England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IMPORTANT NOTICE

This judgment was handed down in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be contempt of court.

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT BARNET                                                                         N0. FD13P02110

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989

AND IN THE MATTER OF: 

“A”, A GIRL, BORN ON 14 JUNE 2005 AND “B”, A GIRL, BORN ON 13 MARCH 2011

St Mary’s Court

Regents Park Road

London NE 1BQ

21 May 2014

Before:

HER HONOUR JUDGE LEVY

(In Private)

 

BETWEEN

THE FATHER

Applicant

AND

 

THE MOTHER

 Respondent

Ms Ashley Tain instructed by Chapman Pieri Solicitors appeared on behalf of the Applicant (Father)

Ms Fitzrene Headley instructed by Quality Solicitors Stapletons appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Mother)

JUDGMENT

1              Introduction

This judgment follows a fact finding hearing in private law proceedings which concern two young girls, A who was born on 14 June 2005 and will be nine years old next month and B who was born on 13 March 2011 and is two years old. The Applicant is their Father and the Respondent is their Mother. The parents were married in accordance with Islamic law and divorced in 2012.

The father has three older children from his first marriage which ended in 1999. They are: his elder son C who was born on 26 September 1990 (23), his elder daughter D who was born on 17 November 1991 (22) and his younger son E who was born on 10 November 1995 (18).

A and B live with the Mother.     The Father lives with E.  

In this judgment I refer to the Respondent as the “Mother”, although I recognise that she is the step-mother of the Applicant’s three older children. When I refer to the older children’s mother I refer to her such or as Y.

2               Issues/the parties’ positions

The parties separated in March 2012. The father last had contact with A and B on 28 August 2013.  The Mother proposed contact without the three older children: the Father did not agree. On 11 November 2013 he applied for a shared residence order and interim contact. On 7 April 2014 he had supervised contact with B, but A refused to see him.  He understands that he must re-build his relationships with A and B gradually. The Mother seeks a sole residence order. She does not oppose contact but considers that it must be re-established gradually, in particular with A, who still refuses to see her father.  The applications in respect of residence have been overtaken by the recent introduction of the Child Arrangements Programme.

3               Hearing

The decision to conduct a fact finding hearing

At the conciliation appointment on 21 January 2013 CAFCASS advised that a section 7 report be prepared to assess any risks to the children. In the interim period they were unable to support contact. [A46] At the hearing the parties agreed that the Father would have indirect contact with the children and the Mother would send him any responses and information from A's school.

On 28 February 2014 District Judge Marin ordered that CAFCASS prepare a full section 7 report and listed a fact finding hearing before me.  In response to a request from HHJ Venables, made at a hearing on 5 March 2014, Tracey Clarke, the Family Court Adviser to whom the preparation of the report had been allocated, organised contact on 7 April 2014. She had previously spoken to A who told her that she did not want to see her father; she felt that he favoured her older brothers and sisters and became very tearful as she said: "he loves them more than me". The Mother made both children available for the contact.  Ms Clarke spoke again to A who said: "No, I don't want to go. No, no, no. I told you how I feel." B attended.

When the matter came before me, Ms Tain questioned the need for a fact finding hearing in circumstances where the Mother is not opposed to contact. With the parties’ knowledge, I spoke to Ms Clarke who gave me an account of the 7 April contact, which I reported to the parties.  She told me that she would find it difficult to talk to A about her feelings about her father and to decide what intervention might be required in order to re-establish contact, without an agreed factual basis or findings made by the court.

 

I have considered the President's Guidance [2010] 2 FLR 1897 and note that a fact finding hearing should only be held if the case cannot properly be decided without one. I have to consider the nature of any allegations, and the extent to which those allegations, if admitted or proved, "would be relevant in deciding whether to make an order about residence or contact and, if so, in what terms. (President’s Practice Direction: Residence and Contact Order: Domestic Violence and Harm of 14 January 2009 [2009] 2 FLR 1400)

I decided that the hearing was necessary in view of A’s adamant refusal to see her father. It took place over five days, from 14 to 17 April and on 9 May 2014.  I read the bundle of documents and heard oral evidence from the Mother, her brother-in law Mr X, the Father, C and D. The Mother gave evidence from behind a screen but sat in open court throughout the remainder of the hearing.   The Mother had previously withdrawn nine of her 27 allegations, which involved the Father’s three older children so that they would not be required to give evidence. As she called Mr. X to give evidence about general matters relating to the family, I agreed that C and D could also give brief evidence.  E chose not to give evidence.

4              The law

The Mother seeks findings therefore she has to prove her allegations, on the balance of probabilities.  The Father does not seek any findings.

5               Background/chronology

I have been provided with two short chronologies which are not agreed. I will set out the background in some detail because it has assisted me to understand, at least to some extent, the complex family dynamics in this case and provides the context for the allegations I have to consider.

 

The Father was born on 17 April 1966 (48). He converted to Islam in 1989. In November 1999 he separated from his first wife, Y, and their three children remained with her in Birmingham. He had trained as teacher but at the beginning of the period I am concerned with he was employed by a relief organisation.

 

The Mother was born on 7 September 1969 (44). She is from a close, supportive Muslim family. In 1992 she graduated from SOAS, London University with a degree in Arabic and economics and worked for the college in an administrative capacity for nine years, rising to become an executive officer in the Middle East Department. She lived with her parents and owned a ground floor one-bedroom flat at 19A Natal Road, Bounds Green which was let to a tenant. 

 

 The Father had known the Mother's family for many years, principally through his friendship with her brother-in-law, Mr X. In April 2000 the Father and Mother were married under Islamic law: they did not marry under civil law.  At the time of their marriage, they lived with the Mother's parents.

Both the Mother and the Father told me that they shared similar standards and values.  The Mother says that when they married the Father was very strict in his observance of Islam; he would not trim his beard; he refused to sit at table with her sisters; he put pressure on her to dress more conservatively.  She wore a headscarf, a long skirt and jacket to work (as she did to court) but he wanted her to cover her clothes with a long coat. On the underground he would ask her why she was gawping at people. She had to be careful.

The Father denies that he asked the Mother to dress more conservatively.  He says that although they had similar views in terms of general religious practice, he was pragmatic and tolerant of more liberal practices. For example he did not object when D did not want to wear a headscarf. On his evidence, this only became an issue a few years after the parties married, when D was at secondary school.

Mr X told me that the Father’s Islamic views were strong and he was very firm with his family. He did not agree that the Father was liberal.

In June 2000 the Mother gave notice terminating her employment. She says that the Father forced her to give up work.  Her mother had been diagnosed with cancer early in 2000 but her two elder sisters took on much of the responsibility of caring for their parents and she was able to balance the demands of her work, supporting her parents and her role as a wife. The Father thought it was too stressful and every time she came home from work he shouted at her. She was working in the department where she had studied; it was the best time of her life. The college kept her job open for her for a year because she did not want to leave.  The Father denies putting pressure on the Mother to give up work, but he thought it was the right decision.  The Mother is now volunteering at a primary school and plans to apply for a job as a teaching assistant and progress as a teacher.

