M v F (A Child) (Fact-Finding Hearing: Transnational Abandonment) [2026] EWFC 199 (B)

[2026] EWFC 199 (B)

Case Nos: ZW26P00497 & ZW26F00067-70

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT WEST LONDON

West London Family Court

Gloucester House, 4 Duke Green Avenue,

Feltham, TW14 0LR

Date 21 July 2026

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILLANS

Between

MOTHERApplicant

FATHERRespondents

PATERNAL GRANDFATHERRespondent

PATERNAL GRANDMOTHERRespondent

PATERNAL UNCLERespondent

Afzal Syed-Ali (instructed by Landmark Legal LLP) for Applicant

Huma Price (instructed by Nasim & Co Solicitors) for First Respondent

The Second to Fourth Respondents appeared as a litigants in person for in person

Hearing Hearing dates: 29-30 June, 7 & 21 July 2026

JUDGMENT

[1]This judgment follows a three-day fact finding hearing relevant to both Children Act and Family Law Act proceedings. The applicant is the mother of a child subject to the Children Act proceedings and the respondents are in order the father of the child (first respondent); paternal grandfather to the chid (second respondent); paternal grandmother to the child (third respondent) and; paternal uncle to the child (fourth respondent).

[2]The applicant makes allegations against each of the respondents which are denied in their entirety.

[3]I have considered the papers in the hearing bundle, the submissions made by counsel for he applicant and first respondent and the evidence of the applicant, her witness [MTR] and the from the first, second and fourth respondents. I bear all of the evidence in mind when reaching my decisions whether I directly reference or not. The findings sought

[4]The allegations are as follows: 1. Controlling behaviour: [From around September 2022 and throughout the marriage] …the [first respondent] controlled the marriage and made all decisions. [The applicant] had no say in matters affecting the marriage or household. [The applicant] had no say, [the first respondent] demanded access to all her social media and email accounts, monitored her work hours, questioned her if late, shouted at her, and required her to contribute financially to the household and outgoings. [The applicant] says the Respondents knew she had no support network in the UK and used this to control her 2. [In 2025] … [the applicant] alleges the [first respondent], supported by [the second-fourth respondents], pressured her to relocate permanently to [country X] with [the child] and live under the control of the paternal family. She says that by mid-2025 [the respondent], [second and third respondents] were encouraging her to move to [X], and that on 26 Dec 2025 [the first respondent] told her that she and [the child] would be remaining there. MTR supports [the applicant]’s case by describing the March 2025…meeting, where the Respondent side said the marriage could only continue if [the applicant] went to [X] to live with [the first respondent]’s parents, with [the first respondent] merely visiting periodically, and where [the applicant] appeared distressed and under pressure. 3. Around 29 December 2025: [The first respondent] and the paternal family retained or stole [applicant]’s passport, phone, jewellery, money and documents in order to prevent her from returning to the UK and regaining [the child]. She says she had to obtain replacement identity and travel documents in Jan 2026, and that [the first respondent] had access to her phone and UKVI account and may have curtailed her visa. 4. Threats and intimidation: Between 26-29 December 2025…In X [the applicant] was threatened and intimidated, primarily by [the second respondent], with the involvement of [the third respondent] and [the first respondent]. She says [the second respondent threatened to kill her and her mother and verbally abused her. She further says [the second respondent] and [the third respondent] threatened that she would be reported as mentally ill and locked up, and that [the child] would be taken from her if she did not remain in [X]. [The applicant] also says that [the first respondent] participated in the overall coercive conduct, including withholding her documents and insisting she remain in X. MTR describes a threatening confrontation on or about 27 December 2025 in which [the applicant] was accused of greed and told she must remain in [X], and he states he feared for her safety. 5. Physical Violence and Abuse: In 2024-5 … [the applicant] suffered physical abuse in pregnancy and within the paternal household. In 2024 [the applicant] was kicked in the stomach by [the first respondent]’s son ZZ, causing bleeding and miscarriage, and that the [first respondent] then threatened her not to disclose the truth. She further alleges that in 2025 [the fourth respondent] strangled her by the neck and forced her to undertake heavy housework while pregnant, contributing to a further miscarriage. [The fourth respondent] had behaved aggressively on other occasions and had pushed both [the applicant] and [the child] in the past, while [the first respondent] failed to protect her and told her to tolerate [the fourth respondent]’s behaviour. 6. Emotional /Psychological Abuse: Throughout the marriage …. [the applicant] was subjected to ongoing emotional and psychological abuse by the paternal family. [The applicant] was insulted, told she was ugly and below [the first respondent]’s standards, made to feel “lucky” to have married him, criticised by [the third respondent] during pregnancy, and demeaned by [the first respondent]’s conduct in the marriage including pornography use in the bedroom. She says the birth of [the child] was not treated joyfully because [the child] was a girl rather than a boy. 7. Abduction: On 29 December 2025 …Three men and one woman entered the bedroom while she was asleep with [the first respondent] and [the child], held her down, and the woman injected her against her will while she was restrained. [the first respondent] watched and said, “this is what I deserved.” [The applicant] was restrained, injected against her will, blindfolded, transported, and placed in an unlicenced rehab / psychiatric facility without consent or cause, while [the first respondent] watched and said, “this is what I deserved.” [The applicant] says this was done by or at the direction of [the [first respondent] or the [second respondent]. MTR says the family then lost all contact with [the applicant], received false explanations…and later discovered that she had been placed in a so-called rehabilitation centre. [The maternal grandmother of the child] says she repeatedly sought information and was not told where [the applicant] was. When [the applicant] could not be located, reports were made to the police in the UK and [X]. A relies also on the [X Magistrate]’s order requiring her release and the [X police’s] …recording her complaint of assault, injection and forcedadmission. 8. From 29 December 2025 and thereafter: While [the applicant] was in this unlicenced facility, [the respondent’s] removed [the child] to the UK without [the applicant]’s knowledge or consent. [The applicant] was [the child]’s primary carer and that [the child] was still breastfeeding at the time. Once the [applicant] returned to the UK, [the first respondent] refused contact, onlyallowed one video call and then stopped responding. Background

[5]The parties met online in 2021. The applicant was living in X and the first respondent in this jurisdiction. The first respondent had was divorced and has a child from a previous marriage who lives with the child’s mother in X.

