Case No. NE24C50736 - [2025] EWHC 1767 (Fam)

No party sought to go behind the findings of the Austrian Court and I proceed on the basis that I can rely on its findings.

I make full allowance for the fact that the Mother has been the victim of abuse by the Father, that she has fled her home country and been granted asylum first in Austria and then in England. She has undoubtedly suffered trauma. She has had to take part in these proceedings through an interpreter and with her abusive ex-husband listening to her. The stakes are high for her. Nevertheless, her evidence was riddled with significant inconsistencies, concealment, and dishonesty. I am sure that she lied to the Court on many occasions about important events in the children’s lives and her own interactions with authorities and other adults. She has concealed the nature of her relationship with Mr V, his role, his character and activities. She lied to immigration officials about the Father raping the children. As she admits, she changed the dates of birth of some of the children, and their surnames in order to reduce the chance of the history of the family being exposed – namely that the children had been removed from her care in Austria and that she had then abducted them.

I am satisfied on the balance of the evidence that the Mother had begun a relationship with Mr V before she left Austria and that he knew that she was going to abduct the children and bring them to England. I do not have sufficient evidence that he assisted with the abduction but that is because of concealment and evasion by him and the Mother within these proceedings. However, I am satisfied that whether they travelled together or separately, JK and Mr V planned together to move to England and to be together here in a relationship.

The three elder children suffered the trauma of fleeing their home country. P may well have witnessed appalling scenes of brutality when a young child in Country Z. The Mother is not to blame for that nor for the children witnessing abuse of her by the Father or suffering abuse at his hands. However, she has responsibility for causing further trauma, and physical, emotional and psychological harm to the children:

When in England, the Mother has been incapable of providing safe parenting for the children including when she has been assisted by Mr V. She has exposed them to physical risk by leaving them unsupervised, alone or with strangers. S’s life was endangered when he was found by a motorway alone at the age of 3. The evidence suggests that another child was later also standing alone on the other side of the same road. The Mother has not told the police or Court the truth about how that occurred. I cannot know the truth because of her evasion and concealment but her account is too inconsistent for me to be able to accept it as credible. Nevertheless, S was in her care at the time and was exposed to a risk to his life.

When at Home X, P alleged that the Mother had struck him with a pan. I have not heard evidence from P about that allegation and I note that he changed his story when reporting what had happened to staff at the Home. Nevertheless, the Mother accepts that she had physically restrained him and I am satisfied that the situation within the family accommodation, behind closed doors, was sufficiently troubling to P that he sought help from the staff at reception. They told the Court that this was a unique situation for them to have to deal with. I am unable to find, on the balance of probabilities, that JK struck P on the head (or on his bottom) with a pan, but I do find that there was heightened conflict within the family accommodation that day, that the Mother used physical force on P, and that he was sufficiently distressed by the Mother’s conduct towards him to seek independent help.

P has suffered unexplained bruising on more than one occasion.

The Mother’s lack of insight into her own parenting deficiencies have led to the elder children becoming emotionally unstable, dysregulated, exhibiting very challenging behaviour and becoming very difficult to manage. I find P’s sexualised behaviour very worrying. Again, because of the Mother’s evasion and concealment, it is not clear why he has learned such behaviour. I cannot find that it is due to the involvement of Mr V because I have so little evidence about him and his relationship with the children, the Mother and Mr V choosing not to provide any such information to the Court or to expose Mr V to scrutiny. The Mother told me that P could not have accessed pornography because that was against his and her religion, but she has admitted to social workers that he was doing so. Her evasiveness on this very troubling aspect of P’s behaviour means that the Court has no reassurance as to how it has arisen, that she would address it if P were returned to her care, or that the other children would not follow P’s course of behaviour. Her children have been “hanging out” with a 19 year old in the streets of the city when they were about 11 or 12 years old. They have been excluded from school. They have been aggressive to each other. P has had various injuries which have not been satisfactorily explained. Referrals have been made by various professionals and members of the public due to concerns about the children’s welfare.