Mr X confirmed in his witness statement that shortly after their marriage, the Father took “an extreme Islamic position” and insisted that the Mother give up work. He is aware that she was reluctant to give up her job and only did so at the Father’s insistence. [B173, para 5]

The end of the Mother’s employment coincided with a change in the Father's arrangements for contact with the children of his first marriage, which increased in frequency from once every three months to alternate weekends.  The Father told me: “Contact changed because it was difficult to get agreement (with his first wife). I felt alternate weekends was suitable.” In October 2000 his three older children, then age 11, 10 and 8, moved to live with him and the Mother at her parents' home.  The Mother told me that the Father said that his first wife had abandoned her children, which is what he told the children.  In his witness statement he said his first wife “suddenly and abruptly abandoned them” [B83, para 8] He told her that if she did not take on the care of his children, they would get divorced: he said: "the train's leaving the station; you're either on it or you're not." She thought she had no option but to take them. 

Subsequently, the Mother heard that the children's mother had asked the Father to take C only, but that he said he would take all three or none. The Father told me this was true. His first wife had asked him to take C because he was missing his father the most and was very withdrawn. There were discussions about C joining him, but his feeling was that he did not want to split the three children. He told the Mother that if she could not take on his three children, he would understand. He did not get as far as saying that in that case he would not be able to continue with the marriage, because the Mother said that she would take them. Soon after the three children moved to live with him, their mother went to Canada for a year. The Father told me that his first wife did not abandon their children: she had to go to Canada for a year.  By December 2000 the Mother’s mother’s illness was in remission. The Mother gave notice to her tenant and in January 2001 the parties and the three children moved into her one-bedroom flat.  At this time the Father’s work involved a lot of travel which took him away from home a few nights per month.

The Mother alleges that the difficulties started early in the marriage; the Father was verbally abusive and took the stress of his work out on her; there were incidents of physical violence from early in the marriage; he had difficulty controlling his temper. The Father says that there were minor disagreements which were resolved and did not lead to violence. He is not a violent person. The parties agree that for much of the time they had a good relationship and shared common interests.

The relationship between the Mother and the three older children

These three children must have had a difficult time: their parents had divorced and both had remarried; they were told that their mother had abandoned them.  Mr X told me that the Father’s divorce from his first wife had been very acrimonious. The children had to leave their home, school and friends; they moved to London where they were cared for most of the time by their Father’s new wife, whom they did not know and who had no experience of caring for children.  D told me that she was quite upset and needed her father’s attention.

The Mother told me that she and the Father had similar views about the children's behaviour. If anything he was stricter than she was:  he did not want them to have non-Muslim friends; he did not like C to listen to songs on his computer.  He expected her to enforce their shared standards when he was at work. When he returned, she would report to him and he would ask questions of her and the children and decide who was telling the truth. If he found that the children were at fault, he would impose punishments which she had to implement so that she was the "nasty" one; the children would complain to him and he would side with them, leaving her with no support. She was the scapegoat.

If there were problems at the children's schools, the teachers called her. On one occasion she was called to E's school because he had thrown something across the classroom. When she reported back to the Father, he sat her and E down, listened to their accounts and decided which of them was telling the truth. She reported what the school had said, but E said she had exaggerated and the Father accepted E’s account.

The Mother told me that there is some behaviour which she would find problematic such as a Muslim young person having a boyfriend or girlfriend, alcohol being served and immodest dress. She was not concerned about what they read: A has read the "Horrid Henry" books, she attends a secular state school, takes part in school assembley and has non-Muslim friends. By contrast the Father wanted A to wear tights in the summer because if she wore socks, she could appear immodest.

The Mother told me that she had a good relationship with C: she helped him get into university and was happy to do so. She may have raised her voice to the children but she never raised a hand to them. She loved them and formed an attachment to them.

Mr X said in his witness statement that within a few months of her marriage to the Father, the Mother had lost her income from her employment and her rental income from her flat, she had to care for three children and she became socially isolated and dependant on the Father. He knew that the Father gave the Mother little support and often supported his older children at her expense.

The Father, C and D gave a very different account of the Mother's relationship with the three older children.

The Father says that his older children never met the Mother’s strict cultural and religious expectations and her lack of tolerance and affection for them led to friction in his relationship with her.  He accused her of gross exaggeration.  In order to establish the truth of her complaints about the children he listened to both sides, using his experience as a teacher to ask emotionally intelligent questions.  He agreed that when the Mother was called into E’s school he accepted E’s claim that she was exaggerating. He considers that his conclusion was vindicated because when he attended E’s parents’ evening, sometime later, the staff said that the behaviour which had led them to call the Mother in was not important in the context of E’s good report.

The Father knows that the Mother felt unsupported. He found himself in the centre of a step-family trying to keep everyone happy.  He gives her credit for her physical care of his older children but said that she bullied them and was cruel to them. It appears that this view is based, at least in part, on information which the older children have provided in the course of these proceedings.

In his witness statement dated 18 February 2014, C referred to the Mother’s “slanderous allegations and trouble-making ways”, her unrelenting attempts to create friction between the older children and their father, on which she “seemed to thrive” [B123, paras 5 and 6]. He referred to her as “an extremely foul person” when he was younger [B126, para 8] C told me that the Mother had “holier than thou” views about religion and that she shouted at them frequently when their father was not present. They did not tell him because they were afraid of repercussions

He is prepared to give her credit for helping him with many things but he believes that she has withheld contact with A and B to punish the Father for agreeing that he and his siblings should live with them.

D says in her witness statement dated 20 February 2014 that she was the main victim of the Mother’s abuse, which included beatings, causing scars and bruises on her face [B128, para 4] She told me that she did not have scars, she meant scratches. She describes the Mother as driving her out of the house when she asked to return to live with her mother in 2004. In her witness statement she referred to having the Mother’s religion “rammed down her throat” but she told me that the Mother may have been a little bit stricter than the Father.

Both C and D became distressed as they gave evidence. C said that he lost respect for the Mother. D said that the Mother made her and her brothers suffer every day. She has no love or respect for her.

Further events

In 2001 the parties purchased the first floor flat in the property where they were living. The Mother considered that they could not afford to do this and she felt bullied into re-mortgaging her ground floor flat into order to contribute to the purchase. For the first few years they continued to live in the ground floor flat and let the first floor flat. From 2004 they used the two flats as one house although each flat remained self-contained. There was a kitchen and living room on the ground floor and bedrooms on the first floor.

In 2002 the Father took up a teaching post in a secondary school near the family’s home, and taught until December 2010.

In 2004 D (age 12 or 13) returned to live with her mother. The Father says that the Mother orchestrated this, although it was his decision. The Mother said that the Father drove to D's school and saw that she was not wearing her headscarf and her skirt was rolled up.  He arranged to send her to live with her mother without consulting the Mother.

On 14 June 2005 A was born. The Mother says that the Father prioritised his work around the time of the birth and when she asked him to take time off work, he shouted at her. It is not disputed that subsequently the Father was fully involved with A, in particular during school holidays and on Saturdays when the Mother taught at a local Mosque community centre.

Solace Women’s Aid

In 2008 the Mother was referred to Solace Women's Aid ("SWA")") for support in relation to domestic violence. The Mother said that she contacted SWA after the incident when E punched her and the Father tried to strangle her (See Allegation 13).  Simone Sinclair a social worker with the London Borough of Enfield wrote on 28 January 2013 that in 2008: "she disclosed incidents of physical violence, including her husband putting his hands around her neck and squeezing it. She was reluctant to engage and said there had been no recent violence although things were difficult and she thought they should separate".  The Mother told me that she had six counselling sessions at this time.

By 2008 F considered that there had been no real improvement in M's attitude towards his older children and he discussed divorce with her. They reconciled with the assistance of her family.

