Case No. MA22P02300

INTRODUCTION1.The substantive proceedings in this matter concern twin girls, S and E, born in December 2011 and now 10 years old and their full siblings, H, a boy born in October 2015 and now aged 7 and D, a girl born in March 2017 and now aged five. The children are not parties to the contempt application but are today represented through their Children’s Guardian by Ms Helen Wilkinson of counsel. The substantive application before the court is application by Manchester City Council for wardship order in respect of the children, an order for summary return to this jurisdiction and location orders, issued on 13 October 2022. Manchester City Counsel is represented by Ms Mann of counsel.2.On 14 November 2022, HHJ Singleton KC made location orders in respect of the children. This matter now comes before the court on the local authority’s application to commit the mother and the father of the children, Maryam Yusef and Farad Abdi, for contempt of court for failing to comply with the terms of those location orders. The mother is represented by Mr Lord, solicitor. Whilst the father was granted legal aid by the court at the outset of these contempt proceedings and was represented by counsel at the last hearing before this court, at that hearing counsel representing the father applied to withdraw on the grounds that she was professionally embarrassed, which application the court granted. The father is today unrepresented. He informs me that he has now also dispensed with the services of his solicitors and indicated that he now represents himself. He did not make an application to further adjourn this hearing.3.In determining this matter, the court has had the benefit of the evidence provided by the police, arising from the arrest of the parents on behalf of the Tipstaff on suspicion of failing to comply with the location order, together with a statement of the mother, and the exhibits thereto, provided subsequent to her arrest. No party has sought to challenge the evidence of the police officers recording the exchanges that took place on arrest.BACKGROUND4.The children were born in the United Kingdom and were habitually resident in the United Kingdom at the time they were removed from this jurisdiction in March 2022. The father shares parental responsibility for the children. The parents are Somalian, although the mother is understood also to have Dutch Nationality. The children also have Dutch passports, but are not on the Dutch National Register and the Dutch authorities report that the children are not known to the Dutch immigration and naturalisation authorities. It is not at present clear how the children and the mother came to be Dutch citizens. The court has invited the local authority to inform the Dutch authorities as to the current circumstances of the mother and the children. The father’s nationality remains unknown as he has thus far failed to produce his travel documents, although he claims recently to have gained British citizenship. The families immigration status in the United Kingdom is currently the subject of a request for clarification from the Home Office.5.The Family were first referred to Manchester Children’s Services in 2012 due to concerns relating to parental domestic abuse and physical chastisement of the children, the local authority having been made aware by a neighbour of disturbances at the family home in from which it was alleged shouting and slapping noises could be heard. At that stage, the mother alleged that the father would not allow her to leave her home, controlled her finances and had taken her passport. On 6 March 2012 the mother allegedly ran away from the family home. In her statement to this court, the mother alleges in respect of the father that:“Throughout the relationship he was controlling and aggressive. There were many occasions when he was violent and I would say the relationship was very abusive. He is very religious and has a hard-line view of our religion. He controlled almost every aspect of my life.”6.A Core Assessment was completed, and the mother retracted the claims of domestic violence. In circumstances where there was no evidence of domestic violence, the case closed. 7.The mother made further allegations of domestic violence and physical harm in September 2013. In particular, the mother alleged that on Saturday 28 September 2013 she was feeding the twins when S started to misbehave and spit food, leading to the father to slap her on the left cheek causing a 1 cm red mark and resulting in S screaming and then choking on her food. During this incident the father is also alleged to have slapped the mother and, later in the day, to have grabbed the mother by the wrist, twisted it backwards and slapped her again. On Sunday 29 September 2013 the mother is said to have left the house, gone to a friend’s house, and reported the incident to the Police. The father was arrested and bailed away from the family home. S and E were made subject to Child Protection plans under the category of physical abuse until March 2014. The police took no further action after the mother retracted her statement to the police. The case was later closed to Manchester Children Services following Child Protection planning and Child in Need planning. The father had completed a domestic violence course and had returned home with no further incidents reported. 8.The family were not known to the local authority between 2014 and 2019. However, on 16 December 2019, Manchester Children Services received a referral from the mother’s sister raising concerns for the welfare of the mother and the children. It was alleged that neither parent took good care of the children, that there was ongoing domestic abuse and that the father was abusing drugs. Upon investigation, it transpired that the family had been in Dagenham since September 2019. Dagenham Children’s Services undertook a Strategy Discussion, a s. 47 investigation and an assessment in in January 2020. The mother was said to have been very difficult to engage and uncontactable. Whilst the local authority attempted three unannounced visits to the home, social workers were unable to gain access. 