![[2025] EWHC 2395 (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 (see Glanville v Mahmoud [2024] EWHC 1739 (Fam)) and in my judgment of 8 May 2025 (see Mahmoud v Glanville [2025] EWHC 1064 (Fam)). I do not set that history out here. However, the following matters from those judgments are relevant:
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 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.
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.
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 an order of 21 December 2022 reiterating the prohibition on the removal of Adam from the jurisdiction and despite the existence of a location order and the passport and port alert provisions contained therein.
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 court.
Francis J found that the mother had a propensity to make false and baseless allegations against the father during the proceedings 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.
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 by reason of the mother abducting Adam in broad daylight from the care of the father on the street outside Adam’s school and with the assistance of two men (who have now been arrested and are the subject of an ongoing police investigation).
On 9 July 2024 Francis J made the following findings of fact in respect of the mother:
The mother removed Adam from the father in breach of a court order.
The mother thereafter 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.
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.
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.
After multiple hearings before this court during that period, Adam was located by the Police on 13 February 2025 and the mother was taken into police custody and Adam was returned to his father’s care pursuant to the orders already in force.
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.
On 8 May 2025, following a further hearing, this court reiterated that the ‘lives with’ order made by Francis J, providing for Adam to live with his father, and the order made by Francis J, permitting the father to remove Adam permanently from the jurisdiction of England and Wales to the jurisdiction of the Netherlands. The court further confirmed that the order made by Francis J pursuant to s.91(14) remains in force until 1800hrs on 9 July 2029. This court declined to vary the non-molestation order granted in November 2024, which was extended that order until 1800hrs on 9 July 2029.
In addition, the court dismissed the mother’s application for permission to issue an application for a child arrangements order. On the father’s application to restrict the exercise of the mother’s parental responsibility, the court made the following prohibited steps orders and specific issue order:
The mother is prohibited from exercising her parental responsibility to seek or obtain, whether by herself or through the agency of another, information as to, or capable of indicating, the whereabouts of Adam or the father or anybody to whom the father has entrusted Adam’s care without the consent of the court.
The mother is prohibited from exercising her parental responsibility for Adam to seek or obtain, whether by herself or through the agency of another, information on Adam’s education without the consent of the court.
The mother is prohibited from exercising her parental responsibility for Adam to seek or obtain, whether by herself or through the agency of another, information on Adam’s routine or other medical treatment without the consent of the court.
The mother is prohibited from exercising her parental responsibility for Adam to seek or obtain, whether by herself or through the agency of another, information concerning Adam from professionals or organisations engaged with Adam without the consent of the court.
The mother is prohibited from exercising her parental responsibility for Adam to remove or attempt to remove him from the care of the father or from the care of any third party to whom the father has entrusted Adam’s care, including the school or educational establishment attended by Adam without the consent of the court.
Until Adam reaches the age of majority, or further order of the court, the father is not required to consult the mother before he exercises his parental responsibility for Adam.
On 31 July 2025 Lord Justice Baker refused the mother’s application for permission to appeal the orders made by this court on 8 May 2025.