In the following years there were other sources of tension for the Mother. In 2009 her mother was again diagnosed with cancer and died the following year. In January 2011 the Father returned to work for Muslim Aid and presumably was less available to the family than he had been as a teacher.  The Mother’s father suffered two serious health crises, after which she recognised that stress was affecting her and went to her GP who prescribed anti-depressant medication, which she took intermittently.

In June 2012, the Mother says the Father told her that their marriage was at an end.  While he was visiting his parents in Portugal, she moved his possessions into the first floor flat, locked the door of the ground floor flat and moved with A and B to her father’s home.  The Father says that she made C move upstairs although there was no fridge, cooker or microwave in the flat.

Mr X confirmed that in June 2012 he spoke to the Father in an attempt to find a way forward other than a separation. He said: “Although the discussion began rationally and calmly, (the Father) became verbally agitated and aggressive and started to put words into my mouth...” [B174, para 11]  He had heard from young people in his school that Y had been drinking and he wanted to tell the Father that there was some truth in this, but F was in denial and became verbally aggressive.

On 25 June 2012 Dr Ramsell saw B with the Mother. In a referral to the consultant paediatrician at North Middlesex Hospital (for low weight) she noted: "Mum is splitting from husband...No domestic violence but arguments and the relationship is not happy - he loves the children though..." [B166] The Mother told me that the reference in the GP’s record to "no domestic violence" is not accurate; the doctor had told her that she had to record everything she said and she knew that if she had mentioned domestic violence, the report would have gone to social services.

In July 2012 the Mother told staff at the Bowes Road Children's Centre that she was going through a separation and was worried about its effect on her daughters; she was referred for counselling but needed a lot of encouragement to attend.  In the same month she returned to the family home at the Father’s suggestion. He told me that he proposed that they live separately, in the two flats. He thought it was a workable solution following the catastrophic breakdown in relations between the Mother and E. By August the situation was better; A and B were moving between the two flats; occasionally they all ate together. The Mother wanted access to the upper flat but he thought it was too soon.

On 9 August 2012 Dr Ramsell noted: “her husband is living in the flat above and it seems to be working out ok with the children moving between the two flats” [B162]

In October 2012 the Children's Centre Counselling Service referred the Mother to SWA. The advisor noted: “She said there had been no recent physical violence however the way she was living with her husband was confusing ad unhealthy; she had no confidence, self esteem or the ability to make changes.  She could not relate to his behaviour as emotional abuse and did not understand or accept that she is a victim of abuse. (She) continued to defend and justify his actions. It was felt that she was minimising how his controlling behaviour was impacting on her mental health.... (She) said she couldn't live without him and was frightened to acknowledge her feelings of fear and make positive decisions and changes in her life..." [B26]

The Mother was encouraged to join a support group. At the first session she defended her husband's actions and minimised the effect of his behaviour on her and the children. [B27] The worker noted: "When she spoke to the group she became very emotional and struggled to control her feelings. Her summary of her life was so moving that other group members were upset and visibly emotional...After the session she contacted Jacqueline Green, Team Leader at SWA and said she felt she wasn't a victim and the group was not an appropriate place for her. ....thinking about her life was too painful to address and he was doing nothing wrong; she would not attend again."

On 21 November 2012 Ms Greene made a referral to the London Borough of Enfield Children's Care Services. [B49] She noted: “ (The Father) continues to control everything she does; and threatens divorce if she doesn't comply”; Her concerns included: Mother’s mental health/depression and panic attacks impacting on her ability to care for children; and the Father blaming the Mother for neglecting and not disciplining children, affecting her confidence in parenting skills and self esteem.

On 26 November 2013 the Mother, A and B went to stay with her father. By 7 December they were living there and the Mother reported to her key-worker that she felt stronger and had put boundaries and conditions around the Father’s contact with children, which was working well. On 10 December she reported that (he) was being really nice and saw no need for social services' intervention. On 12 December she denied any domestic abuse and said the key-worker had got it wrong. The key-worker noted that she was scared by social services' involvement

London Borough of Enfield Children's Social Care Services

Simone Parke, social worker, completed an Initial Assessment between 22 November and 5 December 2012.  Her analysis says: the Mother denied the majority of the concerns raised by SWA. She showed no insight into the effect of her husband's behaviour on her and the children and despite alleging that she was confident and not scared of him, she was extremely anxious and fearful about the social worker speaking to him.

Ms Parke was very concerned about the level of abuse and recommended a Core Assessment to ascertain whether the children were suffering or were at risk of suffering significant harm. [B63] She completed it between 5 December 2012 and 25 January 2013. [B48] She noted that the Mother had a close relationship with her siblings and "although they do not know what has been going on between her and the father, they are aware that there are problems in the relationship and offer support."[B55]

The Mother said that she told the Father that the social worker wanted to speak to him. He was almost in tears and shouted at her to get them off his back; he said: “I would have covered up for you.”  She tried to disengage from social services.

On 28 January 2013 Ms Parke closed her file. The Mother had agreed to attend Stay and Play with B; A’s school would allocate a learning mentor to her; a referral had been made to Solace Floating Support.

The Mother told me that in March 2013 the Father said that they would live as a couple but separately, each in one of the flats. She did not agree: there was no point.  She discussed it with her family; her brother told the Father that the marriage was over and he divorced her. She told her key-worker at SWA that "she has separated from her husband as he has decided to end their relationship. She feels angry and upset that [he] has given up on her. She told me they have ended their relationship amicably and she does not think they would have any problems around child contact. She is happy for [him] to see her children and does not dispute him being a good father to her children. [She] feels he has sided with his children from his first family and feels very let down by him." [B22]

The Mother told me that between March and July 2013 she had extensive negotiations with the Father about their financial settlement; the atmosphere was very tense; on one occasion, at 11pm, he knocked on her door until she opened it. A said: "Oh no, it's daddy." She would sit on the stairs listening and when the Father tried to talk to the Mother, A would come into the room; A asked her: "Why do you have to talk to him. Why don't you answer back?" When the Father came home he would send her a text saying that he wanted to see the children; A would tell her to make excuses but as she did not want difficulties she would send A upstairs to her father.  The Father told me that he saw A and B regularly; they would come downstairs in their pyjamas and he would read with A. On 10 June 2013 F took A with his older children to Pizza Express. C produced photographs of A with her father, smiling. By late July F had moved with Y to a flat in Palmer's Green.

Post divorce developments/the text exchanges

The Mother says that on 14 July 2013, A told her that during contact the Father showed her a photograph of the three older children when they were young and said to C: “You were so cute. How did your mother leave you?” A asked her mother whether she was cute and then said that her father had left them anyway. [B10, para 45]

She said that on Saturday 27 July 2013, A attended contact with the Father and her older siblings. On her return she told the Mother that she had said she felt sick and the Father said: "you always feel sick". A said: "I never want to see him again, he is horrible." The Mother accepted that in the photographs which the Father produced A looks happy, but she told me that when A returned from that contact she curled into a ball on the sofa and cried. When the Father telephoned to speak to A, the child cancelled the call. The Mother persuaded her to speak to her father, dialled his number and handed her the phone.  The Father told me that he had asked A why she always felt unwell, in a caring manner, and later apologised to her if she had felt really upset.

Subsequent discussions about contact are set out in a series of text exchanges. [D1-19]

On 29 July the Mother told the Father that he could have contact with the children but they would not stay with him because A had been upset on her return from contact the previous Saturday. She said: "I have to consider her feelings as she gets badly affected...This is not about what you and I want. A is old enough to express her wishes and I have to take this into account as I have to deal with the consequences". In response to a request to agree dates when the Father could take A and B to visit his parents in Portugal, the Mother said: "the girls will not be going abroad as A is hesitant to come and see you and has said that she doesn't want to go away with you", she was putting the children's needs and wants first and would not force A to do anything.

