![[2025] EWHC 1064 (Fam)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_0FrGysm.png){kind=logo}
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The detailed background to this matter is set out in the judgments of Francis J and this judgment should be read with those judgments (see Glanville v Mahmoud [2024] EWHC 1739 (Fam)). On 8 April 2020 HHJ Willans made a child arrangements order by consent that provided for Adam to live with the mother and to spend time with the father as provided in that order. That order also prohibited either party removing Adam from the jurisdiction of England and Wales without the written consent of the other parent or further order of the court.
The mother applied on 21 February 2022 to suspend and vary the child arrangements order made on 8 April 2020. On 7 April 2022 the father issued a cross-application to vary that order. On 10 May 2022 the mother made an application for an order under s.91(14) of the Children Act 1989. On 26 May 2022 Adam was joined as a party to the proceedings and a NYAS Guardian was appointed pursuant to FPR 2010 r.16.4. On 14 November 2022 the mother left the jurisdiction of England and Wales with Adam without obtaining the consent of the father, traveling to Oman for 8 weeks. This was in breach of the terms of the child arrangements order of 8 April 2020. NYAS applied for a location order and a prohibited steps order. The parents’ cross applications to vary were finalised by consent on 21 December 2022 by way of a further child arrangements order that again provided for Adam to live with his mother and spend time with his father. Adam was returned to the jurisdiction of England and Wales on 26 December 2022. The prohibition on removing Adam from the jurisdiction of England and Wales without the written permission of the other parent was repeated.
On 11 September 2023, the mother alleged to the police that the father had made death threats against her and applied for a non-molestation order. On the same date the father applied for a location order and a passport order after being notified by the police that the mother intended to leave the jurisdiction with Adam by air. A location order was granted by Williams J on that date without notice to the mother and the mother’s passport seized after she had been turned away from the airport. On 13 September 2023 the father applied for a child arrangements order, including an order that provided that Adam reside temporarily with the father. The mother issued a cross-application on 19 September 2023. Adam was again joined as a party to the proceedings on 5 October 2023 and a NYAS Guardian appointed. The order of 5 October 2023 provided for the father to have additional contact with Adam. However, on 20 October 2023 the mother wrote to the court stating that she could not and would not obey the order of 5 October 2023.
On 18 October 2023, HHJ Downey refused an application by the mother for her passports to be released to her to enable her to travel to Egypt. On 23 October 2023, the mother again left the jurisdiction of England and Wales with Adam and travelled to Belfast by ferry without obtaining the consent of the father, in contravention of the order of 21 December 2022 and despite the existence of the location order and the passport and port alert provisions contained therein. The mother returned Adam to the jurisdiction on 24 October 2023. On 24 November 2023, HHJ Parker sitting as a Judge of the High Court made a further passport order in respect of the mother. The order of HHJ Parker of 24 November 2023 records that the court was concerned that the mother had avoided detection by the National Border Targeting Centre and that Adam may have been removed with the assistance of traffickers.
Within the foregoing context, on 24 November 2023 the court made an order that Adam live with his father until the next hearing. The mother’s application to set aside the order of HHJ Parker of 24 November 2023 was dismissed on 28 November 2023. On 8 December 2023 HHJ Downey made an order preventing the mother from making an application with respect to where Adam should live without the permission of the court. Adam continued to reside with the father. The final report of the Children’s Guardian notes that in late 2023 and early 2024 Adam appeared happy and relaxed living with his father. On 26 February 2024, the father applied for permission to remove Adam permanently from the jurisdiction of England and Wales to the jurisdiction of the Netherlands in consequence of his job being moved to that country following the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union.
On 6 March 2024, following a finding of fact hearing, Francis J determined that the removal of Adam from the jurisdiction of England and Wales by the mother on 10 November 2022 was wrongful and done in knowing breach of the order of 8 April 2022. Francis J was further satisfied that the attempt by the mother on 11 September 2023 to remove Adam from the jurisdiction was not provoked by the father making a threat to kill the mother, Francis J rejecting that allegation as unfounded. Francis J further found that the mother’s removal of Adam to Northern Ireland between 21 and 24 October 2023 was wrongful and that the mother’s case as to the circumstances of that removal was fabricated. Francis J was satisfied that the mother’s intention was to put Adam beyond the jurisdiction of the English High Court. Finally, Francis J found that the mother had a propensity to make false and baseless allegations against the father for the purpose of harassing and abusing him, with there being no evidence to substantiate her repeated allegations of abuse or that the father had acted inappropriately with regard to Adam’s care. Having assessed the mother’s credibility, Francis J was not prepared to accept the mother’s evidence on any matter save where it was corroborated with independent evidence. He concluded that the mother “is not competent to have any time on her own with him at all, not even within a contact centre.”