[6]In December 2021 the parties married and following an application for a spousal visa the applicant joined the first respondent in this country in around September 2022 where they then lived in his home.

[7]In February 2023 the applicant obtained employment as a teacher.

[8]During the marriage the first respondent’s parents (second and third respondent) would regularly visit for extended periods and stay in the home. In addition the first respondent’s brother (the fourth respondent) would also visit with his wife also staying in the property albeit it appears less often that the parents.

[9]In February 2024 the child was born. Subsequent to this the applicant has suffered two separate miscarriages in late 2024 and then in 2025.

[10]In March 2025 a meeting was held between both paternal and maternal family members. It appears agreed this concerns issues in the marriage although the detail is in dispute. MTR attended the meeting.

[11]In December the applicant and first respondent travelled to X having passed through a third country on route. They left on 3 December 2025 arriving in X on 12 December 2025. Whilst in X the applicant visited her own family between about 21-26 December 2025 before returning to the second and third respondent’s family home.

[12]The fourth respondent did not travel to X and remained in this country. The second and third respondents had travelled to X in advance of the first respondent and were waiting when they arrived.

[13]On 29 December 2025 the applicant was removed from the family home and placed into a form of rehabilitation unit. Whilst she was in the unit and on 30 December 2025 the first to third respondent’s left with the child travelling to this country.

[14]On 3 January 2026 the child’s maternal grandmother obtained a Court Order discharging the applicant into her care. Following this the applicant took steps to enable her to return to this country eventually returning on 20 January 2026. Prior to departing arrest warrants were issued for both the first and second respondents.

[15]The child has continued to reside in the first respondent’s home supported by his parents. The applicant has received support with housing but is I believe not entitled to public funds. The proceedings

[16]On 10 March 2026 the applicant issued both Family Law Act injunction applications against all four respondents and a Children Act application for the child to live with her and for prohibited steps and specific issue orders.

[17]On 11 March 2026 a District Judge made non-molestation orders against all four respondents without notice to them. The Judge also made a prohibited steps order preventing removal of the child from the jurisdiction.

[18]The applications returned to Court before me on 20 March 2026 for a return hearing. I maintained the injunctive orders without findings or admissions and continued the prohibited steps order on the same basis. I ordered the child’s passport be placed with the applicant’s solicitors further to Court order. I directed interim contact, some disclosure (from the relevant local authority and safeguarding from CAFCASS) and listed this fact-finding hearing with a PTR on 9 June 2026.

[19]At the PTR I appointed a QLR for the fourth respondent (the second and third respondents electing not to examine the applicant) and also made provision for interpreters and participation directions for the listed hearings. Relevant Legal Principles

[20]This is a fact-finding hearing and the child’s welfare is not paramount.

[21]The applicant makes a series of allegations against the respondents and will prove these if she shows, in the case of each allegation considered independently, that it is more likely than not to have happened. This is the balance of probabilities. If she shows this to be the case then it will be proven and treated as a fact within the proceedings. If she fails to meet this threshold then it will not be proven and will be disregarded within these proceedings. The system is binary and there are no shades of grey.

[22]Whilst I reference each allegation being considered independently this does not mean each is considered in a separate compartment without reference to the other allegations. Plainly a finding or conclusion with regard to evidence in relation to allegation X may be informative, probative and influential when answering the question of allegation Y. The Court can and should always stand back and reflect on the evidence in a global sense whilst at the same time focusing on individual matters.

[23]The respondents have absolutely no burden upon them to disprove the allegations or where relevant provide a counter narrative. This does not mean they are not entitled to give an account and any such account should be scrutinised with care but the rejection of such an account will not by itself mean the allegation is proven.

[24]The evidence of the parties should be central to my analysis. What they each say need to be kept in mind and carefully considered. Other evidence will also be helpful and particularly so where it is independent. In family disputes of this nature independent evidence can be difficult to find as much of what is said to happen has played out in the intimate personal sphere of the family’s life.

[25]When considering allegations of domestic abuse the Court should keep in mind the key authority of Re H-N (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Findings of Fact Hearings)

[2021] EWCA Civ 448

. This decision of the Court of Appeal provides a helpful overview with respect to domestic abuse, the character of such abuse, its components and the importance of a Court applying a modern day understanding of such abuse when considering such allegations.

[26]That authority also reminds Courts that not all unkind, unpleasant and inappropriate behaviour will be domestic abuse. It is for the assessing Court to find the facts and determine what any behaviour amounts to.

[27]In considering the allegations and the evidence of the witnesses I am entitled to have regard to their demeanour in giving evidence. Such demeanour may supply insight as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations. However, when considering such demeanour I must be alive to the possibility of there being a mismatch being the presentation of evidence and the intrinsic truth of the evidence. Some honest witnesses can present as poor witnesses for many reasons just as wholly dishonest witnesses can appear confident and persuasive. When considering evidence the Court will always be keeping in mind issues around consistency and credibility.

[28]A Court may be asked to consider the importance of a witness having been shown to have lied in giving their evidence and asked to decide that this has fundamental relevance to the truth of the allegations under consideration. Lies can be probative and may assist a Court in answering the ultimate question as to the truth of an allegation however lies can be told for many other unconnected reasons and in such cases the Court should be careful to examine whether the lie was deliberate; whether it related to a significant or material issue in the case; whether it was motivated by an intention to conceal guilt or whether in contrast there is another possible and ‘innocent’ explanation for the lie.