Dr Ramsell reports that on 30 July A told him that "she didn't want to go on holiday with her father as she didn't feel comfortable there. She said he hurts her feelings. The Mother commented that there was no physical abuse but he tended to concentrate on his older children and the younger ones had to fit around his plans and it was not fun or enjoyable for them". [B74]

Mr X told me that on one occasion the Mother was at his home when the Father called her about contact with A and B. He could hear the Father’s raised voice and the Mother was upset, worried and scared.

The Father saw A and B for Eid on 9 August. He travelled to Japan between 11 and 26 August. Meanwhile the Mother took the girls to Turkey on holiday during which she says that A told her that she did not want to see her father. On his return and after a number of text exchanges, contact was agreed for Wednesday 28, Thursday 29 and Friday 30 August. The Mother says that when A returned from the Wednesday contact, she punched the Mother on the arm and said: "Why do you keep forcing me? I'm not going to listen." She was very angry: the Mother had never seen her like that. [NB137/96]

The Father did not see the girls on the Thursday but wanted to see them again on the Friday. The Mother responded: "You asked me about Friday...while you may wish to condone the unislamic behaviour of your children, I cannot allow A to be influenced by matters that you support. You are welcome to see the girls but only in the absence of your older children". [D14] To which the Father responded: "What on earth are you talking about?" She replied: "Some things came to light when I ran into some non Muslim acquaintances who were talking about a party that your son held while you away." She also referred to his attending the Reading Music Festival and to D's relationship with a young man with whom she had been abroad. She continued: "Just as you wanted your older kids brought up in the best Islamic tradition [so did she] [D15] and "A is confused because she sees conflicting Islamic standards. Your standards appear to have changed from when your kids were young to what they are now. Mine have not and I can't afford to expose my girls to anything that can adversely influence them...I am not denying you access to the girls but you can see them alone. My priority is their Islamic upbringing. I trust that it is also yours..." [D19]

The Mother explained that she had told the Father that A did not want to come to contact and had been crying, but he was not listening. She referred to the children's Islamic upbringing as a last resort, in the hope that he would listen. She had not criticised his children to or in front of A, but the child could see for herself that members of his family dressed differently from her. She offered the Father time with A and B on his own because she thought that his relationship with them was a priority. Contact stopped because he did not get back to her.

The Father believes that the Mother refused him contact with A and B as part of her continued attack on his older children and that her real reason for stopping contact was because they were not sufficiently strong observers of Islamic practice. He points out that the chain of texts does not contain allegations of domestic violence but only refers to his older children. He went to collect A and B on the Friday but there was no-one at home.

In September 2013, the Mother made several reports to the police. She told me that had taken advice from various agencies and had been told to report to the police if he came to her home. She made a report on 11 September when someone rang her doorbell in the evening. C says that he came to see A and B on his return from Japan. The following week, she agreed that he could see them. He saw B with her in her hallway while the Father waited outside in the car; A did not want to see C so the Mother said she was asleep. C says that he was not allowed to hold or touch B and that he knew M was lying about A because he could hear her moving about upstairs and B said she was not asleep.

On 19 September the Mother reported that the Father had come to her workplace and grabbed A to give her a hug and A had been upset. [B184] Mr X said that after Eid prayers at the mosque the Father and C approached him and the Father said that he wanted to see A and B; if M refused contact he would make an application to the court. The Father told me that when he approached Mr X he just shrugged and smiled as if to say that he could not do anything.

The parties went to mediation but failed to reach agreement. Through his solicitors, the Ftaher made proposals for contact which the Mother, through her solicitors, refused.

Recent contact

Ms Clarke decided that the contact on 7 April 2014 should take place at the Father's flat and asked the Mother to bring both girls to a place nearby, which she did. The Mother told me that she forced A to go in the car with her and B.

Ms Clarke went to the father's flat to speak to him before contact began. She was surprised to find that his three older children were there as she had told him that they should not be included in contact initially. All three children put forward the Father's case, treating her presence as an opportunity to give evidence about the past. It was not helpful but she listened to them for half an hour. She explained that it was unlikely that A would come to the contact; she would encourage B to come; it was important that she just saw her father; he agreed.

She returned to the Mother's car and again and in the absence of the Mother, tried to encourage A to see her father but she refused. The Mother returned and all four walked towards the Father’s flat; A again refused to see him.   B went happily with Ms Clarke. The contact with B went well: Ms Clarke will provide a fuller account in her report. After some time, the Father was eager to involve his three older children. Ms Clarke said that they could come in gradually and must not take over the play. They were not intrusive but she noticed that D took a photo behind her; she felt that they were gathering evidence and it was very professionally undermining.

She saw that B was beginning to close down. Fortunately the Father noticed and said "she's feeling a bit overwhelmed" and the older children left. The contact ended well. When Ms Clarke told the Mother that the older children had been there, she "hit the roof" but Ms Clarke explained that she had let them in briefly in order to see B's reaction and it had been useful. B was very garrulous. She said: Tracey I'm going to have the turtle. A is going to have the shark. A, you can come with us.” A said: "No, I'm not going."

6                           The children

A

I note that in March 2012 A was referred to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service, presumably by Dr Ramsell, who discussed her case in a multi-disciplinary meeting and felt that she should be self-referred to the parent support service. [C 37] I do not know the reason for the referral, nor the outcome.

In November 2012 Ms Greene of SWA noted in her referral to social services that A’s teacher reported that A was distracted easily, did not show emotions and there had been a decline in her achievement. 

In her core assessment, Ms Parke noted that A was well-behaved at school; clearly a child "wanting to please adults" and "do the right thing"; respectful with adults. She was described as "outwardly smiley and friendly, enthusiastic about learning, however she is also the kind of child to mask her feelings, rather than wear her heart on her sleeve" [B50] The Mother told her that A presents with no behaviours of concern. She shares a good relationship with both parents, her siblings and extended family...enjoys spending time with her father and likes to help him with DIY tasks at home.

A described her father to Ms Parke as nice and said she likes being with her mummy because she likes her. Ms Parke noted: "It was apparent that A is a compliant child who does not show any signs of anxiety as a result of what is happening in the family home" [B50] She undertook some direct work with A; using the "three islands task" and noted: "(A) spoke warmly about all members of her family and engaged happily in the task. The only thing that (A) mentioned about her life that makes her sad was school although the school reported that one of her strengths is a positive attitude and a happy disposition.” [B50]

The Mother told me that after A had taken part in the assessment exercises with Ms Parke, she told the Mother what she had said and asked whether she had said the right thing; she said: "I don't want daddy to be angry. I have to go and see him."

Her school attendance was 100%; her strengths are a co-operative and positive attitude; her weaknesses are that she can be easily distracted and lack confidence [B52]

The Mother told me that this assessment was carried out during a "so-called period of reconciliation" when she returned to the family home at the Father’s request. At this time A sat at the bottom of the stairs and listened whenever the Father asked to speak to her. When she asked A why she did this, A said she was worried about what the Father would do to the Mother [B 15, para 70] She did not involve A, but A knew what was going on. In February 2013 the Mother told her SWA key-worker that A was seeing the school mentor.

Mr X told me that the uncertainty over their parents’ marriage had an effect on the children: B became clingy and cried if she was separated from the Mother; A stopped being outward and happy and was often withdrawn and subdued; the children were anxious. He did not talk to A about her feelings: he was an observer.