Following the finding of fact hearing in March 2024, the court gave permission for a jointly instructed psychological assessment of the family. That family assessment was provided in April 2024 by Dr Derry, Consultant Clinical Psychologist. The key conclusions of that assessment, as also reiterated in Dr Derry’s oral evidence to which I shall come, were as follows:
The mother exhibited significant anger and hostility towards the father, her anger being palpable and pervasive and influencing her actions and decisions concerning Adam.
The mother demonstrated a lack of insight into the impact of her behaviours on Adam’s welfare, being unable to recognise the manner in which her actions, and in particular her attempts to remove Adam from his father’s care, impacted detrimentally on Adam’s emotional wellbeing.
The mother had a tendency to manipulate situations to her own advantage, prioritising her own needs of those of Adam. The manipulative behaviour exhibited by the mother was evident in her interactions with professionals and in her attempts to control the proceedings before the court.
The mother presented a high risk of absconding with Adam having regard to the history of the matter and the previous actions of the mother and her ability to evade detection.
Within the foregoing context, Adam had suffered emotional harm due to the instability and stressors introduced to his life by the mother’s actions, which created a volatile and unpredictable environment for Adam. Adam exhibited signs of stress and anxiety directly linked to the ongoing conflict and instability in his life.
It was very important that Adam be provided with a stable and secure environment. Adam should remain in his father’s care to ensure his emotional and psychological wellbeing. Contact with his mother should be supervised to ensure Adam’s safety and legal restrictions should be implemented to ensure that Adam could not be removed by his mother from the care of his father.
The mother strongly disputed the conclusions of Dr Derry. She denied that she had acted in a manipulative manner and maintained that she had always acted in Adam’s best interests. With respect to the risk of absconding identified by Dr Derry, the mother contended that the incidents found to have occurred by Francis J had been misunderstood and misrepresented. The mother further contended that she had provided a stable and loving environment for Adam. The mother went on to accuse Dr Derry of “bias”. With respect to contact, the mother contended that she was fully capable of caring for Adam without the need for supervision.
As I have intimated, Francis J listed the matter for a final hearing with a time estimate of 3 days commencing on 3 June 2024 at 2.00pm. That hearing was not effective for reasons set out by Francis J when he handed down a further judgment on 9 July 2024:
“On 3 June 2024, not far from the school gates where Adam goes to school in Richmond, in broad daylight, Adam was taken from the father. I have seen photographs of two men, who I described in my previous judgment as "heavies". Having heard from the father, I am satisfied that they deliberately blocked his way, they were big men and he was obviously overwhelmed by them if he was to try and fight, and whilst that was going on, Adam was taken from him. Adam was taken away by his mother into a nearby car, and the father has not seen him since. Although I have not heard the mother's account, it seems to me on the evidence presently available that this was a wicked and heinous snatching of Adam by the mother from the father.”
Before dealing with the aftermath of the mother’s abduction of Adam and the steps taken to recover him to the care of his father, it is important to note the further findings made by Francis J in his further judgment of 9 July 2024, he having also heard evidence from Dr Derry in June 2024. Francis J was satisfied that:
The mother removed Adam from the father in breach of a court order.
Following the mother’s abduction of Adam, the mother taunted the court by email with the possibility that she was in Ireland and implied she was not required to facilitate a relationship between Adam and his father under Irish law.
The mother presented a risk of significant harm to Adam, including concocting a story that is untrue and possibly influencing Adam with it.
The mother was both unreliable and dishonest and prone to making unsubstantiated allegations of bribery, corruption and collusion against professionals.
The mother had no insight into court’s concerns, incapable of accepting the findings that the court makes, had no insight on the effect of her behaviour on Adam and was reckless as to whether she harmed Adam or not.
The mother will blame anyone except herself, and she is willing to make the most severe of allegations against professionals.
The mother will deliberately misinterpret orders and twist them to her advantage and has made baseless and fantastic allegations (for example that the paternal grandmother is a Mossad agent).
The mother is likely to provide Adam with a narrative that is not true and is likely to denigrate the father to Adam and paint a picture that is inconsistent with the truth.
The mother had refused to allow Adam to have a relationship with his father whilst he was residing with her.
The mother has not permitted the father to share parental responsibility for Adam and has acted unilaterally in relation to Adam’s health and his education.
If Adam were to return to the care of his mother it is likely that his relationship with his father would break down.
Whilst the mother had also accused the father of endless lies and endless mistruths aimed at misleading the judge, there was no evidence to support the suggestion that the father had deliberately misled any judge in the proceedings.
