A Local Authority v Mother A & Ors [2026] EWFC 176

[2026] EWFC 176

Case No Redacted

IN THE FAMILY COURT

Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date 3 rd July 2026

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MCKENDRICK

Between

A LOCAL AUTHORITYApplicant

MOTHER ARespondents

MOTHER BRespondent

FATHER CRespondent

FATHER DRespondent

X (By her Guardian)Respondent

Y (By his Guardian)Respondent

Z (By his Guardian)Respondent

Ms Ami Dodd (instructed by Local Authority) for Applicant

The First respondent neither appeared nor was represented

Ms Emma Hughes and Ms Amy Jones (instructed by Ben Hoare Bell) for Second Respondent

Mr Khairie Gedal (instructed by Alderson Law) for Third Respondent

Mr Herbert Anyiam (instructed by Jemek Solicitors Ltd) for Fourth Respondent

Mr John Worral (instructed by The Richmond Partnership) for Fifth to Seventh Respondents

Hearing Hearing dates: 22-24 June 2026

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 14.00 on 3 July 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

.............................

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MCKENDRICK

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.

McKendrick J:

[1]These are public law children proceedings involving three children. They are anonymised in this judgment as X, Y and Z. The Applicant local authority invites me to make findings of fact as pleaded in their final threshold document. The first respondent “A” is the mother of X and Y. She remains living overseas and has played no real role in these proceedings. The third respondent “C” is the father of X and Y. He entered into a relationship with the second respondent, B and later married her. B is the mother of Z. The fourth respondent, D, is Z’s father. X, Y and Z were living with B and C when the local authority initiated care proceedings. This finding of fact hearing has mostly focused on contested allegations of domestic abuse and violence said to be perpetrated by C against B, X, Y and Z.

[2]At the fact finding hearing the second, third and fourth respondents attended, with the second respondent attending remotely. I heard evidence from two local authority witnesses and then heard the second respondent’s (B) evidence. I declined to admit a further witness statement produced just before the hearing from her brother-in-law. At the conclusion of the evidence of the applicant and second respondent, the third respondent’s (C) counsel informed me that his client refused to give evidence. He was duly advised of the terms of section 98 Children Act 1989 and that should he refuse to give evidence, adverse inferences may be drawn and little weight may be attached to his evidence. He confirmed he did not wish to give evidence.

[3]As against this background it has been a relatively straightforward task for me to conclude that most of the applicant local authority’s case on the fact findings is made out and I make the findings of fact as detailed below. I endeavour to set out my reasons below.

Factual Background

[4]The first respondent (Mother A) and the third Respondent (Father C) are the parents of X and Y, who were both born in Iraq. X was born in November 2012, and Y was born in July 2015. C arrived in the UK illegally in November 2015 with no evidence to confirm his identity. C informed British Authorities that he was a single male from Syria, with no children. He stated that his home in Syria was destroyed and that he believed all of his family were dead.

[5]A has been unwilling or unable to engage in these proceedings, but recently contacted C in an effort to regain contact with the children. The LA were to make best endeavours to contact A to obtain her current position. She played no role at the fact finding hearing.

[6]C travelled to Iraq on at least four occasions whilst living in the UK (2016, 2017, July and November 2021). On 26 July 2021, whilst C was in Iraq, A pledged before a Notary Public that she agreed to relinquish custody of X and Y to C. On 26 November 2021, whilst C was in Iraq, he applied to the Home Office for X and Y to join him in the UK. C informed the Home Office that he was not aware he had children until he visited Iraq. X and Y arrived in the UK on a family reunion visa on 26 July 2022.

[7]The second respondent (Mother B) and the fourth respondent (Father D) are the parents of Z. They married in Iran in September 2014 and Z was born in Iran in March 2016. D arrived in the UK in 2019 and claimed asylum. B and Z joined D in the UK on a family reunion visa on 30 December 2020. They lived together as a family in Manchester until February 2021 when their relationship ended following B reporting a significant incident of domestic and sexual abuse. B and Z were moved to a refuge in the Newcastle Upon Tyne area and a non-molestation order was made preventing D having any contact with her on 8 June 2021.

[8]A final hearing took place at Newcastle Upon Tyne Family Court on 24 November 2021 whereby the court heard evidence from both B and D. The court made significant findings against D, those findings included physical, emotional and sexual abuse against C, some of which occurred in the presence of Z. The non-molestation order was extended to June 2023. D has not had any direct contact with Z since February 2021.

[9]C and B commenced a relationship at some point in 2021 having met at a takeaway where C worked. In January 2022, C was arrested on suspicion of causing significant injury to a male at the takeaway. It was alleged that during the course of the police investigation, C made attempts to interfere with witnesses. In July 2022, C was charged with a section 20 wounding offence, but was not convicted. C denies this allegation and asserts that if there was any evidence of his involvement in this serious charge, it would have been taken to trial.

[10]Z’s school raised concerns on a number of occasions about the nature of the relationship between B and C. In November 2022, a physical altercation took place outside of the school premises involving B, C and a female named A. B was registered as the owner of a vehicle the school believed belonged to C and was driving without a licence.

[11]In March 2023, B made allegations that C had significantly assaulted her. C was arrested for non-fatal strangulation and bailed by police until 17 June 2023. B made a number of serious allegations to JW, a Family Support Worker, that she was afraid of C, he had been physically abusive, was acting in a coercive and controlling manner, obtaining fake documents, he had been harassing her and made threats to kill her. JW was concerned that B was being groomed into criminal activity and she and Z were moved into a refuge out of Newcastle Upon Tyne.