A’s school report in March 2014 noted that she has developed a very mature attitude to learning and is becoming self-motivated; she is doing well in all areas and is working above the expected level in Writing and maths. Her attendance is 98.2% against a borough target of 95%

S

Social workers have observed that she was anxious when separated from the Mother. The Mother says that she is now vocal and happy. I am not aware of any current concerns about her health or weight.

 

7                           Impressions of witnesses

The Mother

The Mother was visibly nervous as she began to give evidence but settled down. She did not exaggerate or embellish the accounts she had given in her witness statement. She does not have perfect recall of every detail of each incident which forms the basis of her allegations, but she said that she remembered the incidents clearly, she was able to describe them and she was steadfast in maintaining her allegations in the face of lengthy and robust cross-examination.

She was frank about her inexperience when she took on the three older children and about behaviour which she would find problematic. She was not complimentary about the Father, but nor did she seem to me to resile from positive comments she had made in the past.

The Father

The Father chose to affirm before he gave his evidence. Ms Headley suggests that this indicates that he did not intend to tell the truth and has provided an advice given, in another matter, on this point. The Father’s evidence suggested that there may be more than one opinion about the significance of his decision not to swear an oath on the Quran, but he did not have an opportunity to present an advice. I have not found it necessary, nor appropriate to decide this point and have disregarded the opinion provided by Ms Headley. My views and findings are based on the evidence.

The Father was more measured in his oral evidence than he had been in his written statements. He remained calm although he was sometimes argumentative and concerned with language and syntax.

The Father told me that he is grateful to the Mother for agreeing to care for his older children but at times her treatment of them bordered on bullying. It was clear that he is very protective of his older children.  He weighed the Mother’s reports of the children’s behaviour against their accounts and decided where the truth lay. He did not check with independent sources, such as the school.   I formed the impression that overall the Father favoured the children, although sometimes they admitted that the Mother’s accounts were correct. This impression was reinforced by his attempt to include them in contact with A and B whom he had not seen for many months. I will return to the questions of contact later in this judgment.  I also had in mind the evidence of Mr X about the Father’s blind spot as regards his older children.

 Mr X

Mr X is married to one of the Mother’s two older sisters. He has been a secondary school teacher for 32 years and is Head of the Religious Education Department at Southgate School where he has worked for 28 years. He insisted that he be allowed to tell the whole truth and his evidence was careful and considered. I found him to be an honest, helpful witness.

 

Mr X has known the Father for 30 years and has great regard for him. He described him as very intellectual and kind. However, where the Father’s three older children are concerned, he can become quite irrational and deny what was happening.

He told me that he has never spoken negatively about the Father or his older children, to A or in her presence or within her hearing, nor has any member of his immediate family.  He has never found A listening at the door, but he has no doubt that she would have picked things up.

 

C

C’s presentation and language in the witness box were measured, compared with his witness statement. He loves and misses his younger sisters. It seems that C was not fully aware of the conversations between his father and the Mother about divorce nor understood the extent of the tensions in their relationship. He supported his father by saying, that when the Mother said, in June 2012, that they had effectively divorced: “neither I nor my father was aware of it being at that stage”. The Father had told me that he had said that his relationship with the Mother was over.

D

D made it very plain that she dislikes the Mother intensely. I have noted discrepancies in her evidence.

 

I am not asked to make any findings about the Mother’s behaviour towards the three older children.

Credibility

The Mother’s credibility is the key issue. The Father has described her as a “pathological liar” who cannot tell fact from fiction. [B101, para 79a]

I have noted that workers at SWA recorded that in 2008 the Mother told them that there had been violent incidents, including the Father putting his hands around her neck and squeezing. On other occasions she reported that there had been no recent violence. She did not relate the Father’s behaviour towards her as emotional abuse and minimised its effect on her and the children. In 2012 the Mother said that she could not live without the Father and was “frightened to acknowledge her feelings of fear and make positive decisions and changes in her life"[B49]

Ms Parke noted: "(the Mother) is extremely anxious about social care's involvement and although I have encouraged her to be open and honest with me, she is clearly fearful about doing so.  Whilst she has been adamant that this is not the case, it is my view that she is minimising and lying because she is scared about what would potentially happen." [B44]

The Father relies on Ms Parke’s description of the Mother as “lying” to support his assertion that her accounts to SWA and Ms Parke were deliberate lies and fabrications. He suggests that it is significant that the Mother turned to SWA in 2008 and 2012, both periods when he was considering divorce  This was a pre-emptive strike to build a case against him, in anticipation of proceedings, and to ensure that he could not remove A and B from her care.

I have considered whether the Mother’s accounts to SWA and the social worker were deliberate lies.  I have reminded myself of the guidance given in the case of R v Lucas [1981] 73 Cr App R 159 and note that a person may lie for many reasons. The Mother told me that she was not totally honest with the professionals because she wanted to protect herself and the children; she was frightened of what the Father might do if social services questioned him; and the girls were still having contact with him.  After a lot of counselling with SWA, she now recognises that she did not protect the children by minimising his violence.

Mr X has known the Mother for 32 years and told me that he has never known her to lie, although he is aware that she has been economical with the truth when she has been attempting to avoid a reprisal from the Father. [B175, para 15]

I have considered the reports and all the evidence. Several workers noted that the Mother reluctant to engage,  minimised the Father’s behaviour to her and its effects on the children and did not recognise that behaviour she described to them was abusive.  If the Mother’s accounts were deliberate fabrications, it would mean that she lied to several different people, at different times over a number of years, (in 2008 and again in 2012-2013) in such a way that each of those people considered that she minimised the Father’s behaviour and the risk to her and the children. Those people include Ms Parke, the social worker who carried out two assessments and on whose direct work with A the Father relies. I find that scenario improbable.

As to the suggestion that the Mother’s referral to SWA was a pre-emptive strike, there were no proceedings pending and no suggestion that she prevented the Father from seeing A and later both children during either of these difficult periods.

The documents provide an explanation for the Mother turning to outside agencies for support when she has a close, supportive family. Ms Parke noted in January 2013: "(the Mother) has been open about her self-esteem being worn down and having changed into a person which she never thought she would be ... she had adopted coping skills that enabled her to keep what was happening from (family and friends). One was of doing this was to seek support from professionals and share her feelings with them" [B44] The core assessment noted: "it appears that (the Mother) has been more vulnerable to this kind of abuse because of cultural values (which) appear to be impacting on her perception of what is going on. This has in turn affected how she has sought assistance, as well as how she has responded to professional intervention [B53]

The Mother told me that when she was attending the SWA group in July 2012 she was in denial; it was hard to see her situation when she was in it; but now she sees what she suffered; her SWA key-worker accompanied her to two hearings in these proceedings; a year ago she could not have given evidence in court but she feels stronger now.

I have also considered the Father’s suggestion that “this is all about the money”. I have not enquired into the financial arrangements which the parties came to. The Mother may feel that she would have fared better if she could have made an ancillary relief application in civil divorce proceedings.  I do not think that she had a property settlement in mind when she told the SWA workers in 2008 that F had attempted to strangle her.

I accept the Mother’s report to SWA of the Father’s violent behaviour towards her in 2008, as a contemporaneous report, and the views of SWA and Ms Parke that she minimised the Father’s behaviour and its effects. They do not suggest that she exaggerated or embellished her accounts to them. She was difficult to engage and slow to speak, in 2008 and 2012-13. In my view this is not the behaviour of a devious liar who is building up a case.  This evidence lends support to the Mother’s other allegations, including allegations of violence, which I have considered. On balance, where there are differences between the parents’ evidence, I prefer the evidence of the Mother to that of the Father. 