9.The children were enrolled in school on the 17 December 2019 by the father. On 11 February 2020, it transpired that the father had used a false address to enrol the children. There was a further period of minimal involvement by social services. The children report that they were taken by the mother to Turkey in 2020, where they were left in the care of an aunt for a month.10.On 14 March 2022, police attended the family home. The school were told by H that the mother had been taken away by the police, and the head teacher spoke to S and E the following day. On 15 March 2022 the children spoke about their lives at home, detailing their alleged exposure to the parents’ volatile relationship and made a number of allegations of physically and emotionally abusive conduct towards them on the part of the parents and significant allegations of ongoing domestic abuse between the parents. The children stated that they had been told that they must not say anything to anyone and that they would be in trouble if they did. They described their parents as fighting a lot, and that they were “like a drama series”. The children were fearful of their parents finding out what they had said and the parents were not informed of the allegations when they collected the children from school. A referral was made to children’s services by the school. The children made further allegations to the school on 16 March 2022.11.The social worker spoke to the mother on 17 March 2022 about the issue of domestic abuse in the home and offered counselling for the children. The mother stated that she wished to speak to the father before agreeing to any counselling. The children did not attend school on 18 March 2022. A strategy meeting took place on that date and the father was spoken to about the domestic violence incident but not the allegations made by S and E. The father accepted that there had been an argument and claimed that the mother was now in London with the children whilst she “calmed down”. The children were again not taken to school and on 21 March 2022. The school were again informed by the father that the children were in London. He further claimed that the children would now be going to New York. 12.On the 23 of March 2022 the Police visited the family home and spoke to the father. He refused to give the specific whereabouts of the children other than saying that they are in New York. The police spoke to the mother and the children on phone but the mother was not forthcoming with information. On the 25 of March 2022 a follow up strategy discussion was held whereby the Police shared that Border Force checks had showed that Mrs Yusef and all the children had flown to Istanbul on 18 March, not New York. Border alerts were implemented on the children so authorities would be alerted if the children re-enter the United Kingdom. 13.In her statement to the court in the proceedings, the mother now accepts that she removed the children from the jurisdiction on 18 March 2022, but contends that this was not in response to allegations made by children but rather to secure urgent medical treatment for S. In this regard, her statement provides as follows:“10.In March 2022 I went to Turkey with the children on my own. This was for S to receive urgent medical treatment. I had been to Turkey previously on holiday in 2020 and I was aware that they offered a very good and efficient medical service. In 2020 we spent the whole summer staying with Mr Abdi’s sister, Shuruuq Abdi. S had been in pain for some time, complaining of stomach cramps. Teachers at school had noticed this and had informed me that the pain she was in was affecting her running and general movement. I had understood that Mr Abdi had spoken to the GP practice … but was told that S was fine and did not need any treatment. They said that she had a rash and might need some cream. We thought it was much more serious than that due to the level of pain she was in.11.I know my children and I knew that S wasn’t right. I was extremely concerned about her deteriorating health and I was willing to pay whatever I needed to get her seen urgently. I flew to Istanbul and urgently sought medical attention. I was informed that if I had left it 24 hours later S’s appendix would have burst. Her appendix was immediately removed. I have provided medical evidence to the police which confirms this. This is all in Turkish however. We stayed with Mr Abdi’s sister for the length of that stay.”14.Whilst on its face an incredible claim, translated medical documents from Turkey do corroborate the mother’s claim that she travelled to Turkey to seek treatment for S’s acute appendicitis. The mother’s passport, now disclosed by her, indicates that the mother did travel to Turkey on the dates claimed.15.The Mother alleges that in April 2022 she then flew from Turkey to Somalia with the children. The mother further alleges that this course of action was taken as she was under duress from the father and the wider paternal family. The mother alleges that on arrival in Somalia she and the children were collected at the airport by the paternal uncle, Said Abdulqadir, and other males who the mother had never met before. The mother contends she felt extremely uncomfortable and intimidated, that her phone was immediately taken off her as was her passport and the children’s passports. The mother states that she and the children were taken to a gated community in Mogadishu.16.At this point, for reasons that are hard to fathom in light of the history recounted in this judgment thus far, a Service Manager for the local authority decided that proceedings should not be instituted in respect of the children in circumstances where the children had left the jurisdiction and it was believed, wrongly, that the court had no jurisdiction to make orders. This was patently incorrect as the current application demonstrates. Equally remarkably, the case was thereafter simply closed by Manchester City Council. In due course, I shall be directing that the Head of Children’s Services, and the Head of Legal Services, for Manchester City Council write to the court to explain the apparent failure to pursue proceedings in respect of the children in a timely fashion. That decision of the local authority to take this course is thrown into even starker relief given the following analysis contained in the social worker’s statement in support of the application for relief under the inherent jurisdiction that was ultimately issued by the local authority some seven months after the children had been removed from the jurisdiction:“Prior to the children’s