from behind with his penis causing bleeding, rupture and pain. As with her other allegations, her many changes of account need to be treated with caution in circumstances where it would not be reasonable to expect a victim of sexual assault to have a clear and consistent recall of what transpired, especially of events said to have taken place nearly five years ago. However, once again the inconsistencies in the mother’s various accounts are stark. Having evaluated the evidence as a whole, I am not able to find on the balance of probabilities that the father sexually assaulted the mother on 23/24 June 2020.

It is clear from the medical records that the mother had a pad that evidenced bleeding from her vagina when examined in hospital. Against this evidence however, the mother’s account has again varied. Her pleaded allegation is that the father sexually assaulted her by penetrating her from behind with his penis causing bleeding, rupture and pain. However, in her early accounts to police and medical staff, the mother does not make an allegation of rape, save for a passing reference to the 911 operator that the father had been “doing stuff to her down there”. The mother’s application for a civil protection order in June 2020 contains no reference to having been subjected to a sexual assault. Only when the DA asks the mother in her interview to clarify matters does she make an allegation of sexual assault. In her oral evidence, which I bear in mind was given five years after the event, the mother’s account oscillated between denying the father had inserted his penis and alleging that he used his hand to asserting she had been raped and could not remember how many times.

I acknowledge that P gave an account that the father was pulling her mother’s pants down, that she stated later that her father was hugging and kissing her mother and she was telling him to leave her alone and that the father was trying to push her pants down and that he chased her mother and she pushed him away from her. However, as I will come to in more detail below, there are significant difficulties with P’s accounts. In particular, the court is reliant on the incomplete, hearsay accounts of the children’s interviews in which P is said to have made this statement. The interviews were conducted when the children had been in the care of their mother for 15 days following the alleged incident and prior to their forensic interview. Further, the interview had occurred as a result of the mother stating she wished to provide further information to the police.

In the foregoing circumstances, and considering the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied that the evidence cannot support a finding on the balance of probabilities that the father raped the mother on 23/24 June 2020. Further, and as I will come to below, I consider it likely that the mother has fabricated that allegation.

I am further unable to find on the balance of probabilities that the father threatened to shoot the children and the mother with a gun he had with him on 23 and 24 June 2024. Once again, there are real difficulties with the credibility of the mother’s evidence on this matter. As can be seen from the summary of evidence above, the mother’s allegation that the father brought guns with him and threatened the mother and/or the children have been entirely inconsistent. The mother told the 911 operator on 24 June 2020 that the father did not have guns but threatened to bring them next time. By contrast, she informed the paramedics that P had been threatened by the father with a gun. In her various accounts, the mother both asserts that she did not herself see the father threaten P with a gun and that the father was seen by her to threaten P with a gun when he heard the police coming. Some of the mother’s assertions contain references to matters the court has already found to have been fabricated, the mother seeking a finding that the father had put a gun to the children and threatened that if they told anyone about the events of 23/24 June 2020 that he would cut the mother’s throat and the children’s throats and feed them to the crocodiles at Key West in Florida.

Once again, I acknowledge that P has given accounts regarding the father’s alleged use of guns during the incident on 23/24 June 2020. However, once again, there are significant difficulties with P’s accounts in circumstances where, as I have noted, the court is reliant on the incomplete, hearsay accounts of the children’s interviews in which P is said to have made this statement, those interviews were conducted when the children had been in the care of their mother for 15 days following the alleged incident and prior to their forensic interview and the interview had occurred as a result of the mother stating she wished to provide further information to the police. In this regard, it is notable that P’s statements during her interview with respect to guns have a filmic quality, with the father alleged by P to be holding a handgun in each hand when pointing them at her. It is also notable that when speaking to Child Services on 26 June 2020, she appears to have made no mention of firearms.

I decline to make a finding that the father attempted to rape P by throwing her on the bed, pulling her legs up and pulling her pants down and attempting to insert his penis in her vagina. Further, I am satisfied that the mother has fabricated that allegation.