I have considered the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Mother. In 2008 the Mother told SWA her husband had forced her to give up her job to be a full-time carer for his three children. I accept the Mother’s account that the Father put pressure on her to give up her job. She was not solely responsible for the care of her parents; she had been employed by her college since graduating and clearly loved the work. 

The Father recognises that for the Mother to take on the care of three young children shortly after their marriage was challenging and unexpected and he thanks her. His evidence suggested that the situation was not as presented to the Mother at the time.  He chose to increase the frequency of his contact with his older children; their mother did not abandon them but asked him to take C who was missing him; he decided to take all three and after that she had to go to Canada for a year.  In the circumstances I preferred the evidence of the Mother, that the Father threatened her with divorce if she did not take on the care of the children, to that of the Father that she simply agreed to do so. 

Given the timing of the changes, first in the older children’s contact with their father and then in their living arrangements, I am concerned that the children’s move to live with their father may not have been entirely unexpected. This may have set the tone of the Mother’s relationship with the children, which was often unhappy, on every account.

I have considered the differences between the parties’ religious observance and the standards of behaviour they expected from the children. They agree that at the outset their approach was similar. The Father told me that they did not discuss this, so even if he was more tolerant and pragmatic, the Mother would not have been aware of this. On the basis of the Father’s evidence, to the effect that in time he took a more pragmatic approach to the children, eg to D’s refusal to wear a headscarf, the Mother’s perception that his standards changed is reasonable.  The Mother told me that there is behaviour which she finds problematic. I have no doubt that this became an issue between them.

The Father told me that he is concerned about the Mother’s “emotional instability”. He had picked up on things she had said to the social workers. I note that the SWA workers and the social worker linked the Mother’s reports of depression, anxiety and panic attacks with the Father’s behaviour and that there is no evidence of the Mother having long-term or current mental health problems or of her demonstrating emotional instability.

8                           The Allegations and findings

The original schedule contained 27 allegations but was reduced to 18 at a hearing on 5 March 2014 before

HHJ Venables, with the purpose of removing most of the allegations which involved the Father's three older

children.

 

The revised schedule contains four allegations which I consider are not relevant to the terms of any order I may

make for contact. They are allegations 1 and 3 which relate to the period shortly after the parties were married

and are, relatively, less serious than others. Allegation 19 does not assist. Allegation 25 relates to an alleged gap

in financial provision and could have been proved by reference to credit card and bank statements. None has been

produced therefore I cannot make this finding.

 

Allegation 4 - One year into the marriage (April 2001)

The Father threw the Mother onto the bed, picked her up, shook her and threw her onto the bed again. The Father shook and grabbed the Mother with such force he tore her night clothes.

The Mother told me that she and the Father and the three children were living in the ground floor flat. She and the Father were lying on the sofa bed. She jokingly said that he was cruel. He got up, picked her up and pushed her down on to the bed.  He said: "I'll show you what cruel is". She remembers his exact words, being pushed and picked up, she thinks twice, and that her nightdress tore. She hid it in the bed where they kept night clothes and got rid of it after a while.

 

F said that he does not recall any such event taking place. He is not cruel but generally a patient man and as a teacher has learned to respond appropriately to provocation.

 

Finding:

The Mother gave a detailed account of this incident. I prefer her account to that of the Father. I make this finding.

 

Allegation 6 - 2004

The Father pushed the Mother to the floor with force causing her pain. The Father then told the Mother that she was not welcome at their home that evening so the Mother had to sleep at her sister’s house.

 

The Mother me that she and the Father and the three children were at her sister's home; D and her nephew were shouting; she spoke to her nephew and then took D into the back room and told her not to cause trouble. The Father was listening at the door and heard what she said. He came into the room, told D to leave and shut the door. He pushed the Mother backwards, her side hit a chair and she fell to the floor. He told her that if she said anything to his children he would see red. He said that she could not come home that evening.

She stayed at her sister's home but did not tell her sister why.

 

The Father said: He does not recall any such event. The Mother sometimes stayed with her family after discussion and argument but it was not a regular occurrence. He never asked her to stay away.

 

Mr X said that the Mother came to stay at his home a few times when the Father refused her entry to the family home or told her she could not go home.

 

Finding

I prefer the evidence of the Mother, which is supported by the evidence of Mr X that the Mother sometimes stayed at his home when the Father would not allow her to return. I make this finding.

Allegation 7 - 2005

The Mother called the mortgage company to check the parties could knock down a wall that had separated the two flats, this angered the Father and he started shouting at the Mother and throwing things, he then told her to stay at her mother’s house.

The Mother repeated this account in her oral evidence; she said that the Father told her to stay at her mother's home and as she was scared of him she left, taking A (age 6 months) with her. When she returned later that evening F said he had not said that she could come home.  She returned to her sister’s home where she and A slept on a mattress on the floor.

The Father said that the Mother contacted the mortgage company and he had a disagreement with her over this but the issue was resolved after a short discussion. He did not throw anything around or scream at her. She did not stay away.

Finding:

The parties had a joint mortgage but the Father took exception to the Mother calling the mortgage company without consulting him. I make this finding.

Allegation 8 - Summer 2006

Following an argument between the parties, the Mother went to apologise to the Father in the middle of the night. The Father followed the Mother back into her room, picked her off the bed and shook her aggressively. A was asleep in her cot at the end of the bed.

The Mother told me that following an argument she and the Father slept in separate rooms. Normally after an argument she would apologise to smooth things over, because she did not like the "silent treatment" or the atmosphere in the home. She accepted that she could have waited until morning but she went to apologise. He got up and followed her back to her room. He picked her upper body half-way up from the bed, shook her quite violently and pushed her down again, several times. She was scared but she did not cry out. She told me that she wet herself because she was too scared to leave her room. A was asleep in her cot at the foot of the bed. She did not report the incident to anyone. The Father said it was all her fault and she had begun to believe it. The following day he apologised said he would not be surprised if she left him.  She was too scared to leave. Two days later he told her not to refer to it again as he had apologised.

The Father said that he does not recall any such event.

Finding

The Mother gave a graphic account of this incident. I prefer her evidence and make this finding.

Allegation 9 - 2007/2008

The parties had a disagreement. The Mother tried to get away from the Father but he chased her into the bathroom where he held her neck down into the bath and shouted “I hate your guts”

The Mother told me that she and the Father had a disagreement when he came back from shopping. He pushed her by the neck, downwards, against the bath.  She was pinned down in the sense that she could not move.

The Father denies this allegation. He notes that the Mother’s versions of events are inconsistent: in her statement she alleges that he “pinned her down”, whereas in the schedule she alleges that he “held her neck down in the bath.” Around this time there was a very serious discussion about divorce and he believes that the Mother referred herself to SWA as a pre-emptive strike against him so that he could not obtain custody of A.

Finding:

The Mother was able to explain the background to this incident and her accounts were substantially consistent. Her evidence is supported by her report to SWA in 2008 of a similar incident. I make this finding

Allegation 10 - 2008

The parties had a disagreement over the child maintenance which the Father’s ex-wife should have been paying. The Mother said the Father could chase this up with her, which led to the Father shouting at her and storming out. The Mother followed the Father home with A but then found the door was bolted so she could not get in. When the she returned later that evening, the Father ignored her.

