England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions >> B (A Child), Re [2015] EWHC 3552 (Fam) (05 November 2015)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2015/3552.html
Cite as: [2015] EWHC 3552 (Fam)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

		Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 3552 (Fam)
		Case No: LS15W00234

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
LEEDS DISTRICT REGISTRY

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OF: RE B (A CHILD)

Civil Hearing Centre
Coverdale House
13-15 East Parade
Leeds
LS1 2BH

5th November 2015

B e f o r e :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOLMAN
(sitting throughout in public)
____________________

Re: B (A Child)

____________________

Transcribed from the Official Tape Recording by
Apple Transcription Limited
Suite 204, Kingfisher Business Centre, Burnley Road, Rawtenstall, Lancashire BB4 8ES
DX: 26258 Rawtenstall – Telephone: 0845 604 5642 – Fax: 01706 870838

____________________

The Applicant appeared In Person
The First Respondent Mother did not appear and was not represented
Solicitor for the Second Respondent, Mrs NB: Mr Richard Ward

Hearing dates: 5th November 2015
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

MR JUSTICE HOLMAN:

This matter was listed before me for a short hearing today. The essential background appears to be that the applicant, Mr UA, was in a relationship here in England with a lady, FB. FB gave birth to a child, E, on 19^th November 2013, so E is now almost but not quite 2.

The facts are that Mr A was never lawfully married to FB. He is not named on the child's birth certificate as the father of the child. He does not have parental responsibility for the child; and indeed, as he has himself confirmed to me this morning, he has never actually seen the child. It appears that the child has always lived with her mother, FB. They were living in England, but in early March 2015 FB, with E, flew to Pakistan. There is no evidence that the mother or child have ever since returned to England and Wales, and the strong probability is that they have not.

On 26^th March 2015 Mr UA issued an application seeking to make the child a ward of court and to promote her return to England and Wales. At a hearing here in Leeds on 27^th July 2015 Her Honour Judge Hillier made a detailed order, the principle provisions of which are that the child was made a ward of court and the mother was ordered to return her to England and Wales. At that time the mother was not in fact engaged in the proceedings, and fairly obviously she knew nothing about them at all. The applicant did not know the whereabouts of the mother or child in Pakistan, and various orders and directions were made to try to establish the whereabouts and achieve a line of communication with the mother.

The mother's own sister, Miss HB, and her sister-in-law, Mrs NB, are both present in court today. Mrs NB is very well represented by her solicitor, Mr Richard Ward. The clearly stated position by and on behalf of Mrs NB and Miss HB is that they themselves do not know the current whereabouts of the mother and child in Pakistan. However, there is an established line of email communication with the mother through an email address, [email address of mother given]. As a result of that, the mother has in fact sent two emails. The first, dated 25^th September 2015, was sent to the court here at Leeds for the attention of Her Honour Judge Nancy Hillier. The second, dated 26^th October 2015, was sent to Mr Richard Ward, the solicitor on behalf of Mrs NB, but copied in also to an official of the court here. I have read both those emails.

Of course, I can only take at face value what they say, but it does appear from those emails that at the time the mother arrived in Pakistan, or very soon indeed afterwards, she formed a settled intention not to return with the child here to England and Wales. She presents that part of her motivation was that she was seeking to get well away from the difficult relationship with the applicant, whom she describes (I stress that I make no findings whatsoever in regard to this) as a violent or abusive man.

She gives an account of her situation in Pakistan. She says that she has now married and has a loving husband, a beautiful home with servants for herself and her daughter, a functional family, and a happy and safe home environment. She says that she does not wish to disclose her address to anyone in the United Kingdom, and that if the applicant wishes to pursue his claims he should come to Pakistan and first undertake a paternity test. I do not understand her emails to be saying in terms that he is not the father of the child; but they do appear to raise the question of whether he may or may not, in fact, be the father of the child.

In all the circumstances of this case, it seems to me that it is not appropriate that this child should continue to be a ward of the court here in England and Wales, or that the mother should continue to be under a legal obligation to return the child here, as she is under the order of 27^th July 2015.

In reaching that conclusion I take into account the following facts. First, the father has never seen the child. Second, he is not named on the birth certificate and was never lawfully married to the mother and does not have parental responsibility for the child. Third, it is at any rate doubtful (although I do not make any definitive ruling on the point) whether on the date of commencement of these proceedings, namely, 26^th March 2015, the child was still habitually resident here in England and Wales. Fourth, although I can only take the emails of the mother at face value, it appears that the child is living with her mother in an apparently settled environment in Pakistan. She has been there since the beginning of March 2015, now some eight months in the life of a child who, when all is said and done, is still not yet 2 years old. In the circumstances, it seems to me that it is no longer appropriate that the English court, at a distance, should try to exert any jurisdiction or authority over this child or her mother.

It seems to me highly inappropriate that the mother should be under some continuing legal duty under orders of this court to return the child to England and Wales for very doubtful good purpose. Even if the child was returned here for the purpose of some hearing, it seems inevitable that the mother would be permitted to return with the child to Pakistan and resume her now apparently settled life there. The blunt reality is that if this applicant wishes to pursue proceedings or remedies in relation to this child, he must now take his quest to Pakistan where the child herself is. I do, of course, have some sympathy with the position of the applicant on an assumption that he is the father, but overall I am very, very clear that these proceedings should now come to an end.

[Judgment ends]