[29]This completes my summary of the key legal principles. I accept this section could run for many more pages were I to undertake a full account of the law in this field. I consider the above is a fair account of the key points and I continue to keep in mind the broader legal landscape when making my decisions. My impression of each witness

[30]I heard from the applicant and MTR for the applicant and from the first, second and fourth respondents. The third respondent was expected to give evidence (rather than the second respondent) but was unable to confirm in a satisfactory manner either her statement or the signature attached to it and given other surrounding issues I considered it would be better for the Court to hear from the second respondent instead.

[31]The applicant impressed me. I found her a balanced witness who did not overstate her case and on many occasions either made observations or accepted points which whilst not always significant run contrary to her case. Her evidence around her relationship with the first respondent whilst maintaining significant allegations was also balanced. She was confident when giving evidence and my sense of her was that she was keen to take the opportunity to allow her voice to be heard. Whilst a screen was in place my sense was that she was in no way perturbed by the presence of the respondents. She was articulate and answered all questions head on without evasion. I consider her both when giving evidence and when listening to the evidence. She was composed throughout and when some of the evidence heard caused her upset she managed this in a quite manner without any performative element or contrived hysteria.

[32]Whilst making these points I note features which must also be borne in mind. First, in her early evidence the applicant claimed to suffer a miscarriage after being kicked by the fourth respondent. In a later statement she confirmed this was wrong and that she had been kicked (in live evidence it appeared accidentally) by the first respondent’s older child. This is a significant inconsistency. Second, I also note there are some material inconsistencies as to the dating and timing of various events in the late December period. Third, I note inconsistencies between the evidence within these proceedings and that contained within local police reports provided contemporaneously. These are all points that I properly balance against the impression noted in the previous paragraph.

[33]MTR impressed me. He gave short evidence but was clear and consistent in his account. He was calm and measured and was not evasive nor argumentative when challenged. I do bear in mind he is not an impartial witness and that significant parts of his evidence repeat what the applicant has told him.

[34]I briefly note the difficulty with the evidence of the second respondent. She was to give evidence through an interpreter and appeared in some emotional difficulty throughout the hearing. She was unable to confirm her statement and it was not certified by an appropriate interpreter despite my clear directions given at earlier hearings. It was therefore unclear as to how she could confirm its contents. It had or might have been read to her by her husband. She could not identify the signature on the document which was said to be hers. I determined we would proceed without hearing evidence from her although the applicant was entitled to make observations as to issues that had arisen.

[35]The second respondent gave short evidence through an interpreter. I have struggled to form a clear impression of this witness given his limited responses. He certainly was consistent in his denials and was no evasive but he was not a particularly open witness in his responses. I do bear in mind his age and some potential cultural differences in communication that might be in play.

[36]The fourth respondent was also a very short witness. As with the second respondent I bear in mind he was a litigant in person, that English is not his first language and that he has no familiarity with court procedure and indeed the substance of this case is not really about him. He was more resolute in his position and firm in his evidence. In many regards his evidence distanced him from some of the key events. Some of the evidential enquiry was not particularly relevant (around his immigration status) to my decision making. Overall I found her a more impressive witness than the second respondent but less important to the overall analysis.

[37]The first respondent was the key respondent witness. He is central to the case and was represented, although not until the PTR. As such I keep in mind that his early engagement with the case was as a litigant in person. Overall I found him less impressive than the applicant. In particular I bear in mind that many significant aspects of his evidence were not found within his statement evidence (including his final statement which was produced after he was represented). In other areas his statement was light as to detail. I found him a much more cautious witness in his approach and I was left with a concern as to whether he was being open with the Court.

[38]However I repeat that these impression do not bring my analysis of the truth of the allegations to an end. They simply set the scene in which I approach the allegations. The key evidence heard

[39]In this judgment I will place a particular focus on the events in X in December 2025. In my assessment this is by far the most serious of the allegations. It can be seen the allegations 2,3,4,7 and most of 8 are in reality part of a single allegation around controlling behaviour seeking to compel the applicant to live in X in circumstances in which this was against her wishes. The balance of allegations needs to be considered but are I consider secondary.

[40]By the end of the evidence it was clear to me there was a high level of agreement about much of what happened on 29 December 2025. The timeline and evidence relating to pressure to move to X

[41]All dates are in 2025 unless otherwise stated.

[42]The applicant alleges the first respondent, likely affected by his parents determined she should move to live in X. The rationale for this she understood to be in part to assist in the care of his parents. The applicants were clear she would have accepted moving to X together with the first respondent but that she objected to moving alone and being separated from him. The applicant maintained this position at various stages through her evidence in a consistent manner. In contrast the first respondent denied any plan in this regard but did at various points in his evidence concede there had been some level of discussion around the question of the applicant moving to X whether for a short period or longer. Nonetheless he was clear there was no coercion or inappropriate pressure. The rationale for the plan was less clear although appeared to be tied up with levels of disharmony in the relationship. Certainly the paternal family members gave evidence there was no need for the applicant as a carer for the grandparents.

