FD24P00214 - [2025] EWHC 2165 (Fam)

The background to this case is that the father is Iranian. The mother was born in Western Azerbaijan Province in Iran. B was also born in Iran on 24^th August 2014 and so now is nearly 11. In 2020, the father travelled from Iran and entered the UK illegally and claimed asylum. At some point he was granted limited leave to remain. Throughout these proceedings, the father has refused to allow the mother’s solicitors to see his immigration documents. However, the Home Office confirmed in the related wardship proceedings that the father submitted a claim for asylum on 22^nd September 2020 which was granted on 8^th June 2022 until 7^th June 2027 with a right to work and recourse to public funds.

On 7^th December 2023, the mother and B entered lawfully as the spouse and child of the father who, by that stage, was lawfully here. According to the Home Office they were granted Entry Clearance as a family reunion valid for entry from 13^th September 2023 until 7^th June 2027. On 10^th January 2024, the mother and B travelled to Iran for a holiday. When they arrived at Tehran airport, as they were coming out of the airport, B was abducted by paternal uncle H who threatened the mother with a gun and removed B. That was the last time the mother saw B – so now more than 19 months ago. The mother immediately returned to the UK in the hope of trying to secure B’s return.

On 4^th June 2024, the mother lodged an application for wardship and for the return of B to England. There have since then been a large number of hearings – 12 on my count. That may not be correct but I count approximately that this is the 13^th hearing. It is not necessary to list every hearing so I will only refer to the ones relevant to the application before me today. I note at the outset that at every inter partes hearing, the father has appeared. In all but one, the father was a litigant in person. There was one hearing where he did instruct lawyers, but they applied to come off the record at the start of that hearing (in June 2025).

The first hearing I will refer to is 11^th July 2024 before Victoria Butler-Cole KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. She made B a ward of the court and made an order for contact.

Then, on 11^th October 2024 there was a hearing on those applications before Deputy High Judge Naomi Davey. The father attended in person but left during closing submissions. That Judge confirmed the wardship and made a return order directing the father to return B by 8^th November 2024 and made an order in respect of replacement of Iranian passports for B.

B was not returned and, on 15 November 2024, the matter came back before Trowell J who continued wardship and made a further return order.

Then the matter came back on 10 December 2024 before Mr Justice Trowell again who continued the return order and gave directions for a potential committal application. In that order, Mr Justice Trowell (at paragraph 11) set out information for the father’s benefit under the heading ‘important notices’ to the respondent father. Inter alia, that notice provides for the respondent father to be provided with a list of solicitors by the mother’s solicitor and sets out all relevant rights that apply to any committal application, such as his right to give evidence but that he is not obliged to; the right to remain silent; and the right to non-means tested legal aid. Mr Justice Trowell effectively advised the father to get legal aid and to seek representation.

The first committal application was issued on 8 January 2025 and listed for hearing before Mr Justice Harrison on 21 February 2025. There were difficulties with the applications at that stage including that the documents which required translating into Farsi had not been served on the father until 2 days before the hearing. Harrison J adjourned the application.

The next relevant hearing was on 2 April 2025 before Mr Justice Trowell where he made a very specific contact order setting out precisely what steps should be taken in respect of interim contact. On 12 June 2025, the main application and the committal application came back before Mr Justice Trowell and there are parts of that order which are important for matters I have to consider later. In that order of 12 June 2025, Mr Justice Trowell referred to an expert report on Iranian law which had been ordered in the main proceedings from the expert, Mr Andrew Allen KC and referred to issues of return. The following is in the order by way of recitals:

“The court had regard to the expert report on Iranian law by Andrew Allen KC dated 6 June 2025 and made a fresh order against the father to cause the return of B to this jurisdiction in what it considered to be a realistic timeframe, allowing for the renewal of the child B’s passport and any visa application in respect of the paternal uncle H.

The father told the court in terms that, with his agreement, the child B could be returned to the jurisdiction of England & Wales.”

The father told the court that B could be returned to the jurisdiction of England and Wales. As I have said, Mr Justice Trowell went on to set out clearly defined interim contact order and made a further order for return by 16 August 2025, which is in 2 days’ time.

There was then a further hearing before Deputy High Court Judge Nicholas Allen KC on 4 July 2025 in anticipation of a fresh application for committal being made. It effectively stands as a hearing for directions for the present committal application. Mr Allen KC on 4 July again set out in the order, in recitals and in an ‘important notice’ addressed to the father, his rights including his right to have non-means, non-merits-tested legal aid; the right to give or not to give evidence; his right to remain silent. He again strongly suggested that the father would benefit from legal advice.

On 16 July 2025 the committal application was made setting out in clear terms which parts of which orders are alleged to have been breached, and I will go through those in a moment. The matter was set down for a 1-day hearing today to consider that application for committal.

I note that every one of the orders was translated into Farsi and served on the father by post or email in English and in Farsi with covering letters.

In terms of the factual situation today, B has not been returned to England and Wales and there has been no interim contact. The mother’s solicitors have filed a detailed statement setting out precisely which orders have been breached and the evidence of breach. The mother has filed a statement setting out her numerous efforts to facilitate interim contact. The father has filed no evidence and has given no oral evidence - as is his right.