 

The Mother told me that this incident took place at her sister's house where they had left A (age 3) while they tried to sort out a re-mortgage. They had an argument about a payment she had to get from the Father’s first wife. He did not want to do it and she said: "I wish you'd just deal with it". When she and A reached their home, she found that the door had been bolted. A was crying. The Father opened the front door, took A inside and bolted the door, leaving the Mother outside. When she returned later the door was open.

The Father said: he has no recollection of this and would never do anything to jeopardise either the children’s or the Mother’s safety by locking them out of the house.

Finding:

References to the older children’s mother especially relating to financial support for the children seem to have been a cause of arguments between the parties, on more than one occasion. I have accepted Mr X’s evidence that the Mother stayed at his home when she could not return to her own home.  I make this finding.

Allegation 12 - October 2008

The parties were in bed and the Father was telling the Mother to be patient with E. The Mother stated that she thought they should teach him some manners and on hearing this, the Father pushed the Mother so that she rolled off the bed onto the hard wooden floor.

The Mother told me that the Father was talking about his son E, acknowledging that he was really difficult. It was in this context that she said that they needed to teach him manners. The Father pushed her in her back with some force so that she rolled off the bed onto the floor. She was shocked and said:"What was that for?" She remembers that she had to teach that day and could not hold herself together.

The Father said that this incident did not take place.

Finding:

The Mother gave a clear account. I prefer her evidence and make this finding.

Allegation 13 - January 2009

E punched the Mother in the arm. This was witnessed by A, who told the Father about this when he came home. The next day, the Mother asked what they were going to do about this and the Father put his hands around her neck and shook her. He then chased her into the front room and pinned her down by the neck. The Mother felt like she was being strangled. The Mother and A were then forced to sleep downstairs on a sofa bed for a week and a half and were not allowed into the upstairs flat during this time.

The Mother told me that E had made a pizza and she wanted a piece of it for A. E punched her on the arm and A who saw this reported it to the Father. E denied it and the Father believed him. The following day she asked what they were going to do about E. She was standing at the sink with her back to the Father who put his hands around her neck and shook her. He went upstairs and then came down and chased her into the back room where he pinned her by the neck against the arm or side of the sofa.  She remembers clearly what happened.

A did not see what happened but she knew that they had to sleep downstairs and she knew it was for a reason, even though the Mother told her not to worry. They were not even allowed upstairs to get her school uniform.

The Father said that E denies ever laying a hand on the mother and he believes him. He denies the allegation.

Finding:

The point of this allegation is not whether E punched the Mother on the arm. The Mother says that A reported this to the Father, in which case he believed E rather than A. She told me that after this incident she went to SWA. Her report to SWA contained a reference to the father putting his hands around her neck. I make this finding.

Allegation 14 - April 2009

The Mother, Father and A [age nearly 4] went to Argos to buy a vacuum cleaner. On the journey home, the Father disliked something the Mother said and proceeded to swear and shout at her the whole way home and drive erratically. A was terrified and screaming. Afterwards, the Mother and A were forced to sleep downstairs on the sofa bed.

The Mother me that she had asked the Father whether he thought that the older children had lost out as a result of their mother not being around much. A was frightened by his erratic driving, shouting and swearing.

The Father denies this allegation. He never uses the “f word”.

Finding:

The Mother was able to explain what led up to this incident. I prefer her evidence to that of the Father. I make this finding.

Allegation 17 - January 2012

The Father failed to secure B’s car seat so that when he started driving B was flung forward and pushed her lip into her teeth causing bleeding. The Father shouted at A when she started to cry at the sight of B’s blood.

The Mother told me that she was not overstating this incident. She accepts that the Father was upset but he did shout at A.

The Father accepts that this accident happened, it was his fault and B fell forwards and hit her head against the front passenger seat which caused her nose to bleed. Everyone was upset. He denies telling A to “shut up”. He was more annoyed with himself than anything else.  It would not have been logical and he would not have chosen that moment to shout at A.

Finding:

It is accepted that this was an accident and that everyone was upset. In such circumstances the Father may not have acted logically. On the balance of probabilities, I make this finding.

Allegation 18 - March 2012

The Father punched the Mother in the back whilst she was in bed half asleep. The Mother was so scared and upset, she started shaking with fear. The Father stated that he would pray that Allah give the Mother cancer. This was particularly upsetting for the Mother as it was around the 2nd anniversary of her mother’s death from cancer.

The Mother told me that she was asleep. The Father told her to turn over. She said: “Do I have to?” He punched her in the back. She was shaking with fear. He got out of bed and said: “You’re always ill. I pray to Allah that you’ll have cancer because you want people to feel sorry for you.” In her witness statement she said that the following day A asked her whether something had happened the night before as she had heard shouting but the Mother told her that everything was all right.

F denies the allegation. He would not wish this illness on anyone. He had a close relationship with her mother who was kind to him and his children.

Finding:

This was at a particularly low point in the parties’ marriage. The allegation that the Father wished cancer on the Mother is unpleasant, but on the balance of probabilities, I find that the Mother, who had recently lost her mother to cancer, would not fabricate such an allegation. I make the finding

Allegation 20 -  6 June 2012

C told the Father that the Mother had said that E was drinking. The Father questioned the Mother and did not believe her when she denied it. The Father was verbally abusive to the Mother which woke B. The Father and his son did not speak to the Mother or the (younger) children when they returned.

The Mother told me that neighbours and people outside the school told her that E was drinking.  She did not produce a beer can.  She was acting as a concerned parent by bringing to the Father’s attention reports of behaviour of which he would not approve.

The Mother’s niece repeated this in front of C and A (age 7), although the Mother told her niece that it was rubbish.  C repeated it to the Father when they were out in the car with A. When they returned A told her that the Father and C had questioned her in the car and she was upset.  She said: “I think you’re in trouble”. The Father came downstairs, pointed at her and said: “Did you say that C has been drinking?” She said she had not and he accused her of lying. She was sitting on the sofa and he leaned over as he said: “You’re lying. I would believe a five year old over you.” He went back upstairs and she put B to bed. The Father came back and shouted at her: I will never forgive you for this.”  B woke up screaming. The Father said: “Go and get your baby.”

She left and went to her sister’s home. On the way she met her brother-in-law, Mr X who had heard similar rumours about E. The Mother was crying and Mr X offered to speak to the Father. Subsequently the Father told her that he had been rude to Mr. X.

The Father said that the Mother “set up” E by producing a beer can and accusing him of drinking alcohol. C heard about it from A and her cousin and came to him.  It was a serious allegation because drinking alcohol is contrary to his beliefs and E was under-age in any event. He confronted E who was so distressed that he collapsed. He was convinced that E had not drunk alcohol.

He had a very emotional discussion with the Mother who denied that she had accused E of drinking but then admitted that she had discussed it with her sister. The Father believed that the Mother was trying to get rid of him. The discussion was tearful and heartfelt, but it was not angry and had no effect on B. 

Finding:

The Father accepted that the Mother did not “set E up” in the sense that she brought a beer can into the home: it had probably been left in the hedge by a passer-by and he would have put it in the recycling bin. Her allegation had caused E to collapse. He believed E and thought that the Mother was trying to get rid of him. In such circumstances it seems unlikely that their discussion would have been emotional but not angry. I prefer the Mother’s evidence about the Father’s conduct. I am not asked to make a finding about E.

             

Allegation 22 - June to December 2012

(During this period) the Respondent and the (two younger) children of the family were not allowed into the upstairs flat; they had to sleep on a mattress on the floor in a cold room; they did not have any wardrobes. When the Respondent sought legal advice about this, the Applicant threatened to “destroy” her.