[43]Nonetheless the applicant claimed the March meeting came to be fixed. She claims, supported by MTR, that during this meeting the proposal of her moving to X without the first respondent was raised. She was clear she was resistant to this proposal. MTR gave evidence as to the meeting. He had travelled to the country for the meeting (as had others on the paternal side). The impression was that he was a substitute male member of the applicant’s family in circumstances where the applicant’s father is deceased. MTR gave evidence as to what occurred at the meeting including the suggestion that the applicant should move to X to live with her parents-in-law. He told me the view was being expressed that ‘woman have too many rights’ and he felt the applicant was under pressure and unable to speak freely. The meeting lasted nearly 5 hours. Afterwards the applicant had told him she was under pressure from the first respondent. He was clear the first respondent was insisting both the applicant and the child should go to X. MTR saw this as the exercise of a power relationship with the threat of divorce being wielded if the applicant did not agree. MTR told me the applicant was clear she wanted her marriage to function and continue and said she would accept this requirement if it were a condition of the marriage. MTR said at this point the first respondent said in that case the dispute is over. MTR was clear he was not threatened during the meeting although he was concerned as to the tone of the discussion.

[44]The first respondent addressed the circumstances leading to the meeting in his written and live evidence. He argued the meeting arose due to developing disagreement within the relationship and that his impression was of heightened expectations of financial support from him to support the maternal family. In his live evidence he spoke of the applicant having temporary left the matrimonial home following this dispute and this led to the meeting. He denied the suggestion of an ultimatum being given to the applicant as to moving to X but did agree in his written evidence that discussions did occur regarding the possibility of the Applicant spending periods of time in Pakistan where extended family support was available. Whilst the fourth respondent was also at the meeting there was little evidence or examination of him as to the content of the meeting.

[45]The evidence moves on and the applicant gave evidence of an improvement in living circumstances. Again the sense of her evidence was that matters would improve when the family members left to return to X. In many ways the applicant appeared willing to exculpate the first respondent of much of the responsibility for the decision making appearing to place this with his parents. In his written evidence the first respondent appeared not to share the view of an improving situation commenting that the relationship further deteriorated after the meeting. However he agreed plans were made for a trip to X. The history moved on the trip in December 2025. The applicant gave an account of the first respondent proposing the trip and her ‘jumping at the opportunity’. The common evidence appears to be that the first stage of the trip which had a religious focus went without event prior to arriving in X.

[46]The first respondent’s written evidence which was maintained in live evidence confirmed there were ‘discussions’ during the trip as to the applicant remaining for a period in X. The timing of the discussions is less clear and it may be this mixes up the conversations noted below. In his written evidence the first respondent linked this to upcoming festivities in X and indicated this would have been only temporary in nature until around the end of February 2026. For the avoidance of doubt there is no suggestion the applicant travelled to X with an understanding she would not return until February 2026. The first respondent also referenced the need for him to return to the UK for work purposes and the suggestion of the applicant remaining behind. In his live evidence he told me the applicant was clear she would want to return with him to the UK and then come back together later although he suggested this might be financially impossible.

[47]The parties arrived in X on 12 December. There was no significant issue through the early part of the period in X including and up to 26 December when the applicant returned from her family home having been there since 21 December.

[48]The first respondent refers to a deterioration towards the latter end of the period in X. Given the parties arrived in X on 12 December 2025 and the applicant was at her mother’s home from 21-26 December 2026 this deterioration is referable to the period after 26 December when the applicant returned to the respondent’s home and 29 December when the key event occurred. The first respondent claims a deterioration in the applicant’s mental health with a level of dysregulation and self-harming behaviours. I note in his written evidence he claims this to have been a feature of her presentation during the marriage in the UK: During the course of the relationship, the Applicant frequently exhibited behaviour that I found concerning, including emotional volatility, aggressive outbursts, and repeated threats of self-harm. He told me as a result he consulted with the unit who took a history from him alone. He did so after speaking to a friend who appears to have suggested this was an issue that might arise with a woman. The evidence in this regard is vague having not been contained in the written evidence. In any event the history given by the first respondent to the medical unit appeared to include allegations of self-harming behaviours and threats to self-harm on the part of the applicant.

[49]There is no suggestion the applicant was aware of this developing mental health enquiry. She disputes any pre-existing mental health issues pointing to evidence from her GP in the UK and the fact she had been holding down a teaching post throughout the relevant period. She did not take part in any consultation or mental health assessment.

[50]The applicant gives a different account of how matters proceeded when she returned from her family home on 26 December. She claims the atmosphere in the paternal family home shifted significantly at this point. It is agreed the first, second and third respondents were present there with the fourth respondent in London. The applicant alleges that on 26 December the first respondent told her that she and the child would be remaining in X which led to her suffering a panic attack. She was then threatened by the second and third respondents that they would take the child back to UK if she did not agree to stay in X. The applicant describes a highly emotional confrontation with the respondent’s shouting at her with her in distress and the child present. When she refused to remain in X she was told there was no return ticket for her and that as they had retained her passport and money (£6,000) and jewellery there was no way for her to return. The applicant agrees at this point she was so distressed that she said she would rather kill herself than be separated from her child. She claims the respondent’s videoed her and believes this video was the relied upon against her when issues around her mental health were raised. She claims the first respondent later apologised but his parents maintained a confrontational approach.

[51]The applicant alleges matters calmed only for the issue to resurface on 28 December when she claims the second respondent threatened to kill her and her mother after she asked for her passport and items. Whilst the detail is unclear the applicant links this event to an allegation of the second respondent calling the fourth respondent and speaking about her being admitted to hospital. I have struggled to find this suggestion within the written evidence although it was put to both respondent’s who denied the same.

[52]The first respondent claims there was then a rapid deterioration in the applicant’s mental health on 28-29 December. In his live evidence for the first time he detailed an event during which the applicant is said to have attempted to throw herself from a balcony. Later in his evidence he added that the child was in her arms at this point. He claimed to have restrained her. The applicant denies any mental health issues or dysregulated behaviour that would have warranted medical intervention although she accepts a high level of distress as detailed above. The balcony incident was not put to her and was not before the Court when she gave evidence. The evidence of the first respondent is that this developing issue led him to the call the medical unit for emergency assistance.