Consistent with the findings of the Austrian psychologist and the Austrian Court, the Mother in England failed to impose boundaries for the children, to be able to control significant levels of conflict between them, or to provide them with stimulation.

The Mother has not accepted help when offered. She has been evasive with social workers and other professionals, concealing important information that would have helped them to protect the children.

The Mother’s belief appears to be that the children’s current problems are due to, or have been exacerbated by, their unstable care following their removal in October 2024 but my analysis of the evidence is that all the children have suffered emotional and psychological harm, with actual physical harm and a continuing risk of physical harm for several years, all present on the date of their removal on 23 October 2024. The true extent of their harm and challenging behaviour has been exposed by their removal from the Mother’s care. Of course their behaviour may wax and wane depending on particular stresses, including these proceedings, but none of their difficulties are new: they are a continuation of years of neglect, inadequate supervision, harmful parenting, exposure to domestic conflict, and traumatic experiences (some caused by the Mother, some not).

I have no confidence that the Mother would support any relationship between the children and their Father if the children were returned to her care. She has abducted the children from Austria and has said that a significant reason for doing so was to separate the family from him. She frustrated his attempts to connect and have time with them when he came to England. She lied about him to immigration authorities, claiming he had raped the children. She has given no priority at all to the children having a relationship with him, indeed she has gone out of her way to prevent it. I have no confidence that she would change her approach in the future.

The Mother would rely on Mr V for support if the children or any of them were returned to her care. I have so little information about him that I cannot find that it would be safe for the children to be in his care. Indeed, the very little information I have about him is negative – he failed to supervise the children when he took S and a brother to hospital when, in fact, S was very unwell and subsequently required prolonged in-patient care. He was violent and smashed a window at the family home with the children present, leading to his arrest. He and the Mother were so evasive about men who had been in the family home with the children that the police removed the children for their own safety. I am satisfied that if the children were returned to the Mother’s care, then Mr V would be involved in their care and that his involvement is a high risk factor for serious physical and emotional harm.

I have no confidence that the Mother would engage adequately with professionals were the children returned to her care – she has not done so in the past. She would be likely to continue to conceal what was happening within the family home as she has done so for years.

I am satisfied that there would be a high flight risk if the children were returned to the Mother’s care. Upon return, the Mother would continue to have the involvement of the Local Authority to support her care of the children. She would regard this as interference. She would know that there was a considerable risk of the children being removed again in the future – it has happened twice to her already. She has no ties to England other than the children and Mr V. She has abducted the children previously. She has shown a facility for concealment and subterfuge. She has prioritised the children being with her over their welfare and I have no doubt that she would be prepared to do so again. I also conclude that the risk of flight exists if the children are made subject to final Care Orders with a plan for long term foster care, but the risk can be better managed in such circumstances.

The Father’s support for the return of the children to the Mother is motivated by his distrust of state authorities more than his considered view of the best interests of the children. His support for the Mother’s case is surprising given that she has deprived him of time with his children, falsely alleged to authorities that he has raped them, and, on his own account, manipulated the children to hate him. His alternative proposals for the children to be cared for by his brothers in Austria are wholly unrealistic and there is no merit in undertaking assessments of the uncles. Amongst the many problems with the proposal are:

The proposed placements in Austria would be likely to break down within days. It reflects poorly on the Father’s ability to consider the best interests of the children that he has proposed their placement with his brothers.

It is rightly conceded that the threshold for making a care order or supervision order in respect of each child is met. The option of placement of one or more of the children in Austria with one or more paternal uncle is not realistic.

The Local Authority no longer pursues an application for a placement order for S. It would create a further period of instability for him at a time when he needs stability. He is progressing well with his present foster carer. Foster care would allow him sibling contact, maternal contact and the opportunity of paternal contact all of which would be either excluded or much more circumscribed were he to be adopted. He would thereby have connections with his religious and cultural heritage which the evidence showed was very unlikely to occur were he adopted. The Guardian supports the Local Authority’s application for permission to withdraw the application for a placement order.