[12]C’s position is that these allegations were investigated by the police and resulted in no further action. He denies all these allegations

[13]On 22 March 2023, a strategy meeting was held by the local authority following B returning to the Newcastle Upon Tyne area with Z. B refused to give a statement to police and concerns were raised about her capacity to protect Z. B was advised to apply for a non-molestation order. Professionals understood that the relationship between B and C had ended.

[14]On 22 September 2023, B was stopped by police whilst in a distressed state, she informed the officer that her car had been intentionally hit by a dark blue jeep. The police officer described her as visibly intimidated and refused to provide details of the offender. She was taken home and provided with safeguarding advice. At around 11.00pm, B flagged down police and reported that C had called her and threatened to ram her vehicle off the road should she try to leave the area. B was taken to the police station and made allegations of coercive control, stalking with fear and violence and threats to disclose sexual images. C was arrested and released on bail.

[15]This allegation was investigated by the police, and they did not take further action. C denies these allegations.

[16]On 6 October 2023, B contacted police to report that C had breached his bail conditions and made threats to kill her. C was arrested and charged with the offences the same day and was put before the court on 7 October 2023, whereby he was remanded in custody. B and X were moved to a refuge out of area. X and Y are cared for by persons unknown during this time.

[17]On 1 November 2023, B provides a further statement to police. She alleges that she is receiving ongoing harassment and stalking, she maintains her allegations are true, however, she retracts her previous statement to police and withdraws her support for a prosecution of C. X and Y arrive in Iraq on 15 November 2023 and stay with their grandparents. C is released from prison on 21 December 2023.

[18]In April 2024, B leaves the refuge and returns to Newcastle Upon Tyne. Police raise concerns that she has resumed a relationship with C, which she denies. B and C marry in a Muslim mosque in the Middlesbrough area. In May 2024, X and Y leave Iraq and return to Newcastle Upon Tyne. In June and July 2024, police observe B and Z at C’s address.

[19]Between 20 May and 17 July 2025, X is reported as absent from school on a number of occasions. Shortly after midnight on 21 July 2025, X calls the police whilst at home and asks for help. She reports that C and B are fighting, that C hit B last night and if he finds out she is calling the police she will be dead. X reports that C threatened to kill them all, and that he put a knife to X’s neck 3 weeks ago.

[20]Police attend the home address whereby B answers the door and initially is reluctant to speak to officers and states nothing has happened. C states that nothing has happened, and he believes the neighbours have called police. Officers take initial accounts from B, X, Y and Z and C is arrested. C believes that the children were encouraged to call and report the allegations to the police by B. He denies all the allegations.

[21]B and the children were visited by the duty social worker. B had already retracted her initial account to the police on the basis she alleged she was fearful of C and his family. Police powers of protection are taken later that day, with B, X, Y and Z being moved out of the Newcastle area. C is interviewed by police that evening whereby the allegations made by the children and B are put to him, he denies the entirety of the allegations and is released on bail.

[22]On 22 July 2025, the duty social worker obtained an account from C. Care proceedings were issued on 23 July 2025, whereby Interim Care Orders were made in respect of X, Y and Z.

[23]C is concerned that since the children have been removed from his care and into the care of the local authority, B has been in contact, in particular with X, and has encouraged the children to make serious, unfounded allegations against their father.

[24]D was made the fourth Respondent to the proceedings on 14 August 2025 without his knowledge, as the papers could not be served on him because his whereabouts were unknown at the time. It is D’s case that he subsequently became aware of the proceedings through third parties in his efforts to locate B so that he could start proceedings for a child arrangements order to seek contact with son, Z, as a result of which he instructed solicitors who contacted the Local Authority on his behalf. On 7 November 2025 D was served with the papers for these proceedings. Thereafter, D has continued to engage in these proceedings since then.

[25]These proceedings have been carefully case managed by His Honour Judge Smith. It is not necessary to lengthen this judgment by setting out the procedural history.

The Agreed Findings

[26]The parties have agreed certain facts from the Applicant’s threshold. These are set out below.

The relationship between B and D

[27]In previous private law proceedings, on 25 November 2021, following a contested final hearing, the court made a 12-month Non-Molestation Order preventing D having any contact with B on the basis the court considered D posed a significant threat to her.

[28]The court made the following findings:a. Physical abuse – B was subject to physical abuse throughout the marriage perpetrated by D. On one occasion in 2014, D beat B so badly, he cut her jaw and chin. She was not allowed to go to hospital and had to treat the injury herself, despite the wound becoming infected.

b. Physical abuse – D became so angry on one occasion when B’s son was around 16 months old and got a knife (handle) and cut B’s head with it. D refused to help B and left her at home in pain and locked the door so she could not leave. B was bleeding, and the child was distressed and crying so B handed the child over to her neighbour over the wall of the house so she could clean herself up.

c. Controlling behaviour – Throughout the marriage, at the times D and B lived together, D would choose B’s clothing and what colour she wore. D would not allow B to visit her family freely and controlled when she could go. He only allowed her to visit her family once per week.

d. Sexual abuse – Throughout the marriage, D would force himself onto B. B would be in pain, but this did not prevent D. B was not aware this was rape until she spoke to professionals in the UK.

e. Controlling behaviour – D did not provide B with a house key so if she needed to leave the house, she would not be able to return without D knowing as she would have to wait for D to return home to get in.