For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the mother fabricated an allegation of anal rape in respect of Q following the issuing by the father of proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention. I consider it unlikely that the mother would have made extensive efforts, as I am satisfied she did, to get the father back to the family home on 23/24 June 2020 if she considered that he presented a risk of sexual harm to P or Q (equally, I consider it unlikely that the mother would have sent a picture of the children in the bath to the father on 17 March 2018 if she considered him to be a sexual risk). The mother made no contemporary allegation against the father that he had attempted to rape P.

Further, the contemporaneous sources reveal no allegations by either the mother or P. This is corroborated in the documentary sources. In the incident checklist in support of her application for a civil protection order on 26 June 2020, the mother left blank the box which lists the following types of abuse: “Threat by physical or sexual abuse to children’ and ‘Sexually abusing children in household”. The hospital report from 24 June 2020 records the mother stating the father hit the children but there is no mention of sexual abuse. When giving an account to medics in Colorado on 24 June 2020, in answer to the question “Does he threaten to harm your children?” the mother replied “he hit my son last night and hit my daughter this morning”. In the absence of any contemporaneous allegation no medical examination of the children for physical signs of sexual abuse was undertaken. There is no suggestion that Child Services were concerned about sexual abuse even as they were involved with the family.

Finally, and perhaps most powerfully, no mention was made by the mother of sexual abuse until after the father commenced proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention seeking the children’s return to the United States, the mother having made no such allegation when attempting to gain asylum in this jurisdiction. In her statement in the 1980 Hague Convention proceedings dated 26 February 2024, the mother introduced for the first time the allegation that she had seen the father attempting to sexually abuse P on more than one occasion, in addition to repeating her allegation that the father had anally raped Q when he was 2 years old. In her statement dated 20 November 2024, the allegation in relation to P had evolved into an allegation that the father sexually assaulted P when she was 3 or 4 years old.

Once again, I acknowledge that P has given an account. However, her accounts of the father pulling her mother’s pants down, of the father’s alleged use of guns during the incident on 23/24 June 2020 and her statements about sexual abuse are not in my judgment reliable. Whilst there is a difference in the evidence of Officer S and Officer M as to what was depicted on the former’s body worn footage, across that footage, P’s statements to Child Services on 26 June 2020 and her Sungate interview, at no point does P state she was sexually assaulted by her father on 23/24 June 2020. In the circumstances, in addition to P’s interview being conducted when she had been in the care of their mother for 15 days following the alleged incident and prior to her forensic interview and the interview had occurred as a result of the mother stating she wished to provide further information to the police, there is in any event no allegation made by P of rape or sexual assault on 23/24 June 2020.

Since being in this jurisdiction P has made a number of statements alleging sexual abuse by the father. In her letter to the Guardian, P alleged that her father had sexually abused both her and Q, including engaging in the sexual abuse of P in the presence of or with another women, with whom the father had been engaging in sexual activity, and forcing her to “smell some white powder”. However, those statements have been made in the context of her being in the care of her mother for an extended period, who raised allegations of sexual abuse only after arriving in this jurisdiction, and lack any specificity. I also bear in mind that P has been diagnosed with learning difficulties and the court has no evidence before it as to what, if any impact, this may have on her recall or vulnerability to adult influence.

In the circumstances, I decline to find on the balance of probabilities that the father attempted to rape P. Further, I am satisfied in the foregoing circumstances that the mother has fabricated that allegation. With respect to P’s statements, I am further satisfied that it is more likely than not that the mother has, either directly or indirectly, influenced P to make those statements regarding sexual abuse by persuading or allowing P to believe she has been sexually abused by her father.

Finally, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the father physically assaulted Q, pulling his hair and head back. There is no corroborating evidence in respect of that allegation, which falls to be assessed within the context of the court’s concerns regarding the mother’s credibility overall.