Aside from the possibility of a placement order, the realistic options are return to the care of the Mother of one or more of the children or placement in long term foster care. Return to the Mother’s care would re-establish the children within the family. It would meet the wishes and feelings of the children, strongly expressed by the two elder boys to me in person. It would allow the children to live with their siblings. It would remove from them the uncertainties and stigma of being looked after children. The children variously face five to twelve years as looked after children if not rehabilitated to their Mother’s care. Long term foster care is fraught with uncertainty. The children, and any of them, may face several changes of placement during their childhoods. Time with their mother and each other would be restricted. The children’s cultural and religious heritage would not be supported as it would be were they placed back with their mother.

Were the children placed in long term foster care there would be advantages to them over a return to their Mother’s care. The children would be much more likely to be adequately supervised and kept safe from unacceptable risks such as those to which R was exposed to at the pool in Austria, and S was exposed to by the roadside. The younger children would be unlikely to be left home alone. The children would not be vulnerable to the consequences of neglectful parenting by the Mother. The children would not be exposed to the risk factors associated with Mr V. There would be no obstacle, other than the children’s wishes and feelings, to rebuilding a positive relationship with the Father. The children would not be living together which has been a source of emotional harm to all of them and physical harm to P and Q. I have grave doubts about the Mother’s ability to sustain adequate parenting and to prevent circumstances arising under which further applications for the removal of the children from her care would be made.

The children all wish to return home to the Mother but I accept Dr Swart’s unchallenged evidence that their attachment to the Mother is not secure. They have been very troubled and harmed when in her care. They are loyal to her and have been through some very traumatic experiences with her. They cannot take an objective view of their own interests. They all have significant needs and are vulnerable. P is particularly vulnerable and needs a high standard of parenting and guidance. He is at an age when he needs to be engaging in school and learning to regulate his behaviour otherwise he is likely to have significant lifelong difficulties and challenges. Q is in a similar situation and needs to be freed of the sense of responsibility he feels to protect his siblings and his Mother. He was subject to what the Austria Court called “parentification” : the child taking a parenting role. R is a bright boy who needs stability and a nurturing home and parenting so that he can flourish at school and in life as he has the potential to do. S is an engaging but somewhat demanding child who needs stability and security in a supportive home. All the children need boundaries to be set. P and Q in particular show clear signs of having no respect for others or for social and personal boundaries. They have not been set in their home life under the Mother’s care. I have already set out P’s ASD and the psychological and emotional disturbances affecting each child.

The children have suffered significant harm in their Mother’s care and before that in care of her and the Father. Mr V’s involvement by way of “support” for the Mother has not improved the children’s welfare. The emotional and psychological harm to the children has been very serious. P and Q are very troubled children who are likely to present significant challenges for whoever cares for them for years to come. R and S have also suffered harm due to abuse in the home, abduction, conflict, and poor parenting.

The role of Mr V is currently uncertain but the children are energetic boys who have been robbed of their main male role model, their father. It might well be said that he was a poor role model due to his appalling abuse of the Mother, but the evidence is that the boys enjoyed family time with him at the family contact centre in Austria.

The Court could exercise powers to mitigate risks to the children from the involvement of Mr V and to mitigate the risk of flight, but even with such measures, those risks would be significantly greater were the children returned to the Mother’s care than were they to be in long term foster care.

I have considered the evidence as to the dates of birth of the children. To preserve anonymity I shall set out my conclusions in schedule not to be published with the judgment but the Local Authority suggest that the weight of the evidence is that their dates of birth are as I have set out in that schedule.

The Mother changed the children’s surnames to her own in order to conceal their history in Austria, including their connection with the Father. Their surnames have not formally been changed and there is no application to change their names to or from the Father’s surname. However, for three years now they have been known by their Mother’s surname, including at schools, in foster or residential care, at their GPs and so forth. They appear content to be known by that surname. The Local Authority are content that whilst their formal surname is that of the Father, their surname by usage is their Mother’s and that that situation can continue. In the absence of any application I agree.