f. Physical abuse – D would physically assault B in the presence of the child, causing distress to the child and placing the child at risk of physical harm. The child would cry upon witnessing the abuse and D would threaten to kill the child and B.

g. Physical abuse towards B and the child and sexual abuse towards B – on 26th February 2021, D hit the tv remote off B’s nose whilst the child was sitting on her lap. The parties child responded by throwing a toy gun at D which caused a small cut on D’s head. D smeared his own blood over the child’s face and took photos. He said “I am going to suffocate you or kill you tonight” to both the child and B. B fled to a neighbour’s house and the neighbour spoke to D and reassured her that she could return home. As she approached her door D grabbed the child and dragged him in the house and threatened to kill him and B if she screamed for help. D raped B on the floor whilst their child was lying down next to them under the covers as the child was told to pretend he was blind and deaf by D.

h. Tracking and harassment – After the incident in February 2021, D hacked B’s phone and discovered her location with the assistance of his friends and relatives. This resulted in B having to flee her safe accommodation with their child. D continued to harass B through social media.

i. Threatening behaviour – D has made threats to kill B and child throughout their marriage. D also threatened to throw acid in B’s face. D

[29]D has not had any contact with Z for over 5 years. He maintains the court findings made in the previous private law proceedings are untrue and he continues to blame B.

[30]D has not undertaken any work to address the serious findings made against him in the previous private law proceedings.

The First Respondent - A

[31]X and Y’s mother lives in Iraq. On 26 July 2021, she made a declaration in the presence of a Notary Public relinquishing care of X and Y to C. She has not had caring responsibilities for X and Y for a number of years due to them being brought to the UK by B.

B - Failure to protect

[32]B has failed to protect the children from significant physical and emotional harm in that despite her knowledge of the actions of C towards her and the children; i. she retracted her statement to police in November 2023 despite C being held on remand in custody; ii. she left the refuge to return to Newcastle with Z in April 2024; iii. she continued the relationship with C; iv. she and Z moved to live with C again shortly after returning to Newcastle in April 2024; v. after this time she did not seek support or contact the police; vi. In July 2025, Z told a shop keeper that C was trying to kill B. B pleaded with the shop keeper not to ring the police; vii. After C’s arrest on 21 July 2025, she retracted her statement to police.

The Disputed Findings

[33]The disputed findings which are the subject of this trial are as follows:

The relationship between B and C

[34]B and C commenced a relationship in 2021. Throughout the relationship, C has perpetrated significant abuse against B and the children, as follows: Coercive controla. C gained control of B by employing her as a member of staff, but refusing to fairly pay her for work done;

b. C would call B excessively, despite being subjected to bail conditions;

c. C damaged a telephone belonging to B when she did not answer his telephone calls;

d. C would make threats to burn down the refuge B and Z were staying in, unless she returned to Newcastle;

e. C obtained the refuge address and attended the refuge in order to intimidate B to return to Newcastle;

f. On multiple occasions, C threatened to significantly harm and/or kill B if she did not comply with his requests, including: i. to run her over with a car; ii. flatten her body on the tarmac; iii. to ‘burn’ and ‘melt’ her; iv. to throw acid in her face; v. to cut off her legs; vi. to choke her;

g. C threatened to disclose sexual videos of B to members of the Kurdish community, in order to shame and isolate her;

h. C instructed others to threaten to significant harm and/or kill B’s family members unless she withdrew her police complaint; 43. Emotional abuse

i. C would regularly subject B and all of the children to verbal abuse, name calling and threaten to kill them; 44. Physical abuse

j. On a date unknown in 2021 or 2022, C assaulted B by jumping onto her car bonnet, punching her in the face so hard she almost lost consciousness, before pushing her into the passenger seat and attempting to drive away. Z was present in the car and C slapped him during the incident;

k. In September 2023, C chased B in his car and crashed into her car whilst she and X were present;

l. In July/August 2024, C punched B in the eye, causing her head to hit a wall. He attended the GP appointment with B to prevent her informing the doctor what had happened;

m. C would regularly physically assault B by way of grabbing her neck, punching, slapping and kicking;

n. C would regularly physically assault the children by way of grabbing the neck, punching, slapping, kicking, pulling ears and hitting with a belt;

o. C has used a knife to threaten Y;

p. On 11 June 2025, C physically assaulted Y in his takeaway shop by punching, slapping him in the head and kicking him;

q. On 7 July 2025, B and C removed X from school early, claiming she had a citizenship appointment. C accused X of having sexual conversations online with boys. He proceeded to call her a “whore” and a “slut” before physically assaulting her. C went into the kitchen and grabbed a knife, he put his foot on X’s neck, placed a knife to her throat and threatened to cut her head off and place it in a bin bag, before strangling her to the point she could not breathe. B pulled C off X but prevented her from leaving the home by locking the door and dissuading X from calling the police;

r. On 19 or 20 July 2025, C threatened to chop off Xs arm and neck;

s. On 21 July 2025, X phoned 999 due to a physical assault taking place in the home. C had threatened to kill the whole family, had punched and kicked Y and had punched B.

Forced marriage

[35]C made contact with persons in Kurdistan and commenced arrangements for X to be married in Kurdistan, against her will. C made B aware of the plans and asked her to trick X into travelling back to Kurdistan by telling her it was for a family holiday. B did not report the plans to any authority and instead advised X to stay quiet until she was at the airport and then scream for help.

