[2025] EWHC 2637 (Fam)

I am concerned with a fact-finding hearing which relates to a girl to whom I shall refer as ‘A’. She is now aged 7.

Although the law relating to fact-finding is very well-established, for ease of reference I set out some of the core principles in an addendum at the conclusion of this judgment.

The hearing is taking place in the context of two sets of proceedings:

The local authority has been represented by Mr Stott and Ms Ishmael. The mother has been represented by Ms Ancliffe KC and Ms Vindis. The father has been represented by Mr Barraclough KC and Ms Baruah. The child has been represented by Mr Murray and Ms Hefford. I am grateful to all counsel and to their instructing solicitors for the helpful and skilful way in which this difficult case has been conducted. I also extend the court’s gratitude to Ms Bartholomew and her instructing solicitors who have acted pro bono on behalf of the father’s adult daughter (‘AD’) on 1 July 2025 and at several interim hearings before that.

The written material is extensive. The ‘core’ bundle, which I have read entirely, runs to nearly 1,200 pages. I have also been provided with a bundle of police disclosure, bundles containing the foster care logs and notes of contact, a so-called ‘PII bundle’ and a few documents filed separately. Overall, the material in the bundles exceeds 2,000 pages. In addition to their opening notes / position statements, counsel for all parties prepared detailed written closing submissions which I have found very helpful. Before writing this judgment I have carefully re-read my notes of the oral evidence. I have taken all of the evidence and submissions into account in reaching my conclusions.

The father is a UK national of Pakistani descent. He is now aged 69. He lives in England and has done so since 1980. He was previously married to a woman who died in 2002 and has three adult children by that marriage, two sons and his daughter AD. For most of the time he has lived in England he has run a successful taxi company. He also has a home in a small village in the North of Pakistan some three hours’ drive from Lahore. I shall refer to this village as ‘the village’.

The mother is a Pakistani national. She is now aged 33. She has only ever lived in Pakistan. She comes from a city in the North of the country (‘KS’), approximately 10 miles away from the village where the father’s home is located.

It is clear from the chronology set out below that the mother was A’s main carer until 6 January 2024 when A (then aged 5 ½) ceased to be in her care. Until she was brought to England by the father in May 2024, A had never left Pakistan.

The proceedings in this jurisdiction were initiated after the mother sent AD by WhatsApp a video clip which purports to show the father sexually abusing a young girl at his home in Pakistan. This was passed on to the police by AD, triggering child protection procedures which resulted in A being removed from the father’s care. A has lived with foster carers since the end of May 2024. All of her contact with her parents has been supervised; until very recently her contact with her mother has taken place only by video.

Within these proceedings each of the parents has raised allegations against the other of the utmost seriousness.

The mother alleges that the father is a paedophile who used to abuse young girls from a Madrasa next door to his home in Pakistan, one such instance being captured in the video sent to the police. She asserts that during their marriage he perpetrated domestic abuse against her. She says that he abducted A from her care on 5/6 January 2024 in extremely violent circumstances after she had brought A to his home to have contact with him. Her case is that, together with two associates and in front of A, the father forcibly injected her with a drug which rendered her into a state of paralysis and semi-consciousness; the men then bound her and carried her to a flat roof; the father’s two associates sexually assaulted her and attempted to rape her; the men then abandoned her tied up and unconscious on the roof. She further alleges that since abducting A, the father has coached A into making false allegations against her mother. This is all denied by the father, who asserts that he removed A from the mother and later to England with her consent. He claims that the mother and/or AD and/or members of the maternal family have conspired to create a ‘fake’ video.

The father alleges that the mother and her close family are members of a notorious gang in the part of Pakistan where they reside and that they engage in trading drugs and ammunition and operate brothels. He alleges that the maternal grandmother murdered a previous husband, that the mother engaged in an agreement with the person who arranged their marriage to have him murdered and that the mother repeatedly and deliberately poisoned his food causing him serious harm. He further asserts that the mother and the maternal grandmother engage in prostitution. His case is also that the mother and her family have mistreated A and abused her physically and verbally, punished her with spicy food and rubbed chillies in her eyes.

It is common ground that there was an incident on 26 December 2020 when the father was beaten up by the mother’s two brothers, suffering fractures to his legs and leaving him unable to walk for a period of time. What precisely occurred is disputed, as is the alleged involvement in the beating of the mother and maternal grandmother.

The local authority’s case in opening was that whichever parent is telling the truth, A has suffered significant harm in the care of one or both of them: physical, emotional or both. It further alleged that she is at risk of physical, emotional and sexual harm.

In their closing submissions on behalf of the local authority, having heard the evidence, Mr Stott and Ms Ishmael largely aligned themselves with the narrative advanced by the mother. The local authority’s primary case now is that it is the father who has been the main perpetrator of harm to A and who presents the greatest risks to her; it nevertheless continues to allege that A has been inappropriately physically chastised by the mother. If, however, I were to reject the mother’s case and make findings against her in respect of allegations made by the father, the local authority would rely upon those findings in support of its contention that the threshold criteria are met.

As I shall set out below, my task of establishing the facts has been made more difficult by the fact that both parents have lied to the court about significant matters. The father’s lies are particularly extensive. It has been necessary to remind myself of the principles in R v Lucas in relation to the evidence of both of them.