[53]Both applicant and first respondent then agree the following. Late at night on 29 December they were in their bedroom together. At that point four individuals attended and entered their bedroom. The first respondent stood up and the applicant was restrained by the people attending, three of whom were men and one a woman. She was then removed from the property and taken to a medical unit which on its headed papers is described as a ‘Life Drugs Addiction & Psychiatric Rehab Center’. It appears agreed the first respondent got up from the bed and left the room as the attending group entered. The applicant claims to have been injected with some substance which had an impact on her but she remained conscious. The first respondent does not challenge this account but claims he did not see what happened.

[54]In her written evidence the applicant also involves the second respondent in this process although this is not a consistent account. In her first statement only the first respondent was present when the group arrived and removed the applicant. However, in an exhibit attached to the statement the applicant includes a police report made by her she alleges (content as set out without amendment save as to names): They captured me with my husband and they beat me with blows. My father-in-law captured me from my hair and he threatened me to kill me and they tied my hands and feet with waistband. My father-in-law gave this waistband to these three unknown men and the unknown woman Injected on my left arm and I became semiconscious. Then [the first respondent] and [the second respondent], my father-in-law held me and they forced me to ride in the car and they got admitted me in a drug treatment center without my will, presenting me as drug addict. The detail as to the ‘beating’ and the direct involvement was not repeated in the live evidence. The second respondent agrees he was in the property but claims to have been unaware of the four people entering his property and removing his daughter-in-law until the next morning. The presence or role of the third respondent is not referenced in any of the reports. I do though note in his live evidence the second respondent told me the applicant had put a rope around her neck and tried to kill herself. This is not contained within his written evidence where he limited his relevant observation to: I observed the Applicant behaving in an increasingly aggressive and emotionally unstable manner. There were occasions where she became verbally abusive towards my son and created significant tension within the family environment.

[55]It is agreed the applicant then remained in the unit for around 6 days until her discharge on 3 January 2026. During this period, on I believe 30 December the first, second and third respondents left X with the child returning to UK. The first respondent claims to have remained in contact with the applicant supporting her whilst in the unit until he discovered the police had become involved after which all contact ended. He gives his work commitment as the reason for having to return to UK.

[56]The applicant contends her family had through this period expressed concern as to her whereabouts. There is a statement from her mother including text messaging sent to the respondent family seeking to obtain the whereabouts of her daughter. In contrast the first respondent maintains they were kept fully informed at all times as to what was happening. Indeed the first (and I think second respondent) both claim the maternal grandmother had been contacted prior to her daughter’s admission to the unit and had made clear the issue was a matter for the paternal family to resolve.

[57]MTR gave evidence as to this period and told me he had communicated with the fourth respondent to find out where the applicant was. The account he claims to have been given is confused but appears to suggest there had been an incident on route back to UK involving the applicant and first respondent in a third transit country and they had been detained there. There is no suggestion this in fact happened and the fourth respondent denies having said so. The conversation between MTR and the fourth respondent is difficult to reconcile with the maternal family being kept informed throughout the period.

[58]What is clear is that the maternal grandmother then took the issue to Court in X and obtained a Magistrates Order for the applicant to be discharged from the unit into her care. The applicant then visited the respondent family home only to find it empty. As I understand the evidence at some point during this period she became aware the first respondent and child had left X for the UK. The applicant then raised a complaint with the local police and warrants of arrest for the first and second respondent were issued. In live evidence the second respondent told me he has subsequently returned to X and the warrant (and case) has ended. I understand the warrant relating to the first respondent continues in force.

[59]The applicant alleges she was then in some difficulty following the child back to the UK as her passport and resources had been kept by the respondent family. They deny this and it is claimed the same was taken to the maternal family home in the course of the trip. The applicant claims she then had to obtain emergency documents before she was able to return to the UK on 20 January 2026 where she reported what had happened to the police. She was told as the events had occurred outside of the jurisdiction there was nothing they could do and that an application should be made to the Family Court. The applicant sets out attempts to obtain contact with the child and a refusal to allow the same. The first respondent later before the Court referenced the concerns as to the applicant’s mental health. As is noted above the Court set down interim contact arrangements.

[60]It can be seen this account includes allegation 2 [the March meeting and pressure to relocate]; 3 [the withholding of passport and other items in December 2025]; 4 [threats and intimidation on around 26-29 December]; 7 [the ‘abduction’ on 29 December], and; 8 [the subsequent removal of the child from X]. The other allegations

[61]Allegation 5 mixes up a range of complaints under the heading of physical abuse. A key aspect of this allegation relates to the applicant suffering two miscarriages. There is no dispute she did. The first is alleged to have occurred after being kicked by the first respondent’s child. Having heard the evidence it is clear this is accepted to have been an accident. It cannot ground a relevant founding within these proceedings whether or not the first respondent told the applicant not to mention what had caused the miscarriage to occur. If as is clear it was an accident very little extra arises out of the wish to keep quiet the detail of the accident. The second miscarriage is said to have arisen in circumstances in which the applicant was being asked to do too much heavy labour around the house. As a result she alleges she suffered the miscarriage. The first respondent denies culpability for the same and argues it was a sad but natural event.

[62]However, within this allegation there is also a discrete allegation of the fourth respondent during a heated confrontation strangling the applicant. It is also said there were occasions when he pushed her and the child. The fourth respondent denies this. The evidence in regard to the pushes is very limited other than mention of it as above. In her live evidence the applicant talked of a time when the fourth respondent was angry and pushed her hand away and told her he did not want to talk to her.