False identity

[36]C’s true identity is unknown, as he has assumed multiple identities and false documentation requiring the police to put in place Port Alerts. By way of example:a. He is known by a number of aliases.

b. His date of birth is registered as both 01.01.1993 and 01.07.1993;

[37]The X and Y are aware of the multiple identities. The uncertainties around C’s true identity have placed the children at risk of instability in their living arrangements and emotional harm by way of confusion as to their identity.

Threatening behaviour and intimidation

[38]In August 2025, C repeatedly breached his bail conditions by making attempts, both directly and indirectly through third-parties, to contact B and the children whilst they resided in a refuge outside the local area.

[39]C has shared confidential information including B’s statement with third parties in Kurdistan.

[40]C has continued to make threats to kill B and/or A and to remove his children to Kurdistan.

[41]C has told third parties that he has arranged for B and/or A to be killed in order to regain his two children.

[42]C has made contact with members of B and/or A’s family and the Kurdish community, in an attempt to place pressure upon B and/or A and intimidate her to withdraw evidence within these proceedings.

[43]In October 2025, C made an application to have his passport returned to enable him to travel out of the UK via Dover and informed the court that the police had approved return of his passport. This was categorically untrue.

[44]B and C have made and continues to make serious allegations against the other. The environment and continuing conflict between the parents places the children at risk of significant emotional and physical harm.

The Legal Framework

[45]The following legal principles apply to determining the factual issues:a. Where a local authority seeks findings against any party in care proceedings, the local authority has the burden in proving the findings it seeks (or the burden is otherwise upon the party asserting that any particular fact is true).

b. The burden of proof must not be reversed. That means, it is not for the subject of an allegation to disprove it.

c. The standard of proof is the simple balance of probabilities: whether it is more likely than not that the fact which is asserted happened.

d. The standard of proof will be applied with common sense.

e. Where serious assertions/allegations are being made, the seriousness of those assertions/allegations does not alter the standard of proof to be applied, nor do the possible consequences.

f. Hearsay evidence is admissible. The weight to be attached is a question for the court to decide.

g. In family proceedings, a binary approach operates – something either did or did not happen. There is no room for a finding that something might have happened.

h. A failure to prove an allegation is different to an allegation being found to be false.

i. The court can only make findings based on the evidence that it has read or heard and on inferences that can be properly drawn. Evidence comes in many different forms. Suspicion or speculation is not enough.

j. The inherent probability or improbability of an event having occurred can be taken into account by the court.

k. The court must look at all the evidence and consider each piece in the context of the other evidence in the case. The court will invariably be looking at a wide canvas and will consider the totality of the evidence.

l. The evidence of the parents and any other carers is of the utmost importance. As the court assesses the credibility and reliability of their evidence, the court will consider the witnesses’ consistency in their own accounts and with other evidence, as well as the overall probabilities.

m. In appraising witnesses and when considering their demeanour and presentation in court, however, it must be recognised that people can present in very different ways in such a stressful situation, so that conclusions are not based on their presentation alone.

n. It is common for witnesses to tell lies. The court must keep in mind that people lie for many reasons. The court should consider whether an alleged perpetrator has deliberately lied and, if so, why. The mere fact of a lie is not evidence that a person is culpable of the incident alleged. The court should consider: ii. The deliberate lie(s) relied upon; iii. The significant issue to which the lie relates; and iv. The basis upon which it can be determined that the only explanation for the lie is guilt. n. Because a witness has lied about one or some matters does not mean they have lied about everything. Where a witness is found to have made mistakes or told lies in their evidence, the court must evaluate the evidence to assess the impact of the mistakes/lies on other aspects of the evidence and their evidence overall.

o. Witnesses may face difficulties in their recollections, particularly lay witnesses who do not have records of the events in question. The court must take account of the effect of delay and repeated questioning upon memory as well as the impact on one person of hearing accounts given by others and that changes in their account may not represent bad faith.

ABE guidance – general principles

[46]The importance of complying with the ABE guidance has been reiterated in a series of cases. The following points are of particular relevance:a. The ABE guidance is advisory rather than a legally enforceable code. However, significant departures from the good practice will likely result in reduced (or in extreme cases no) weight being attached to the interview by the courts.

b. Any initial questioning of a child prior to interview should be intended to elicit a brief account of what is alleged to have taken place; a more detailed account should not be pursued at this stage but should be left until the formal interview takes place.

c. The rapport phase includes explaining to the child the ‘ground rules’ for the interview and advising the child to give a truthful and accurate account, establishing that the child understands the difference between truth and lies.

d. Interviews need fully to appreciate that there are various types of question which vary in how directive they are. Questioning should, wherever possible, commence with open-ended questions and then proceed, if necessary, to specific-closed questions. Forced choice questions and leading questions should only be used as a last resort.

The Evidence

[47]I have a significant amount of evidence before me. There is a large bundle and a significant bundle of police disclosure. Importantly, the applicant also relies on several videos. These include video recorded ABE interviews with B, X, Y and Z. The footage runs to over twelve hours. I have not watched all of these interviews but reviewed a large amount of the material with the assistance of the applicant’s schedule of audio/video footage which sets out a guide to these materials. I am grateful to the author of this Schedule, as it has saved a significant amount of court time. It is important that I record that Mr Gedal took no issue with the contents of the audio/video schedule on behalf of C. Nor did Mr Gedal make any submissions that the ABE interviews did not comply with the law and/or guidance. His case was that C is firmly of the view B is not telling the truth and she has poisoned or coerced the children into telling lies against him.