In circumstances set out in the judgment in the Art 12 proceedings, the mother removed the children to England in September 2020. The mother and the children departed Denver on 15 September 2020 and travelled by air to this jurisdiction, arriving at London Heathrow airport on 16 September 2020. The cost of these plane tickets was covered by a domestic violence charity which booked the tickets for the mother on 8 September 2020.

In her statement the mother contends she had no contact with the father after 24 June 2020 and nor did P. However, once again, the father exhibits messages from a social media account that the father asserts is that of the mother to demonstrate such contact. On 11 November 2020, the father received a message from mother’s number asking “Send me naked pic of you”, a message stating “U really love me then send some pictures” and a message stating “Or live show”. On 14 November 2020 the father received a message from the mother’s number seemingly seeking his assistance with P’s behaviour at mealtime. The account also sent a screenshot of what appear to be bank details on 22 November 2020 which, the father asserted in his evidence whilst being cross-examined by Mr Setright KC, was the mother demanding $5,000 if the father wanted to keep talking to the children.

The mother now seeks a finding that once she arrived in United Kingdom there have been a number of occasions when she has encountered ongoing threats and stalking behaviour from associates of the father’s “through his link with the ‘MS13’ gang”. The mother asserts that the father found out where they were living and attempted to make contact with them and, further, that associates of the father’s appeared outside the children’s school and the mother’s sister’s address. The mother specifically alleges, in the context of her alleging that the father used members of MS13 to intimidate her whilst she was in United States, that whilst in asylum accommodation in England she was attacked with a knife by one of the father’s associates in an attempt to kill her, telling her “‘you know what’s up bitch, you need to drop the charges now and if not run very fast bitch as he’s coming to finish you”. On receiving these accounts, the Home Office moved the family on multiple occasions and eventually out of London in 2021. Since arriving in this jurisdiction, the mother and the children have relocated approximately ten times. The mother also claims she was advised by a social worker in 2022 to change the children’s forenames and surnames in order to make it more difficult for the father to locate them. The mother asserts the social worker who advised her to do so was called ‘S’ (as Ms Guha KC pointed out in her closing submissions, S is also the name of one of the investigators working for the office of the District Attorney in Colorado). There is no evidence to corroborate that assertion and the local authority records in fact suggest it was the mother’s idea, the records stating “your mum hopes that one day the [asylum] claim will be successful and she can change your identities”.

I am satisfied that the mother has failed to prove any of the allegations she makes concerning this jurisdiction to the requisite standard. There is no corroborative evidence in respect of any of them. Further, the mother’s accounts have become ever more elaborate. For the first time in her oral evidence the mother alleged that an employee of the asylum hotel where the alleged knife attack occurred was stabbed and that the Metropolitan Police Service are investigating the incident. Again, there is no corroborating evidence before the court to demonstrate that incident ever occurred and the mother has made no attempt to obtain any. The mother also claimed in her asylum interview on 10 September 2021 that the police “said they are looking for him but because he did not touch or hurt me there is nothing to worry about”. In her statement, the mother states that “I believe that the Metropolitan Police in London did arrest the person who attacked me and then asked if I wanted to press charges against him and I said no.” There is no evidence to support her claim that the MPS arrested a foreign gang member attempting an assassination on UK soil but acquiesced in the mother’s decision not to press charges, even though someone else was the alleged victim of a stabbing.

For the reasons set out above, and standing back from the case to consider the whole picture and asking myself the ultimate question of whether that which is alleged is more likely than not to be true, I decline to make the findings sought by the mother. I am further satisfied on the evidence that the following findings are established on the balance of probabilities, comprising those findings sought by the father, together with a number of additional findings made by the court:

It is plain from the matters set out above that the mother has engaged in a deliberate and extensive programme of fabrication and embellishment in these proceedings. That programme has extended to the mother’s interaction with US law enforcement agencies, the UK Border Force and the Home Office. I am satisfied that the mother will say whatever she believes will assist her in achieving the end she is aiming for, even if that means serially misleading the court, law enforcement bodies and the immigration authorities.