[63]The strangling whilst referenced is also supported by limited evidence. It is clear the applicant and fourth respondent has a strained relationship to some extent as I heard that he and his family left the home after some form of disagreement with the applicant and that the first respondent was not given the detail at the time. In her live evidence when challenged the applicant detailed a domestic argument during which she was shouted at. The applicant appears to suggest an observation made by her was felt to be dismissive by the fourth respondent who strangled and pushed her, other family members parted them and she fell back. The first respondent is said to have intervened and apologies. None of the respondent’s accept this account.

[64]Allegation 1 is as to controlling behaviour through the marriage including social isolation and financial and other control. It was put to her that she had her own phone and social media presence. She agreed but commented that the first respondent had her password and could access her phone although she told me she was comfortable with that. She spoke as to financial expectations with regards to financial contributions and agreed she had her own salary which was paid into her joint account but complained as to an expectation to contribute to wider family. The applicant complained as to being socially isolated. She agreed she had work friends but was not permitted to socialise outside of the home. As noted above she also spoke of the pressure to move to X.

[65]The first respondent disputed control pointing to the freedom the applicant had to work and form friendships out of such work and her independent financial accounts and phone. He disputed the financial expectations were illegitimate and contended these should be seen as an ordinary expectation of married life. He drew upon the financial support he had provided for the applicant as part of this understanding. I have noted the dispute as to the control of the passport within the preceding section. He commented that family chores were shared with his own mother doing much of this. It is clear the first respondent spent significant time at work.

[66]Allegation 6 concerned emotional abuse. It was put to the first respondent he watched pornography in his bedroom and he denied the same. Beyond that the evidence was limited to that within the statement evidence. The applicant was asked to detail the abuse she alleged and told me there were countless times in which she was insulted. This included comments such as ‘she doesn’t know anything’ and ‘why does it look like you do nothing’ and ‘your husband does not like the food you cook’. She alleges the first respondent called her ‘ugly’ and his parents told her she was ‘lucky to have him’. She was called a ‘witch’. This allegations were denied and the respondent’s argued they were supportive of the applicant. Analysis

[67]Whilst I will set out my analysis in a linear style I have stood back and considered each of the allegations separately but also reflected upon the light they shine on each of the other allegations.

[68]I am clear the allegations insofar as they relate to miscarriages are not made out as events which have any bearing on the child arrangements in this case. Whilst there is no factual agreement as to the incident involving the first respondent’s older child, taking it at its highest it does not establish a set of circumstances of real relevance to the welfare decision which will follow in due course. It is plain this was an accident and as such has no relevance. I take a similar view with regard to the second miscarriage as there is no evidential basis for associating that miscarriage with conduct on the behalf of the first respondent (or indeed any of the respondents) which justifies meaningful criticism. It may be there were expectations on the applicant as claimed but I cannot find a sound evidential basis for reaching the conclusion sought. In any event there is an absence of evidence establishing a causative link between the workload and the miscarriage.

[69]I am also unimpressed by the broad allegation of emotional abuse (see §66 above) although in making this observation I do not reject the applicant’s evidence. I am not satisfied that I have received evidence which amounts to domestic abuse in contrast to generalised unpleasant conduct. Much of the words referenced in that paragraph are plausible but do not amount to behaviour which needs be carried forward into the welfare assessment. I make no specific finding about the pornography allegation but in any event I am not satisfied it is conduct relevant to fact-finding. There is no suggestion the pornography was of such a nature as to breach the criminal law and as such whilst, if correct, it may have upset the applicant it is not a matter in respect of which I consider myself entitled to criticise the first respondent. He has a right to his own private life and such behaviour would comfortably fit within his rights in such regard.

[70]I am satisfied the second respondent used words to the effect ‘I will kill…’ when speaking to the applicant as alleged. However I also accept the evidence of the applicant that these words did not convey an actual intention to act in such a manner. My sense is that this language has a cultural overlay and one must take some care in assessing its real impact and relevance. Most importantly, I do not find the words were in fact used to impress on the applicant an intention to kill or a real threat of the same. I accept it was language with a controlling element in indicating a high level of upset and anger with an intention to control the applicant’s conduct. In much the same way I accept the applicant said she would rather die than be separated from her child. Again I do not find this conveyed a real intention to kill herself and the respondent’s listening would have understood this distinction. Again I find such emotive language was used to convey her level of distress not to suggest an actual intention or likelihood of the same.

[71]I am not satisfied as to the broad thrust of the controlling allegation. I consider the cultural expectations within the family carry with them elements of societal control but I do not raise this beyond that level. On the evidence the applicant did have some real autonomy whilst I accept her sense of freedom remained constrained by the expectations out of her role in the family and the associated cultural expectations. My understanding is that this was a family with common cultural expectation deriving from their background in X in which the applicant on marriage joined the family of the respondents and was expected to show a level of respect to the elders within the family and towards her husband (whether deserved or otherwise). I do not wish to overly generalise with respect to the culture from which the family derive and I recognise and accept the evidence of MTR as to a different approach to male-female roles within the wider family. Nonetheless I consider it important to assess these features sensitive to the circumstances as they appeared to the parties at the time they occur rather than solely with hindsight through the prism of fact-finding. As an instance of this I note the continuing evidence of the applicant that she would have moved to X as directed by her husband without demure had he indicated he would go with her. The parties derive from a patriarchal culture which they continue to individually accept and respect and I must keep this in mind when calibrating my assessment.

[72]Before turning to the main allegation I deal with the allegations against the fourth respondent. On balance I prefer the evidence of the applicant to the fourth respondent that there was a confrontation and a physical assault upon the applicant. However, for the purposes of these proceedings I view it as an isolated event which has little relevance to welfare. I accept the evidence of the applicant that the first respondent intervened in and I do not have a sense this was an event within a broader relationship of abuse as opposed to a moment of important disagreement as alleged between two related adults. I accept in the event the fourth respondent did have his hand in the vicinity of the applicant’s throat but I am not persuaded she was strangled in the sense of having her throat held/constricted. I do though understand why she has used this word to describe the event. I find this was a momentary event as described rather than a prolonged assault. I am critical of the fourth respondent for his behaviour whilst reaching the conclusion that it does not have particular significance for welfare. As to the additional allegations of pushing I make no finding. In evidence I heard of a hand being pushed away. This is not an event which justifies fact-finding.