[48]I have read witness statements from the following:a. RS, social worker. No party required to cross-examine this witness.

b. JW, family support worker. She was cross-examined.

c. GW, social worker. She was cross-examined.

d. B, who was cross-examined.

e. C. As set out above, C refused to give evidence.

RS, Social Worker

[49]RS was the duty social worker for the children in July 2025. She provided the initial background witness statement, dated 22 July 2025, for the issue of proceedings and for the purposes of the interim care order hearing. She sets out the background of the families and the provenance of the local authority involvement. She recounts various allegations against C made by X. She was the author of a full ‘SWET’ dated 31 July 2025 which sets out much detail to the care proceedings.

[50]Her third witness statement is dated 4 August 2025. In that she sets out that on 21 July 2025, she discussed with X plans for her to be married in Kurdistan. That C had arranged for her to marry a cousin who was eighteen or nineteen years old. Z told her than refusing to marry can lead to death. She also sets out direct conversations with B. B reported to her that she was very afraid of C. She feared for the children’s safety and her own safety when she left him. She reconciled on two occasions because C threatened her with death. She reported that on 1 August 2025 B told her that C had tried to call her and had used the mobile telephones of two women who work in his shop to try to call her and they had warned B by text message not to answer as it was C calling her using their telephones.

JW, Family Support Worker

[51]JW supported B and Z in the first five months of 2023. She explained that B told her whilst C was initially supportive she had become afraid of him. She told JW in February 2023 she wanted to end the relationship with C but was anxious about his reaction. B told JW that C had been physically abusive to her by pushing her twice. He was very controlling of her. B told JW that C had threatened to kill her. She was scared to contact the police although C was threatening her and threatening to kill the children. JW supported B and Z to move to a refuge. JW’s evidence is that these threats were reported to her by B and she did not witness them. She did witness B and C together in February 2023. JW was at B’s home. C arrived unannounced. B appeared distressed and anxious and made clear to JW she wanted C to leave. JW advised C to leave and when he continued she advised him she would call the police.

[52]JW was cross-examined by Mr Gedal. He questioned JW about Z’s school records, where it was recorded that JW was involved and a safeguarding meeting took place at Z’s school. JW told the meeting B was scared of C and there was a background of domestic abuse, including threats to kill. Z’s school records in March 2023 noted that B and Z were placed in a refuge for their safety. JW said B was reluctant to give her C’s name. JW told Mr Gedal that B had told her she returned to the Newcastle area from the refuge because Z missed school. The school informed JW they were very concerned that Z had returned to school.

[53]Cross-examined by Mr Gedal about the one occasion when JW had seen B and C together she accepted they spoke together in Kurdish and she did not speak that language and therefore did not know what they discussed. She remained of the view that B was scared and anxious and wanted C to leave her home, which he was unwilling to do.

GW, social worker

[54]GW is a social worker who has been involved in the children’s care for some time. She has provided a number of witness statements. She told the court that the children were removed from B’s care in November 2025 and since then they have made allegations to the police and social workers about C. There is no evidence that B has been in touch with the children but there are suspicions.

[55]It was put to her by Mr Gedal that the children have been contacted by B to be negative about C. GW said the children have an inbuilt fear of C which is not related to B. They are capable children. GW had witnessed their opinion of C, and believes their fear of C is their own. She said they have seen C assault B. GW considers the children have an allyship with B because they perceive they are victims together. She said she had no evidence that B had coached the children to be fearful of C. She said she had suspicions, in a professionally curious way, that B may have coached the children. The children have vivid memories of abuse. She said that an offer was made by the local authority to C, that he could write to the children in the last six weeks, but no letter has been received. B

[56]B has filed a number of witness statements in the proceedings. For the purposes of this fact finding hearing her witness statement of 22 September 2025 is the most relevant. Around 2021 she met C in a take away shop. They became friendly and he helped her get employment. He sought to control her through the employment. She says that C first physically assaulted her when she was driving in a car with Z and when she stopped at the traffic lights, C jumped on to the car bonnet, so she got out and was then punched in the face by C and almost lost consciousness. Z witnessed this and was crying, she heard a slap and believes C slapped Z. In 2023 C broke B’s phone. In March 2023, C engineered a Romanian woman to approach B and they were forced by C into fighting with each other outside Z’s school. I interject to note that Z’s school records note on 14 November 2022, B and another woman were involved in a fight outside the school gate, and the notes record the parents said that it was the “dad” who had started it. Following the fight, B was injured and C pushed her into a car and drove her away so she could not get into the school for help. She was then taken to live in a refuge in Darlington. C kept calling her and called her one day and told her to look outside and he was there outside the refuge. B’s evidence is that C threatened her by saying he would burn down the refuge. In August or September 2023 B and C got into an argument over cars and C threatened to “burn me, to melt me and throw acid in my face”. She escaped from him and got into her car but he followed her and then deliberately crashed his car into hers. The police were called and C told her not to report him and he would change the car. Z was present throughout. After the police left, C once again followed her car and the police returned and C was arrested. B recounts further incidents of threats and abuse. She says C said he had a naked video of her and would post it to their community’s social media websites to shame her.