Of particular concern is the fact that, as I find, the mother has fabricated allegations of sexual abuse of P and Q and, thereafter, appears to have either directly or indirectly, influenced P to make statements regarding sexual abuse by persuading or allowing P to believe she has been sexually abused by her father. I consider that there are reasonable grounds for believing that both children have been, and remain, at risk of being caused significant emotional harm by the mother’s conduct.

In August 2023, following a strategy discussion, all relevant agencies agreed that threshold for a s.47 child protection investigation had been met. The subsequent investigation identified a number of risks pertaining to the physical, emotional and sexual abuse suffered by the mother and children at the hands of their father and the significant instability caused to them as a result of having to re-locate repeatedly consequent thereon. In circumstances where I am satisfied that the local authority has been proceeding, and continues to proceed, on the false factual premise provided by the mother, I shall direct that a copy of this judgment be disclosed as a matter of urgency by the Children’s Guardian to the local authority that currently has safeguarding responsibilities in respect of the children under Part III of the Children Act 1989. At the next hearing, to which the local authority will be invited, I will hear submissions as to whether this court should now make an order under s.37 of the Children Act 1989.

A copy of the judgment should also be disclosed to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Given the extent of the lies I am satisfied that the mother has told the court, at the next hearing I will hear submissions as to whether a copy of the judgment setting out the court’s findings should also be disclosed to the Attorney General, in order that he can consider whether proceedings for perjury should now be considered.

I will invite leading and junior counsel to draw an order accordingly.

The mother has lied to the court about not having a Bangladeshi passport and not being a Bangladeshi national.

The mother sought to mislead the court about the circumstances in which the parents met and were married. The parties met for the first time and were married in London, before undergoing a civil ceremony in Bolivia.

The mother moved to the United States from Bolivia on a spousal visa contained in her Bangladeshi passport, travelling via the United Kingdom in order to visit her family before P’s birth.

The alternative account the mother gave to the court of her move to the United States is not true. The mother has fabricated her account of being forced to carry drugs for the father that were then stolen at Miami International Airport by a rival gang.

The mother has fabricated her account of the father being a member of MS13 or other criminal gang, including her implication, by way of the provision of an article, that the FBI had “created a task force” in response to her allegations about MS13 and her account of the father throwing a corpse to alligators in Key West.

The allegations of domestic abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour and rape and sexual assault in Florida made by the mother against the father have been either fabricated or substantially embellished.

The mother has fabricated her account of not being permitted by the father to have an identity card, to work and to leave the house in Bolivia and in Florida.

The mother has fabricated her allegations of repeated domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour by the father in Miami between 2012 and 2017.

The mother has fabricated her account that the father assaulted her on 25/26 April 2017 and attempted to anally rape Q on the morning of 26 April 2017.

The mother moved back into the paternal grandmother’s home with the father almost immediately after making allegations against him on 26 April 2017 and remained living with the father and the children at the paternal grandmother’s for seven months.

The mother has fabricated her account of fleeing from Florida to Colorado in order to escape the father. The parents and children moved together to Colorado with their belongings, the parents having taken the joint decision to move to a new State.

The mother has lied about the father having no contact with the children between 2017 and 2020. The parents and the children lived together as a family in Colorado between 2017 and 2020 save when the father was working away.

The mother has lied about not using the 5678 number and not sending the messages from that number to the father during the period 2017 to 2020.

The mother has fabricated her account that the father attended the family home in Colorado uninvited on 23 June 2020 and assaulted her and attempted to vaginally rape P on 24 June 2020.

The mother has lied to the court about there having been a number of occasions when she has encountered ongoing threats and stalking behaviour from criminal associates of the father. The mother has fabricated her claim that an employee of the asylum hotel where the alleged knife attack occurred was stabbed by a member of MS13 and that the Metropolitan Police Service are investigating the incident.

The mother has engaged in alienating behaviours in an effort to estrange the children from the father, in the form of (a) making false allegations, (b) removing the children from the jurisdiction of the United States and (c) obstructing the children’s relationship with the father between 2020 and now.