[73]It can be seen I have so far made no findings of real relevance to child arrangements. In my assessment the limited conclusions I reach with regards to allegations 1, 5 and 6 have no real bearing on child arrangements.

[74]However I have reached a very different conclusion with regard to the events in X and what led up to those events. In my assessment those events stand in stark contrast to the other matters considered above.

[75]Turning to the key allegation it is surprising how much of the event is agreed or not in serious dispute. That alone causes concern. That the first respondent would unilaterally liaise with a unit as to the medical care of his wife relating to alleged mental health difficulties without her playing any part in the assessment hankers back to a bygone age in which woman had no agency and were the mere chattel of their husband. That she was then admitted in the circumstances she was and detained whilst the first respondent, family and child left her for the UK is matter of particular note.

[76]I set out my chronological conclusion as follows: i) I accept the evidence of the applicant that she has no pre-existing or underlying mental health condition of significance. I accept the evidence of the applicant in this regard supported by her GP letter and the surrounding circumstances of her employment which runs counter to existing alongside any material mental health difficulty. It is not for the applicant to disprove a mental health condition but she has effectively done so to the extent of a significant condition. Of course she may (although she does not accept) suffer with minor mood issues, anxiety or other common-place symptoms experienced by many people who nonetheless continue in their everyday lives without difficulty. But it is clear she had no symptoms of any note for the purpose of this judgment. I do not accept the evidence of the first respondent in regard to difficulties pre-dating the trip to X. My conclusion is that the first respondent has viewed the applicant’s disagreement with him as emotional volatility when in fact it is simply the applicant exercising her own agency. I consider the account given by the first respondent is more to justify his subsequent acts than a true account of what came before. This finding is of real significance when one comes to consider the weight attached to it to explain the later decision making of the first respondent. ii) In reaching this conclusion I also reject the suggestion made by the first respondent of pre-travel ‘emotional volatility, aggressive outbursts, and repeated threats of self-harm’. I prefer the evidence of the applicant and particularly so in the absence of any independent support for the same. To the extent other of the respondent’s support this account I reject the same for partiality. I do not rule out the first respondent characterising the applicant’s willingness to express her own independent views including not wanting to go to X alone as being part of his assessment of emotional volatility. I consider in any event by the point of the planned trip to X there were no such relevant circumstances as I consider it unlikely such a trip would have been planned in such circumstances. There may of course have been matrimonial disputes and disagreement and some may have become heated but this of a different nature and is unevidenced in any event. iii) I accept the account of the March meeting given by the applicant and MTR. I have found the account given by each to be consistent and detailed in contrast to that of the respondent witnesses. Indeed, I find corroboration in the account of the first respondent f in accepting that discussions did involve the potential for a period in X (see§44 above). I find the first respondent has subtly revised the events to fit his current case whereas the applicant and MTR have provided consistent and correct accounts. This tells me by March 2025 the first respondent had formed the view the future of the relationship was only consistent with the applicant moving to X. I do not need to decide whether this was to provide care for his parents or simply to be under their oversight. The distinction does not matter. I am clear this meeting shows the relationship to have reached a low point with family members coming to the country. It is in the form of a crisis meeting. My assessment of the applicant is that she is a spirited individual who whilst wiling to bend to her husband’s wishes maintains her own views and opinions. When giving her evidence she was firm in her account and I have gained a sense of an individual who I find the husband was not expecting when he married and brought her to this country. In such circumstances he saw a ready solution in her moving to X. For the avoidance of doubt this was to be in company with not without the child. I consider this thinking was on the basis the relationship would continue but with the applicant contained in X. iv) I find that when the trip to X was planned for December the first respondent retained an active consideration of the applicant staying in X but that at no point did he inform the applicant as to this. There is no dispute the trip was not sold to her as a one-way trip. v) The evidence indicates the first part of the trip was without real event and I accept the evidence of MTR as to the apparent mood and stability of the applicant through the period 21-26 December when at the maternal family home. vi) I accept the account of the applicant as to a deterioration in atmosphere when she returned to the respondent’s home. I find this was directly associated with a settled decision that she should remain in X contrary to her own wishes. I find this approach was shared by the first and second respondent and supported by the third respondent. I find the applicant expressed opposition to this leading to the heated confrontation suggested by the application during which I accept she spoke in emotive terms but without any intention to self-harm. I consider the first respondent utilised her emotional response as a foundation for what followed notwithstanding he appreciated it was a matter which would have simply dissipated had he not continued in his plan towards her remaining. vii) I cannot overlook the tight timetable between the contact with the unit, the assessment undertaken with the first respondent alone, the allegations of significant mood deterioration, admission and the first respondent then leaving the country. I find it more than coincidence that as the first respondent planned to leave without the applicant that she is claimed to have suffered a deterioration in mental health that necessitated admission to the unit. I am confident the admission occurred to facilitate the first respondent leaving X without the applicant rather than out of any mental health need on the part of the applicant. viii) I do not find the applicant attempted to kill herself or the child. I do not rule out her saying she would kill herself in response to a growing understanding the first respondent had determined she would not return to the UK. As above am confident the first respondent by late December had, as alleged decided she would not come back to the UK with him and whilst he may have spoken of the upcoming festivities in X, this was merely part of a camouflage to his planning. I accept the evidence of the applicant that her refusal infuriated the respondents and I accept the second respondent spoke in the manner alleged. ix) In these circumstances I find the first respondent utilised this emotional response as cover to effect the applicant remaining in X and I find it was this that led to the engagement with the unit. It is possible the first respondent has persuaded himself he was justified in so acting. However, I am satisfied it fell far short of warranting his subsequent action indeed on balance the first respondent should have been more than aware the applicant’s emotional response was a direct consequence of his own conduct. I am confident he would have understood an emotional statement that the applicant would rather kill herself than be separated as being no more than an emotional statement. But I find this was then utilised to support his decision making. x) I consider it a matter of real concern that he then unilaterally and covertly took steps to engage the unit and was solely involved in providing the information on which they later acted. The information he provided would have been shaped by his own attitudes and his desire for the applicant to remain in X. It is unlikely to have been a balanced assessment. There can be no doubt it had no medical foundation as the first respondent has no such training and the unit did not meet the applicant. I have no doubt the first respondent would not have been able to effect such an outcome had the parties remained in this country. It is clear to me the applicant was in fact detained and admitted without any separate and independent assessment of her. It is also clear there was no discussion or consultation with her prior to her removal in the middle of the night. xi) I consider it beyond coincidence that this occurred approximately one day (or within 48 hours) of the point of planned return to UK. It is quite clear the applicant was not accepting of the proposal that she remain and matters were getting out of hand. This is why the second respondent spoke as he did to exert a form of pressure and control to achieve this outcome. However, when this did not achieve its end the first respondent in an inappropriate manner activated the plan for the applicant to be admitted. I consider there was no medically sound basis for this admission. xii) I accept the applicant left her passport and other items in the home of the first respondent. She did not have time to send them elsewhere in the circumstances of her removal and I consider it unlikely she removed the items prior to being detained as from her perspective she would need the same for the trip home shortly thereafter and might not be able to guarantee their recovery. In circumstances in which her ability to travel was in dispute it is highly unlikely she would herself take steps to remove her very means of travel from the location at which she continued to reside. xiii) I accept the evidence of the applicant being injected. I suspect this was some form of sedative. I am not in a position to assess the conduct of the unit given I accept they were told she had attempted to self-harm. I am also unsure as to the rules and procedures that would apply in X in any event. But one is left with a worrying sense of the first respondent as being the sole decision maker as to what happens to the applicant. xiv) To the extent it is reported I do not find the second respondent was involved in the removal although I note what was said to the police. It is likely this additional detail flows from a mix of confusion and understandable high emotion at the time and is also likely impacted by the telephone call referenced above, which I find happened and which the applicant heard and thus placed the second respondent within the plan. I do not accept the second respondent was unaware of what was happening. He was in the house at the time and someone gave access to the unit to the property. They did not simply arrive in the bedroom without some support. I find he was aware of what was planned and took no steps to stop it. It is likely he agreed with the plan. xv) I do not find this was planned with the purpose of separating mother from child. If the applicant had been more compliant with the first respondent’s demands then it is likely both she and the child would have remained together as demanded in X. However, it was her refusal leading to her admission that caused the separation and what then followed derived from that decision. The first respondent was now left with the child and the evidence suggests he is heavily dependent on his parents in such circumstances. I suspect it was those circumstance that directly led to them all leaving the country shortly afterwards. xvi) I accept the evidence of MTR and the applicant over that of the respondents as to the failure to inform the maternal family. The messages sent by the maternal grandmother are inconsistent with someone who had been kept informed. Further I accept the evidence of MTR of a contrived and false account given by the fourth respondent of the family being detained on the return journey to the UK. The evidence is very clear of the maternal family seeking to find out what was happening and then acting through the Courts when they discovered what had occurred. This makes no sense if they had been kept informed throughout as suggested by the first respondent. xvii) I cannot say what would have happened if the maternal family had not have acted as they did. The evidence is that the applicant may have been detained for a month. It is plausible the first respondent would have returned with the child and his parents and sought to execute his plan for the applicant to stay there with the child and his parents. At that point in time it would have been clear to the applicant where the balance of power lay and what the first respondent was willing to do to achieve the outcome he sought. However, the involvement of the police cut across any planning and led to the current form of the dispute. xviii) I accept the explanation given by the applicant as to the steps she then needed to take to obtain her return to this jurisdiction. This flows from my finding as to the passport and the evidence as to additional travel documents obtained in this period.

