[2025] EWHC 1064 (Fam)

As made clear by the Court of Appeal in Re S (Permission to Seek Relief), in determining whether the mother has demonstrated a need for renewed judicial investigation or an arguable case, it is self-evident that the mother must have addressed the conduct that led to the making of an order under s.91(14) of the 1989 Act if her application for permission to apply is to warrant a renewed judicial investigation or represent an arguable case. Having regard to the matters set out above, and despite the comprehensive submissions of Ms Patang on behalf of the mother, I am satisfied that the mother has not addressed the matters that led to Francis J imposing an order under s.91(14) of the Children Act 1989 and has not demonstrated a need for renewed judicial investigation or an arguable case.

Dr Derry concluded that before the mother was in a position to meet Adam’s emotional needs “There would need to be some shift in her thinking about her need for dominance and control within relationships and of her parenting and vicariously controlling Adam's relationship with his father”. There is no evidence before the court that the mother has made this shift and developed any insight into the adverse impact on Adam of her behaviour. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary. In her report, the Children’s Guardian concludes that:

“My work with Ms Mahmoud and with Mr Glanville has led me to find Ms Mahmoud deceptive, dishonest and brazenly combative, and it is often difficult to believe her account of virtually any matter big or small. She has asserted that there are undertones of racism/xenophobia, and that professionals in this case have displayed impropriety which amounts to disbarment from their profession (including purported police complaints). Despite there being zero evidence of such impropriety, and despite there being responses from objective bodies dismissing her concerns, she perpetuates the same issues without any concern nor remorse.”

In his report dated 19 April 2024, Dr Derry noted that the mother continued to “contest every aspect of the Court’s findings” and continued to attempt to persuade Dr Derry that she “was the innocent victim of domestic violence, that leaving the country with Adam was within her rights, or that this was at Mr Glanville’s behest” and that “the findings of the court were false and were predicated on the Court’s racist attitudes towards her.” During the course of her submissions to this court nearly a year later, it was clear that Ms Patang had been instructed by the mother to concentrate on the mother’s persisting grievances against the father, against the court and against the professionals, at the expense of any substantive arguments regarding Adam’s best interests. Through Ms Patang, the mother made clear to the court that she continues to refute the findings made by Francis J, persists in her view that she has been the victim of a grave injustice at the hands of the court and of professionals and disputes that her conduct in June 2024 amounted to the abduction of Adam. In this context, I accept the analysis of the Children’s Guardian about the validity of the mother’s assurances of change made to the court:

“Ms Mahmoud has failed completely to reassure those involved in planning for Adam’s future that she would not again attempt to extract Adam suddenly and devastatingly from his settled and happy life with his father. She has provided no acceptable explanations of her actions beyond believing she is the subject of a conspiracy against her. She tells us she ‘sincerely apologises’ to the court for removing her son. She tells us she had ‘strong reasons’ for doing so. And yet she perpetuates multiple strands of already disproven concerns as a means of meeting her own needs, evidenced most recently in her (now dismissed) appeal. It would very much appear that any apology, acknowledgement or insight is not genuinely held, and is rather with a tactical/strategic aim.”

In his addendum report in May 2024, Dr Derry considered that the history of the matter predicted that the mother would continue to maintain an adversarial attitude towards the father in circumstances where the mother had been unable to accept the findings made against her as indicating a need to change her attitudes towards relationships and parenting. On the basis of the information before the court, I am satisfied that indeed remains the position.

Finally, I agree with the Children’s Guardian that the mother continues to present a serious risk of abduction and that Adam would be at risk of significant harm should his mother discover his whereabouts and again attempt to abduct him. Francis J was satisfied in July 2024 that the mother:

“...is reckless as to whether she harms Adam or not. I do not go so far as to find that she is deliberately causing emotional harm to Adam, although I think it is probably true that she does not much mind if she does if it furthers her long-term goal of removing Adam from the care of his father and the reach of this Court”.

In the foregoing circumstances, and having regard to the fact that Adam has now been the subject of litigation for the majority of his young life and his urgent emotional need for a period of security and stability in the care of his father, I am satisfied that the mother has failed to demonstrate a need for renewed judicial investigation or an arguable case justifying permission to make a further application for a child arrangements order.

I am further satisfied that the mother’s motivation for making an application for a child arrangements order is not one centred on Adam’s best interests, but rather remains her desire to continue her adversarial battle with the father and to dominate the parenting of Adam to his exclusion. I am further satisfied that, beyond the indirect contact proposed by the father and supported by the Children’s Guardian, having regard to the history of repeated child abduction in this case it would be wholly unsafe to permit the mother to have the level of contact she seeks at this stage, namely unsupervised shared care of Adam. I accept the evidence of the Children’s Guardian that the current limits to any contact should be maintained unless and until the mother accepts her actions have been damaging to Adam and embarks on significant and comprehensive therapy.

In the circumstances, I dismiss the mother’s application for permission to apply for a child arrangements order. For the avoidance of doubt, the order made by Francis J under s.91(14) of the Children Act 1989 on 9 July 2024 remains in force such that the mother is prohibited until 18.00hrs on 9 July 2029, or until further order, from making any application for a child arrangements order without first obtaining the permission of the court.