[57]She then went to a refuge in Wales. C’S siblings continued to threaten her and her parents, saying he would kill them. Despite this B returned to Newcastle and received a call from C where he asked her whether she thought he would leave her alone and he threatened to kill her sisters. Despite more threats and pressure, B decided to marry C. After having agreed to marry C, B says he was a ‘completely new person’. They were married on 30 April 2024. C then paid her a weekly wage of £ 529 and bought her a new car for her birthday. After six months of marriage C suggested B take out a mortgage on a flat and then suggested she do this again, so B ended up with two mortgages over flats. B’s evidence is that at some stage C then changed and began getting angry and hitting the children. She then gives evidence that C regularly hit or beat her and the three children over inconsequential domestic issues. X and Z were very scared of C. C would often come home from work angry and would make demands of B and the children requiring them to fetch things for him and to cook for him. He would often beat the children, grab them and choke them. On one occasion he accused Z of speaking to boys and called her a slut and a whore and hit her.

[58]B’s evidence is that C was very controlling and even gave her a flash stick to carry around which was in fact an “airtag” to track her. She says C planned to send X to Kurdistan in June 2025 to be married to a cousin. In May 2025 she explains an incident took place when X was removed from school by B and C, taken home and C questioned her about a sexual conversation with a boy and then beat her “very severely”. He then went to the kitchen, B says, and grabbed a kitchen knife and put this at the foot of X’s neck, choked her and told B to get a bin bag as he was going to cut off Z’s head. B wrestled the knife off C and took Z upstairs to protect her.

[59]She sets out how C had named her as a director of various companies without her knowledge. She also says that C uses false names and aliases. He is not Syrian as he claimed to the UK authorities but is from Iraq.

[60]B was cross-examined first by Ms Dodds. She accepted in the past when under pressure she had not been honest with professionals.

[61]She gave evidence that she had told the police C had hit Z and that had happened. She then said when in a refuge in Wales, she received threats, C’s brothers kept ringing her and C called her from prison. Threats were made by C’s family to B’s family. She denied having contact when C was in custody. She denied visiting him. X and Y were at that time living with the grandparents. She said she did not know who took X and Y back to Iraq. Before moving back to Newcastle in April 2024, C contacted her after he was released from prison and threatened her to get together with him. He threatened her by saying he could get hold of her sister. She returned to get her belongings from the refuge and return to live with and be with C. She accepted when she told police she was living with a friend, when she was in fact living with C, she was not telling the truth. She accepted she told the police she was not in a relationship. She accepted one week later they married. She accepted C helped her with immigration papers and he held all her details because she could not speak English.

[62]In May 2024, X and Y returned from Kurdistan to live with B and C. She also said that C made her a director of a company and only told her later. She was aware she had mortgage over a flat, as she was working and had wages. C beat X and Y in late November 2024. Around this time she said that C did not want X to attend a mixed sex school.

[63]She recalled that on 11 July 2025 C assaulted Y in a kebab shop and this was caught on CCTV. B accepted she was aware of this assault on the same day and she saw the footage some days later browsing the CCTV footage and recorded it using a telephone. In respect of another incident, she said the plan was for X to be married to a cousin’s son. She remembered X was taken out of school on 7 June 2025 and C told reception that Z was going to take a nationality exam, and she said this was a lie. She said that Z was ‘severely beaten’ by C that afternoon. “He wanted to chop her head off”, she said. She said that C told her to get a bin bag, so that her head could be sent back to Kurdistan. She then said she would ring the police and then C stopped attacking X. She said she did not in fact ring the police. B said that X tried to escape the home and she locked the door to prevent her leaving and she was worried X would be caught and killed.

[64]She said that on 11 April 2026, she received 45 telephone calls, and one call was transcribed and from this she recognised C’s voice.

[65]Mr Gedal put it to B that it was not true that C abused B and the children. B responded that:

“I am not here to fight anyone, I am using the law.”

Mr Gedal put it to B that she has lied and she has fed lies to children. B responded that her main concern is the welfare of the children and she denied telling lies or feeding lies to the three children. Each of the disputed allegations was then put to B by Mr Gedal, on the basis C denied the allegations and that B was not telling the truth. B responded to each of these questions that the various disputed allegations had in fact happened and she was telling the truth.

[66]C has filed many witness statements. The key witness statement responding to the threshold allegations in his third witness statement, dated 12 November 2025. It is a short two page statement. He accuses B of making up all the allegations He says the Iraqi passport that B relies upon is something B has faked online. He identified other identity or status documents that he says B has faked. He says:

“I also want to make clear that I have never hit the children or [B] apart from one occasion when I slapped [Y].”

He describes B’s other allegations as nonsense. He continues “I have also never shouted or sworn at the children, nor have I ever called my daughter (or any other children) names. So all of these allegations are completely untrue.” He denies choking his daughter. He denied threatening X or putting a knife to her throat. He only admitted to being angry that day because X had been chatting with an older boy. He says that B is making false allegations to “get money” and he says that he gave her £ 100, 000 and two properties in company names, in respect of which she is the director. He says it is “interesting” to note that it was only a short time after this she made false allegations.

Analysis

[67]I have found the written and oral evidence of the professional witnesses to be both credible and reliable. They are professionals telling the court the truth. I found B to be mostly credible and generally reliable. She conceded in her own evidence she does not always tell the truth to professionals. However, once directed by me to simply answer the questions put to her, she did so. She answered clearly and shortly. She did not equivocate. She set out when she had lied in the past and why. This was mostly because of threats made to her by C. Furthermore, I note that many of B’s account of events are corroborated by the professional witnesses but also by the contemporaneous records, particularly the school records of Z.