[77]These findings are very serious and amount to transnational abandonment. It does not matter that the first respondent aimed to return to X or indeed maintain his marriage or permit the applicant to care for the child in X. The heart of such a finding is of control of a particularly striking and impactful nature with the applicant losing any agency as to her own future and rights. This is a serious finding but the only one that can result from the evidence as set out above. Conclusions

[78]I find allegations 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 proven as set out above.

[79]I have made some limited findings with regards to allegations 1, 5 and 6 but I do not consider they have real bearing on child arrangements.

[80]I intend to allow the non-molestation orders to run until their end date save in the case of the third respondent whose order will be discharged. I have made findings against the first, second and fourth respondents which justify such continuation. Each of the respondents are aware of the terms of the Order having been served some time ago and the consequences should a breach be proven.

[81]This judgment will now be sent to the respective parties. I will hand it down as indicated at 9.30am on 21 July 2026. This will be an attended hearing. I excuse the attendance of the second-fourth respondents who will play no direct part in the proceedings which now continue solely under the Children Act 1989.

[82]I would welcome any corrections, requests for clarification and proposed redactions relating to publication by 4pm on 17 July 2026. I would also like a focused position document from each party as to the manner in which child arrangements should now develop and the identification of those directions felt to be required to take this case to a welfare conclusion. The position document can be filed by 4pm on 20 July 2026. HHJ Willans