The Mother told me that before the Father went to Portugal in June 2012 he had not spoken to her for three weeks, presumably following the incident referred to in Allegation 20.  During this period he would take A upstairs for contact and sometimes she would sleep there. The Mother and the girls were sleeping on a mattress on the floor. A did not always want to sleep upstairs and on one occasion she cried so much that the Father sent her downstairs. On one occasion A asked the Mother why she did not help her, why she did not defend her. [B7, para 31] She accepted that during this period the Father took A to Pizza Express and that a photograph he produced indicated that she was having a good time.

The night before the Father left for Portugal, he said to her: “You know what’s happening. In case you think it will be any different when I get back, we are going to separate.... You’re the one that’s going to move out. You’ve got your father’s house.”

The night before he returned, with the help of her nephew she moved with A and B to her father’s home. She locked the ground floor flat (which was her property). She says that she left food for C, he had access to a fridge and the Father returned the following day.  The Father accepted that this process finished the night before he returned home. C told me that he had to eat cold food until the Father returned several days later. 

Mr X told me that this was a very fraught period; the Father would say he wanted a divorce and then change his mind.  It was difficult for the Mother to make a decision.

Two or three weeks later the father invited her to return, which she did.  Three days later he changed the lock on the door to the upper flat so that she could not enter it. He said that she could have the (larger) upstairs flat, provided she paid £10,000 to renovate the kitchen and bathroom in the ground floor flat.

The Father says that he was very upset when the Mother accused E of drinking alcohol and probably used language which indicated that this was potentially a divorce situation. While he was visiting his parents in Portugal, she moved all of his personal belongings from the downstairs flat to the upstairs flat and made C move upstairs. He was shocked to find this when he returned.

The Father told me that this happened several days before he returned from Portugal and that during this period C did not have access to a cooker or a microwave, which C confirmed.

Finding:

The father accepted that he decided that he should live in the upstairs flat with C and E, while the Mother lived in the downstairs flat with A and B. I make this finding but it must be read in the context of the state of the parties’ marriage at that time.

Allegation 23 - December 2012

The Mother’s sister sent the Father a text message stating he was not treating the Mother correctly and mentioned something about his daughter (D) but the Father did not take this well and took it out on the Mother; he woke her and the (two younger) children in the middle of the night and was verbally abusive to her. A few days later he confronted the Mother again.  A was so scared that she pleaded with the Mother to go to her father’s house, which they did.

The Mother told me that she only knew about her sister’s text because the Father told her about it. It referred to D having a boyfriend and asked why the Father treated the Mother in an oppressive way. He shouted at her in front of A and B : “Let’s do the divorce now.”  A few days later he became angry again over the same text and again shouted at the Mother in front of A and B. A pleaded with her to take them to stay at her father’s house, which she did. During this period the Father had contact with the children two or three times per week but complained that they did not want to stay with him. A told the Mother that she did not want her parents to get back together. [B8, para 34]

The Father said that the Mother’s sister sent him extremely insulting and degrading text messages about D. He sent a text message to her husband informing him that he would call the police if the text messages did not stop. They promptly stopped. He discussed it with the Mother but was not verbally abusive to her as clearly the messages had been sent by her sister and not her. He told me that A and B were not present during his discussion with the Mother.

Finding:

The text would have made the Father very angry. He believes that the Mother and her sisters orchestrated D’s move to live with her mother in 2004. He believes that she had tried to get rid of E in June 2012. I make the finding.

 

9          Further considerations

 

What were the children aware of?

The Mother told me that she never told A when the Father hurt her: that was not for a child to know.  However, it follows from the findings I have made that by the time of the Core Assessment and Ms Parke’s direct work with A (November-December 2012), A must have been aware of a high level of tension in the home. She knew that sometimes she and her Mother could not return home. She would have known that her Mother was unhappy.  I am not a child and adolescent psychiatrist and cannot analyse A’s response to the social worker. I note that she is described as a compliant child. I accept that she has also had good experiences and happy times with her Father

 

What impact would these incidents have had on A’s view of the Father?

The Father points to the fact that between the core assessment completed on 25 January 2013 and the cessation of contact on 30 August 2013 there are no allegations of verbal or physical abuse and therefore it is unlikely that A’s view of him and her older siblings will have changed as a result of anything he said or did in that intervening period. He asserts that the Mother’s reasons for stopping contact have nothing to do with her allegations against him, but are based on her obsessive wish to raise the girls in strict adherence to the Islamic faith, which requires the exclusion from their lives of their more moderate older siblings. The text message sent on 28 August 2013 confirms this. If A believes that he treats her differently, this can only be the result of the Mother’s negative influence.

The Mother says there are two aspects to A's refusal to see the Father: the impact on her of his abuse of the Mother (including violence) and A's view that he prefers her older siblings.

 

The Father has not been prepared to consider other factors which may have influenced A’s current attitude towards him, some of which occurred after the core assessment was completed. In January 2013 the Mother returned with A and B to the family home but the family continued to live separately, the Father upstairs with E while A and B lived downstairs with their mother. I have no doubt that the atmosphere was uncomfortable. In March 2013 the Father and Mother divorced.  A was probably aware that her mother was unhappy.  The Mother told her SWA key-worker that she felt angry and very let down by the Father. The Father has not taken on board the view of Ms Clarke that A shows loyalty to her mother who is her primary carer. The Mother says that there were tense negotiations about the financial settlement, including late at night. In July 2013 the Father moved home, with E.

In this situation, would it be surprising if a child felt that her father had left her, wondered whether he loves her older brothers and sister more than he loves her and concluded that he does? 

She may have need more attention, as D said she did, when her parents divorced and she moved to London to live with her father. The Father acknowledges that the Mother told him that A was feeling neglected but instead of considering that possibility and reassuring A of his love, the Father  decided that the Mother was wrong and had coached A.  He told me that he rejected the suggestion that he should see A and B without his older children “... because I don’t feel that it is a reason to bar my children from seeing their siblings” and “She is absolutely not genuinely concerned about seeing her siblings”. 

 

A has said repeatedly, including to Ms Clarke, that she does not want to see her father. He asserted the right of his older children to see their younger sisters without considering that A might need to spend time just with him and that he might need to reassure her. He ignored the advice of Tracey Clarke that the older children should not attend the contact on 7 April 2014.  When this was put to him he was defensive, saying: “It’s not unusual for my children to be at my home...It was natural for my children to want to see their sisters” and he could not fault them. He missed the point because he focussed on the needs of the older children and did not consider what might be the needs of the younger ones.

I do not consider that the older children’s (“unislamic”) behaviour has played no part in the Mother’s decision to stop contact, but nor do I consider that it is the only reason or even the primary reason.  I accept her evidence that A was reluctant to see the Father earlier in the year (2013) even if she did have a good time when she saw him and her older siblings. I am also concerned that, as far as I am aware, the Mother did not seek any advice, e.g. from her GP, as to whether or how contact could be re-established. 

The behaviour of both parents has contributed to a long break in A and B’s contact with their father and older siblings and in the process A’s position appears to have become entrenched.

10       The court’s approach to the issue of contact between A and B and the Father

At the end of the hearing I indicated that I would ask Ms Clarke (who was not at court) whether she could facilitate and supervise contact, at least between the Father and B in the interval prior to the next hearing on 2 June 2014. He had agreed that his older children would not participate in the contact. Unfortunately, she was unable to do so, due to other work commitments. Her report will be filed and served by 28 May and I will consider it, with the parties, on 2 June.