disappearance, S and E have extensively voiced their lived experiences which is centred around domestic abuse within the family home. Despite multiple local authorities being involved, historic child protection planning and [the father] completing domestic abuse courses it Is clear that this interventions have not reduced the risk to the children as the domestic abuse continued throughout the children’s lives which they have witnessed. This will have been extremely distressing for the children and caused them to be fearful and feel unsafe at home and based on S and E’s last conversations with school it is evident that the children have been significantly impacted by violence and aggression they have witnessed from their parents. Although H and D’s voice has not been ascertained at present, it is clear that they are highly likely to have witnessed the domestic abuse and are more than likely to share the views of S and E.”And“There are increasing concerns that the children have been subjected to physical harm by both [the father] and [the mother] whilst in their care. S and E have made significant allegations of physical chastisement throughout all the children’s lives and these concerns were what prompted the local authority to make S and E subject to Child Protection planning and despite this intervention, the children have continued to be subjected to physical harm by both parents. The local authority have been unable to address the specific concerns with [the father] and [the mother] due to the perceived risk to the children as their whereabouts are currently unknown. The local authority would be concerned if the full range of concerns were discussed with the parents at this time, this may leave the children at risk of further significant harm when parents discover that they have told professionals about the physical and emotional abuse that has occurred, and it is also not know whether the children are currently experiencing this harm.”17.Subsequent checks with the UK Border Force indicated that the mother returned back to the United Kingdom alone in April 2022. In her recent statement the mother contends that, approximately two weeks after arriving in Somalia, she was woken in the middle of the night and forcefully removed from the property by the father’s cousin, Abdul Kadir, and forced into a car. The mother further alleges that she was thereafter taken to the airport and put on a flight to England, landing in Manchester where the father met her. The mother says the father stated that he would return to Somalia to recover the children and that she remained with him in the hope that he would do this as soon as possible.18.Within this context, the mother alleges that in May 2022 the father travelled to Somalia whilst she remained in England. The Police have provided information that the mother’s bank accounts were used in Manchester on the 16 of May 2022. The mother states that the father assured her the that the children were safe and well in that jurisdiction and promised that he would return them to England. Whilst the mother says the father facilitated some telephone contact between her and the children, in May or June 2022 she asserts that the father returned to England without the children. Whilst the father has denied that he travelled to Somalia in May 2022, a boarding pass for a flight home to Addis Ababa dated 6 May 2022 was located at his property following his arrest. 19.In seeking to explain why she failed immediately to report the children as having been abducted, the mother alleges that the father threatened that if she reported the children missing, he would make sure she got sent to prison and never had any form of contact with them again. The mother contends this explains her delay in reporting the children missing, and before this court she states that she regrets deeply taking that course. The mother contends that she and the father separated in May or June 2022. 20.Instead of reporting the matter to the authorities in this jurisdiction, the mother contends she travelled to Somalia to try and find the children herself, without informing the father. The mother’s now surrendered passport indicates that she left for Turkey again on the 12th August 2022. The mother then flew to Somalia on 14 August 2022. The police have provided information that indicates that the mother’s bank accounts were used in London on the 11 of August 2022 and that on 13 August 2022 the mother’s internet banking app was accessed in Somalia where a transaction was made to someone bearing the surname of the father. The mother thereafter emailed the children’s school on 16 August 2022 to say that she did not know where the children are. She alleged that they had been kidnapped by the father and may be in the UK. 21.The mother further asserts in her statement that whilst in Somalia she attended the police station in Mogadishu on a daily basis and also made an application to the Somalian Court to try to locate the address of a house owned by the father, but occupied by his uncle. In this context, the mother contends that the Somalian Court issued warrant for the arrest of the father’s cousin, Xiss Mohammed and that pursuant to the warrant the police were able to gain entry to latter’s property, which was empty. The documents from Somalia now exhibited to the mother’s statement appear to corroborate the mother’s account in this regard, one of the documents translated being the warrant the mother describes. The mother contends that her own father also flew out to Somalia to help me search for the children. 22.The mother alleges that during the period in which she was in Somalia the father sent her a voice note threatening that she should “behave” and stating that she had no right to go to Somalia to search for the children without his permission. The voice note is in Somali and has been provided to the police. A certified translation of the voice-recording is exhibited to the mother’s statement. The father did not seek to deny that his is the male voice that can be heard on the voice note. Of note in light of the mother’s contention regarding the warrant issued by the Somali court, the voice note records the father admonishing the mother for “going to the house without telling me so that you can take the children back to England”. In this context, the certified translation of the call repays recitation in full:“