[2025] EWHC 1064 (Fam)

As this court observed nearly ten years ago now in H v A (No1) [2015] EWFC 58, the bundle of rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority that compromise parental responsibility are contingent on and inseparably connected with a parent’s obligation to meet the welfare needs of the child. Where a parent chooses to exercise an aspect of their parental responsibility in a way that is detrimental to the welfare of the child the court may prescribe, to whatever extent is in the child’s best interests and proportionate, the exercise of parental responsibility. In this case, having regard to the matters set out above, I am satisfied that the mother has repeatedly chosen to exercise her parental responsibility for Adam in a manner that adversely impacts on his welfare such that it is necessary and proportionate to make prohibited steps orders and a specific issue order restricting the exercise of the mother’s parental responsibility in order to safeguard and promote Adam’s welfare.

It is clear on the evidence before the court that the mother perpetrated a premeditated and blatant abduction of Adam from the care of his father, in breach of orders put in place by the court and in circumstances that must have been frightening for Adam. Thereafter, the mother prevented Adam from having any relationship with his father for a period of eight months, during which time she kept Adam concealed from the court, from the police and from the statutory authorities. I accept the evidence of the Children’s Guardian that Adam has suffered significant emotional, social and educational harm as a result of the mother’s actions, being suddenly and dramatically removed from the life he was settled into at school and with his father in June 2024 and being kept hidden for 8 months, during which he was deprived of his developing social life and independence.

The abduction of Adam by the mother in June 2024, and his subsequent concealment for a period of eight months, stood at the end of a long line of conduct by the mother whereby she took unilateral decisions on matters of parental responsibility to the exclusion of the father, including changing Adam’s nursery and preventing the father having contact with medical and educational professionals. Further, there is ample evidence before the court that the mother has obstructed the exercise of parental responsibility by the father. This has extended to making repeated false allegations against the father. The mother has, on the evidence before the court, also shown herself repeatedly to be unable to work with professionals concerned with Adam’s welfare, on occasion actively seeking to obstruct them to Adam’s detriment.

Within this context, there is evidenced in the papers a long history of the mother being unable to share parental responsibility with the father to Adam’s benefit. I am satisfied that the matters I have summarised render it likely that the mother will frustrate the exercise of parental responsibility by the father in seeking to meet his welfare needs and the work of professionals seeking to work with Adam to mitigate the damage caused by the mother’s actions. Given the mother’s history of the most blatant disregard for court orders, I am not satisfied that these difficulties could be managed simply by, for example, attaching conditions to a child arrangements order or accepting undertakings from the mother, as she now seeks in her statement to offer to the court. The mother’s pattern of non-compliance with orders of the court, and her propensity for taking unilateral action in respect of Adam, necessitate stricter orders.

Finally, given the history of the mother abducting and concealing Adam, including the employment of third parties, extreme lengths to avoid police detection over an extended period, I consider there remains a very high risk of further abduction by the mother. In this context, I am satisfied that Adam’s safety and security further militates against the mother being able to exercise parental responsibility in respect of him in an unfettered manner, particularly with regard to receiving information that may disclose to her the whereabouts of Adam’s home, school, leisure activities and general practitioner. In this regard, I accept the view of the Children’s Guardian that:

“I would also support Mr Glanville’s application to limit Ms Mahmoud’s rights due to having parental responsibility and in particular her rights to access information concerning her son. I recommend she should not be provided with knowledge of Adam’s address nor the identity or location of his school; and should not be provided with health and education updates except for general updates as to Adam’s wellbeing. Any school/health reports should be anonymised Mr Glanville should be free to travel without providing information as to his destination or return.”

Once again, Dr Derry’s expert opinion is that the mother’s conduct in the past predicts that the mother will 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. Within this context I am satisfied that there is no current prospect of the mother’s behaviour changing such that the matters militating against her exercising parental responsibility for Adam in a manner that meets his welfare needs can be mitigated. Once again, there is at present no evidence before the court that the approach of the mother, and the thinking that underpins that approach, has been addressed by her to the extent that she would now be able to co-operate constructively with the father in the exercise of parental responsibility for Adam.

This conclusion is reinforced by the contents of the mother’s statement of 1 April 2025. In that document, the mother disputes the validity of orders that have already been made by the court, repeats allegations against the father that have already been rejected by the court and denies any wrongdoing in respect of Adam’s abduction in June 2024 or any adverse impact on Adam in consequence of that abduction, the mother instead contending that her actions were justified and that her actions have always been in Adam’s best interests. Indeed, in her statement the mother goes so far as to blame the father for her conduct in abducting Adam by contending that it was the father who forced her into this action by fabricating a case against her. Rather than addressing Adam’s physical, emotional and educational needs, the mother’s statement of 1 April 2025 concentrates almost exclusively and in detail on her grievances regarding the litigation process and conduct of professionals. For example, the mother maintains her allegation that the judgment of Francis J handed down in March 2024 “was falsely drafted by the father’s legal team, containing entirely untrue information”. The mother’s clear perception that she has been the co-operative and reasonable party during the course of these proceedings is particularly troubling.

In the foregoing circumstances, and acknowledging as I do that such orders represent an interference with the freedom the mother to make her own decisions regarding Adam as a parent with parental responsibility, I am satisfied that having regard to the matters set out in s.1 of the Children Act 1989, and treating Adam’s best interests as my paramount consideration, that it is in Adam’s best interests, and necessary and proportionate, to make the following prohibited steps and specific issue orders pursuant to s.8 of the Children Act 1989 to circumscribe the exercise of the mother’s parental responsibility for Adam until he reaches the age of majority:

Within the context of the foregoing orders, and the limitations they place on the exercise of the mother’s parental responsibility, I am satisfied that the provisions for indirect contact should be contained in the final order should include a provision requiring the father to provide to the mother periodically appropriately anonymised general updates on Adam’s educational and social progress and to notify the mother in appropriately anonymised terms in the event that Adam suffers a serious illness or accident.