With respect to the mother’s capacity for change in the context of the foregoing matters, in his report of April 2024, Dr Derry concluded as follows:
“Ms Mahmoud did not present with the clinical indicators of change. She remained defensive, defiant of any Court judgement and in denial of any intention to remove Adam from the country. She was not able to demonstrate the necessary self-reflection or analysis that would help her to start to make meaningful personal change. In this, she would be unlikely to make significant internal change although she may be able to make some external changes to her behaviours and presentation in response to the current situation.”
Dr Derry confirmed in his oral evidence in June 2024 that the mother was prone to deploying a dual strategy of self-pity and victimisation and, when that was not effective, of coercive control and force. Having regard to the genesis of the mother’s difficulties, which Dr Derry located in her childhood, Dr Derry considered that to effect change the mother would need to engage in therapeutic intervention over a period of years rather than months. As to prognosis for change, Dr Derry considered that in circumstances where the mother was not able to question her own actions, recognise her own behaviour or think correctively about herself, a change of approach by the mother was unlikely, and in any event one that would take a period of years if it were to be achieved. Dr Derry considered that the potential for the mother to engage in therapy was poor. Francis J accepted this evidence and there is no evidence before this court to gainsay the conclusions of Dr Derry. Indeed, I am satisfied that the information available to the court since Dr Derry provided his expert opinion has reinforced the accuracy of that expert opinion.
Within the foregoing context, Francis J was satisfied in July 2024 that Adam should continue to reside with his father. Francis J was further satisfied, applying the principles set out in Re F (A Child) (International Relocation Cases) [2015] EWCA Civ 882 and in Re C (Internal Relocation) [2015] EWCA Civ 1305 that it was in Adam’s best interests for the father to be given permission to remove Adam permanently from the jurisdiction of England and Wales to the jurisdiction of the Netherlands. Francis J declined to make any order for contact between Adam and his mother. Further, Francis J discharged the order subsisting under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 under which the father was required to make payments to the mother. Finally, Francis J made an order against the mother pursuant to s.91(14) of the Children Act 1989. Francis J made each of the foregoing orders in anticipation of the recovery of Adam following his abduction by the mother.
Following her abduction of Adam, the mother managed to conceal Adam’s whereabouts from the father, the court and the police for a period of some eight months. During that period, it was clear that the mother was actively hiding Adam. For example, on 24 October 2024 the mother attended a contact centre in disguise, wearing a wig, to seek assistance from a contact supervisor. As recorded by the Children’s Guardian in her final report:
“Beyond what appears to have been some limited home schooling, Ms Mahmoud has appeared to have made no attempts at all to meet Adam’s wider social, emotional and educational needs of a child living in the UK. It is not known how Ms Mahmoud accessed funds or resources to keep her and Adam living in the house, where they were located...”
After multiple hearings before this court during that period, Adam was located by the Police on 13 February 2025, with the considerable assistance of the Tipstaff. The mother was taken into police custody and Adam was returned to his father’s care. The two men involved with the abduction of Adam were arrested on suspicion of child abduction and remain on bail during the continuing investigation.
The court also has before it the final report of the Children’s Guardian, Ms Timmis, dated 8 April 2025. The Children’s Guardian recounts Adam’s view of the period during which he was concealed by his mother as follows:
“I asked him about when he was with his Mum, he told me he didn’t go out much when he was with his Mum. He told me that they went to the shop sometimes but stayed indoors most of the time; he couldn’t remember going to playgrounds. He told me when he was with Mum that he ‘didn’t know where I was’ and felt a bit ‘lost’. He said he had missed his Dad and his Grandad but he thought his Mum looked after him OK although it was a bit frightening not knowing what would happen next. He was frightened when the police came.”
With respect to Adam’s wishes and feelings, on 27 February 2025 Adam stated to a social worker that if he had a “magic wand” he would “want to see mummy Monday to Friday and daddy at the weekend”. The Children’s Guardian followed this up with Adam when she met him in March 2025. Adam initially reiterated that he would like things to go back to “normal”, that being “staying with Mum on school days and going to dad’s from Friday after school for the weekends”. However, Adam also conceded that such an arrangement may no longer work in light of the events that had taken place. He stated he would rather live with his father than go back to the situation in which he had been found by the police. He was happy to have contact with his mother by way of video calls.
In April 2025 the mother sought to permission from the Court of Appeal to appeal the decisions of Francis J in March 2024 and July 2024 out of time. On 7 April 2025 Lord Justice Baker refused the mother permission to appeal. In the circumstances, the findings made by Francis J in March 2024 and the findings and final orders made by Francis J in July 2024 stand.