[2025] EWHC 1254 (Fam)

The Applicant filed two witness statements, both dated 17 December 2024. One relates to her periodical payments application and one relates to the specific issue order. She gave oral evidence and was questioned. Her written evidence is more in the form of a submission. She seeks the increased periodical payment to be backdated to the child’s birth because the Respondent has the means to afford that and she says there is a continuous obligation from birth. She says there has been a failure to meet the child’s financial needs and this has caused instability. She says life has become “unbearably expensive”. She sets out reasons for increased holiday provision and lists the holidays the child has taken. She gives an example of a holiday of 11 days costing £ 200, 000. She says the child needs a driver because she has medical conditions, including a recent knee operation. A driver would provide the child with emotional support. The driver would also provide security. She says security at the home is needed after a fire. She explains she was injured in the fire. She spends time making complaints about the Respondent’s intermediary’s handling of the trust property. She asks for compensation for the failure to provide a passport to the child. She says the maintenance payments have been insufficient.

She sets out episodes when she says there were physical attacks in various locations between 2018 and 2022. She provides Metropolitan Police crime reference numbers.

In her second statement she recounts her own background and her account of her relationship with the Respondent. She explains her battle for her child’s rights. She explains why she wants the child recognised for his heritage and legal rights in the ruling family to which the Respondent belongs. She says it is clear the Child is a member of that ruling family and has rights under the law of that country. She purports to set out the law of that country. She references international conventions. She says the Child’s plan is to move to the Middle East after they complete their education in England to cement their heritage there. She says nationality is a crucial part of the Child’s “plan”. She says they will renounce their US citizenship.

She exhibits a letter which purports to be from the Child to the court dated 5 October 2024. The Child says they have tried to speak with their father without success. The Child says they travelled to the Respondent’s country of nationality for a passport in August 2024 but the request was denied by the authorities because they did not have the Respondent’s signature and because the Child was not added to the register.

Her oral evidence was difficult to follow and tended towards exaggeration. She is not a reliable historian. She explained she married her husband in an Islamic ceremony in 2023. They separated in 2024. He bought her a Rolls Royce and gave her around £ 360, 000 in cash and transfers. When asked about the list of holidays she said there were more than she had recorded in the written evidence and she states she forgot to add some to the list that had taken place. She explained she does not drive and the Child needs a driver for the weekends. The Child is a weekly boarder. She has her own cosmetic business and some form of a shop. She works there but the venture is not profitable. She stated that in the last three months “there had been seven attempts on my life”. She stated all had been reported to the police and they were investigating. She was unable to show the court any contemporaneous documentation to support this.

The third parties’ witness statement dated 11 April 2025 relates to a car and is not relevant. The email from the Deputy Head of Pastoral is from 2024, does not relate to the Child and does not relate to the Child’s school.

The Applicant also sought to rely on a report from a journalist on Middle Eastern law, dated 28 January 2019 and a letter from a law firm, dated 10 February 2019. Neither document can be considered to safely or comprehensively set out the law on the Middle East in May 2025, being over six years out of date. No permission has been given for these ‘experts’ pursuant to FPR Part 25. I have read and considered them de bene esse largely to see if they help me understand the registration specific issue order application. They do not.