[68]I do not find C to be either credible or reliable. In his written evidence his responses to the allegations were mostly bare denials. He only accepted one allegation of violence and that was the one when he was recorded beating Y. I have viewed the video. Y was a young boy at the time. He is standing with his head down. He is cowering. He looks fearful. Notwithstanding this, C was haranguing him and appeared to be shouting at him. He hits him hard on the head and then hits him around the face and then kicks him hard and Y runs away. It is not credible that the only assault C has perpetrated is the one that just happens to be caught on camera.

[69]C’s failure to defend his evidence and answer questions demonstrates his unreliability. I do not accept his reasons for refusing to do so. His reasons appear to be(i) his fear of self-incrimination;

(ii) that he did not wish to give evidence and

(iii) he does not wish to care for the children. These are not good reasons. Section 98 Children Act 1989 deals with the first concern. Not wanting to give evidence is not a good reason in circumstances where he has defended these proceedings for months and filed witness statements denying the allegations supported by statements of truth. He may not want to care for the children, but it is important for the court to understand what has happened to the children to make sound welfare decisions for them.

[70]C is a compellable witness. Paragraph 09-15 of Phipson On Evidence by Malek KC and others, 21st edition makes that clear: “"All witnesses competent to give evidence are in general compellable to do so. Refusal to be sworn when compellable, or, after being sworn refusal to answer an admissible question, is a contempt of court."

[71]This is also the case in the family context too, see Hale LJ (as she then was) (with the agreement of Thorpe LJ) in Y & K (Children)

[2003] EWCA Civ 669

at paragraph 35: Parents can be compelled to give evidence in care proceedings; they have no right to refuse to do so; they cannot even refuse to answer questions which might incriminate them. The position is no different in a split hearing from that in any other hearing in care proceedings. If the parents themselves do not wish to give evidence on their own behalf there is, of course, no property in a witness. They can nevertheless be called by another party if it is thought fit to do so, and the most appropriate person normally to do so would be the guardian acting on behalf of the child.

[72]C could have been ordered into the witness box. If he refused to answer questions he might have been found to have been in contempt of court. All of this would have cost a lot of public money. I concluded it was more efficient, just and not unfair to note his refusal and to accord what weight I think appropriate to his untested written evidence. I attach little weight to his evidence which I have already concluded is not credible and is unreliable.

[73]A significant part of the case against C in support of the allegations is the ABE interview videos. Each of B, X, Y and Z were carefully subjected to ABE interviews. I have seen the video recordings of these interviews and I have considered them against the applicant’s helpful Schedule. As I have said, Mr Gedal made no submissions against the reliability of the ABE process. His submission was that B is lying and has manipulated the children to tell untruths. I therefore place substantial weight on the evidence given by B, X, Y and Z in their ABE interviews. Each describes the actions of C in very similar terms. The children are confident in their description of domestic abuse. I reject C’s submissions through counsel that X, Y and Z are telling lies because of manipulation of them by B. Each of them credibly describe abuse at the hands of C. Their evidence is consistent with B’s. It is supported by the contemporaneous records in many cases. The professional witnesses support the children’s accounts.

[74]I have carefully assessed the credibility and reliability of B and C in particular. I have considered their evidence against:(i) the video of C’s assault on Y;

(ii) the school records which record evidence of C’s domestic violence and abuse and the great concern of school staff for Z in particular and B;

(iii) the ABE interview evidence from B, X, Y and Z which is all broadly corroborative, coherent and clear;

(iv) and the written and oral evidence of the professional witnesses.

[75]I have come to the clear conclusion that I prefer the evidence of B over C for the following reasons:(i) B was cross-examined and gave credible and reliable evidence;

(ii) B’s account is supported by the uncontroverted evidence of C’s cruel assault on Y caught by the CCTY camera. C told the police this was a “play fight” – it most certainly was not. C lied to the police. Furthermore, it is not credible this is the only occasion C assaulted the children and it just happened to be caught on camera;

(iii) B’s evidence is supported by contemporaneous evidence;

(iv) B’s evidence is preferred over C’s by experienced professional witnesses with experience of domestic abuse;

(v) C refused to give evidence for no good reason as a result I attach little weight to his written evidence and

(vi) C has been shown to tell lies (e.g. he lied when he said he did not know his children X and Y until 2021, but there is evidence of a photo on Instagram in June 2018 showing him with his two children).

[76]This is not one of those cases where it is necessary to go through each allegation in great detail. The wide canvass of evidence demonstrates the applicant has succeeded in demonstrating that it is more likely than not, its threshold findings are on the balance of probabilities true. I will look at the findings under their headings. I have taken into account the various and different sources of evidence and considered it all in a holistic way. I have also considered the allegations in context.

[77]In respect of A, I accept the evidence shows she has remained in Iraq and relinquished care for her children. I find the notarial certificate of 26 July 2021, found in the Home Office disclosure is not a fake as has been suggested. It is also clear X and Y have not been in their care for a very long time. On the balance of probabilities, allegation 1 is true.

[78]In respect of allegation 3, it is clear on the balance of probabilities it is more likely than not that C has perpetrated coercive control against B. I find C employed her, but did not properly remunerate her until after they married. I find C called her excessively and made a series of violent threats to her including coming to her refuge and threatening to burn it down. B recounts this in her evidence and the account she gives to the police in December 2025 is highly consistent making it reliable. I prefer B’s evidence over C that the 3 (f) threats were made on various occasions. I also accept C threatened to disclose intimate videos. I accept C emotionally abused B for the reasons B gives in her evidence.

