FD24P00534 - [2025] EWHC 717 (Fam)

The father’s evidence

The father completely denied acting in the ways ascribed to him by the mother. He said that he had gone out of his way to be generous to the mother’s family and for her to be able to speak to them on a free telephone number which he himself set up. He denies controlling the money, saying that both of them had access to each other’s bank accounts. In any event, the money they each earned is modest, and any extras (such as presents or plane tickets) usually have to be funded by the paternal grandparents.

The father denied being physically or sexually abusive to the mother or the children. He said that he had always respected the mother and never had sex with her unless she consented. He said that there were lengthy periods of time when they did not have sex, and that she would more often say no than yes, which led him to believe that their sexual relationship was not a normal one, but that he never forced her to do anything, or carried on in the face of a refusal.

When the father was asked in his police interview if the mother enjoyed sex, he said ‘I don’t know’. In the same interview, he gave a description of asking her, and suggested that he was desperate because they had not had sex for several weeks but if she said no then he remained quietly in his bed. He also said that he did not remember if there was an occasion when she said she wanted to stop having sex once they had started, and mentioned for the first time in his oral evidence (he said this was because he found it difficult to talk of it) that there were times in the last year of their relationship that she really wanted sex, and some times when she really did not.

The father denied causing the mother any injury, during sex or otherwise. He denied having kicked her, shouted at her or ill-treating her in any way. He also denied shouting or screaming at the children, or being overly rough with them. He did say that there was an occasion when R had moved when he was cleaning her ear, which had caused some blood, but was vague about where the bleeding had come from, or how much there was.

He firmly denied allowing the children to touch his genitals, whether with their feet or hands, or doing anything sexual with them at all. He described situations where he and the mother disagreed about whether he should allow the children into bed when they were scared at night, and as to whether he should wash one of the children when she said it hurt. He acknowledged telling one of the children she would have to have another suppository (which she had hated) if she was not able to open her bowels.

Although the father gave his interview to the police in English, he gave evidence in court through an interpreter, as at times his understanding of the nuances of particular words is lacking. I have borne in mind the fact that he did not have an interpreter when he was speaking to the police.

The father showed some irritation when being cross-examined at various points, answering some questions with a question. Nonetheless, he was willing to expand on various matters that were in his statement and interviews, and, like the mother, to explain what are deeply personal matters.

In the course of considering all the evidence in the case I am acutely aware that this couple are part of a relatively small religious group with its own customs and culture. The community is a close one, where a lot of people know each other, or at least of each other. Moreover, those within the group, such as these parents, have had limited dealings with the outside world. There was an element of naivety that I saw in them both which seemed to reflect their upbringing, including being married after only one or two meetings, and having no other sexual experiences.