[79]I also find the allegations under heading 5 of ‘physical abuse’ are more likely to have taken place than not. The CCTV video of C assaulting B supports this. The fact C lied about this to the police demonstrates why he is neither credible nor reliable when he denies these allegations. B’s evidence is corroborated by the ABE evidence of X, Y and Z and also by the police and school records. I find that C held a knife to X’s throat and threatened to cut her head off and send it in a black bag to Kurdistan. I accept C told B to get the bin bag to collect X’s head. This appalling, violent, inhumane behaviour took place (obviously) in front of X. She must have been terrified. I accept B prevented X from leaving the home that day and dissuaded her from reporting matters to the police. That was B’s evidence.

[80]I further accept the forced marriage allegations. I accept the ABE evidence of X and the written and oral evidence of B. This is further corroborated by the school and police records.

[81]I accept C’s true identity is unknown. I accept he has been known by different names. I accept he has given two different dates of birth. I further accept the children are aware of his multiple identities. I do not, however, make the more granular findings sought in paragraphs 7 and 8. That is because it is not clear the evidence is sufficiently clear to support the specific findings on the balance of probabilities. I have been referred to some documents, but their provenance is not always clear. In any event, the more granular findings are not necessary.

[82]In respect of the findings in respect of threats in the disputed schedule, I make the findings at paragraphs nine to thirteen. This is supported by the evidence of B. B also made certain recordings of C and the transcripts, which no person has doubted as genuine, disclose further threats from C to others. C failed to give oral evidence to explain or challenge these findings. I find, when seen in the context of the other sources of evidence, it is more likely than not that these allegations are true.

[83]I do not make finding 14, as I am not clear on whether or not C was entitled to his own passport or otherwise, as provided for in his bail conditions.

[84]These are the findings of fact I make. I have already made directions for the parties to respond to the findings and I will consider the welfare outcomes at a hearing in October 2026.

C’s Passport

[85]C has made an application for the return of his passport and discharge of the order made by HHJ Smith on 11 September 2025 prohibiting from leaving the United Kingdom as part of the forced marriage protection order to protect, X. The applicant and the guardian did not oppose it being returned to C. B does oppose this application. The police have not imposed a bail condition on C that prohibits him from leaving the United Kingdom. The police were directed to provide their view on C’s application for his passport. They have responded, applying for disclosure of the papers from these proceedings by way of a C2 application dated 25 June 2026.

[86]I am aware that a passport order is a significant infringement of C’s rights. I have in mind the decision of Cobb J (as he then was) in Re P (Discharge of Passport)

[2020] EWHC 3009

Fam. I have had regard to paragraph 32 in particular: “But a passport order is a potent order, with significant implications, whose use it seems to me should be tightly controlled; thus: i) A passport order should only ever be made for a finite period of time (this is likely to be, as it was in this case, for a period of six months before it would have expired unexecuted) (see Re L (A Child), Re Oddin

[2016] EWCA Civ 173

); ii) A passport order should not be made where the sole purpose is to coerce the respondent into action of a particular kind; in his submissions, the father rightly referenced in this regard Hobhouse LJ's judgment in B v B

[1994] 2 FLR 479

at 486 and Sir James Munby P in Re B (A Child: Evidence: Passport Order)

[2014] EWCA Civ 843

, [2015] 1 FCR 75,

[2015] 1 FLR 871

at [33]. Furthermore, once granted and passports are seized:- iii) The passport order is unlikely to endure beyond the conclusion of the proceedings in which the order is made (Re M (Children) (Care Proceedings: Passport Orders)

[2017] EWCA Civ 69

). If an order for a passport to be held indefinitely can ever be justified (i.e. after the conclusion of proceedings), it is likely only to be in an unusual and probably quite extreme case where it can be demonstrated, after a close evaluation of the degree of risk to the children and of the harm to which they will be exposed if the risk becomes a reality, that such a serious invasion of the passport-holder's rights is proportionate and necessary: Re M (above); cf, Re A (A Child)

[2016] EWCA Civ 572

[2016] 4 WLR 111

, paras 69-70; iv) Consistent with the principles above, and the observations from the authorities, it seems to me to be incumbent on the court to keep under careful review during ongoing proceedings the need to deprive a person of their passport, under a tipstaff passport order; such an order should not remain in place for any longer than is necessary to achieve the legitimate desired protection or outcome. The removal of an individual's passport, even on a temporary basis, be that of an adult or child, is a very significant incursion into the individual's freedom and personal autonomy. It is never an order that can be made lightly (Hayden J in London Borough of Tower Hamlets v M

[2015] EWHC 869

); a passport order should in my judgment rarely if ever be more than a very temporary measure.

Furthermore, once granted and passports are seized:-

[87]Prohibiting C from travelling is a significant intervention in his rights. He says he has pressing business overseas. I have decided that I will first determine the police’s application for disclosure of documents from these proceedings and if that is granted I will direct them to respond to C’s application formally and I will then determine C’s application. It is a matter for the police what bail conditions they wish to impose. The family court should not impose bail conditions by the ‘back door’. However, I am satisfied given the risk of forced marriage, given the significant findings of fact made against C in this judgment and given the threats made to B’s family here and overseas, I should be cautious before varying HHJ Smith’s order. I will be in a position to determine it at the further case management hearing listed on 31 July 2026. The short further delay to ensure a just outcome is not oppressive to C.

[88]I ask counsel to draft an order to give effect to the findings of fact made and consequential directions.