F v M [2026] EWHC 239 (Fam)

[2026] EWHC 239 (Fam)Case No FD25P00235
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 09/02/2026
Before
Ms Debra Powell KC
Between
FApplicant
Ms N Campbell-Brunton (instructed by Walker Family Law) for ApplicantDr O Momoh (instructed by Topstone Solicitors) for RespondentMs G Kelly (instructed by Freemans Solicitors) for child through his guardianHearing Hearing dates: 19 – 23 January 2026
JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 2pm on 09 February 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives..............................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.Introduction
[1]I am concerned with an application made under Art 21 of the Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereafter ‘the 1980 Hague Convention’) to make arrangements for organising or securing the effective exercise of the father’s rights of access to D, who is now 8 years old. D was born in country H in the Caribbean.[2]D is represented by Ms Kelly, counsel, through his guardian, Ms Huntington. The application is made by D’s father, who now lives in the USA. He is represented by Ms Campbell-Brunton. D’s mother is represented by Dr Momoh. The mother and D are currently living in England, where they are seeking asylum. The matter comes before the court for a finding of fact hearing.[3]In determining the facts in issue in this case, the court has had the benefit of reading the bundle and position statements, hearing evidence from the father and the mother and one other witness, watching a video recording of the mother and D, and receiving helpful submissions from counsel. Background[4]M was born and lived in country H in the Caribbean. F was born in country K in South America and subsequently went to live in country H.[5]The parents married in August 2015, D was born in December 2017, and in 2019 the parents separated. D continued to live with his mother and the parents were able to agree arrangements for D to spend time regularly with his father. Contact took place broadly in accordance with those arrangements, which had been formalised in a court order, until around June 2022.[6]D’s last substantive contact with his father was on the weekend of 17-19 June 2022, just over three and a half years ago, when he spent the weekend with his father. At that time D was four and a half years old. After D was returned to the mother on the evening of 19 June 2022 she suspected that he had been subject to sexual abuse whilst in the father’s care. She spoke to the police about her concerns and took D to be seen by a paediatrician, who found physical signs that were said to be consistent with but not diagnostic of sexual abuse. The police spoke to D with a social worker present, but they reported that a speech impediment meant they were not able to glean anything useful from him.[7]The father denied that D had suffered any sexual assault whilst in his care, but agreed, through lawyers, for his contact with D to be suspended pending investigation and assessment. D was subsequently seen once by a psychologist, on 7 July 2022, who concluded that there was evidence D had had ‘a traumatic encounter that appeared to be of a sexual nature’.[8]On 19 July 2022 the parents’ divorce was finalised.[9]Nothing further seems to have occurred by way of investigation until, in around March 2023, the father sought, unsuccessfully, to resume his contact with D. The mother then made at least one video recording of her questioning D about the alleged sexual assault and gave that material to the police, who resumed the earlier investigation.[10]In June 2023 the father moved from country H to live in the USA with his new wife. In August 2023 the police informed him that the investigation was concluded and he was ruled out of being involved in any alleged incident.[11]Court proceedings then commenced in country H in October 2023, when the mother applied to vary the previous shared custody order and to prevent contact between the father and D. The court initially ordered that there be video contact between D and the father but this did not take place and, on 1 March 2024, the court ordered the resumption of direct contact between D and the father. This was not adhered to by the mother.[12]The case was scheduled for a contested final hearing in April 2024. On 14 March 2024 the father made an application to the court in country H for transfer of primary care and control of D to him, and permission to relocate him to the USA. On 16 March 2024 the mother removed D from country H without the father’s knowledge or consent and brought him to the UK.[13]The final hearing in country H on 17 April 2024 was ineffective in the mother’s absence and the court made an order to try and identify D’s whereabouts. In the interim it was ordered that, if D’s whereabouts became known, the father should have full care and control of him until final determination of the application. It was not until January 2025 that the father received information to suggest that D was in the UK.[14]It is not in dispute that D’s removal from country H was wrongful. The father is not, however, currently pursuing his return there, but instead makes an application for international contact under Article 21 of the 1980 Hague Convention, recognising that D has now been here for nearly two years, and that he has not spent time with his father since June 2022. This court has jurisdiction because D was habitually resident in the jurisdiction at the time the application was made (and still is). A without notice hearing took place on 20 May 2025 at which a Tipstaff location order was made and the mother and D were located on 23 May 2025.[15]Information from the Home Office confirms that the mother and D submitted an application for asylum on 28 March 2024 which was refused on 30 April 2025. An appeal was lodged on 13 May 2025 and is currently under consideration. In the meantime, the mother and D have no valid leave to remain and no basis of stay.[16]CAFCASS safeguarding checks were completed on 25 July 2025. The mother repeated allegations of sexual abuse of D and made new allegations to the CAFCASS officer in the safeguarding letter, namely, that “she frets for her life as she states [the father] is part of ‘Lodge’ in [country H] which is a political movement with links to the police and government.” The father denies being part of such a group.[17]At a hearing on 5 September 2025 the child was joined as a party to the proceedings and a Prohibited Steps Order was made requiring the mother not to discuss her allegations with D or in his presence. CAFCASS appointed Ms Emma Huntington as his guardian.[18]At a hearing on 2 October 2025 it was determined that a separate fact finding hearing was necessary. The mother’s schedule of allegations was refined, allowing two allegations. The father’s schedule of allegations was allowed, with some further particulars to be provided. The court declined to order interim contact between the father and D and the mother was directed to send monthly updates about D. Full disclosure of the mother’s asylum files was ordered.[19]The mother now seeks the following findings contained in a schedule before the court:a. The father is involved and has exposed her to discussions and practices involving the ‘Lodge/Illuminati’ which caused conflict and fear in the marriage.b. D suffered sexual abuse from a third party at a time when he was being cared for by the father and therefore the father failed to protect D.[20]The father denies each of the allegations made by the mother. He seeks findings that:[1]The mother has engaged in alienating behaviours, and/or has otherwise exposed D to emotional and psychological harm, including by:a. trying to reduce/limit the father’s access to D without just cause.b. pursuing varied allegations of sexual abuse of D either perpetrated by the father or in the care of the father, despite police investigations concluding that the allegations were unsubstantiated, and to the exclusion of any other possible explanation for D’s symptoms and to the exclusion of any other possible perpetrator.c. failing to comply with various court orders for contact (including both video and direct) between the father and D either by not permitting the contact or by otherwise obstructing the contact. Particulars of specific occasions are provided.d. repeatedly referring to allegations of sexual molestation to D directly or otherwise in his presence.e. making derogatory comments about the father either directly to D or otherwise in D’s presence.f. removing D from country H without the father’s knowledge or consent or court order.g. seeking to obstruct the father’s access to basic information about D and involvement in his life, e.g. i. changing his schools in country H without F’s consent and/or withholding school info in country H; ii. concealing D’s international location following abduction; iii. withholding address, GP and school info in England; iv. confirming a desire to change her name, identity and that of D.h. resisting safeguarding measures including,i. seeking to set aside the court order directing welfare check; ii. even after the mother’s alleged concerns about confidentiality were addressed, refusing to permit the LA to access the child to conduct a welfare check.[21]I do not in this judgment set out each party’s response to the allegations that are made, but when considering the evidence and making my findings I have carefully considered all of the arguments each raises in their defence. Relevant Law[22]The legal framework applicable to the fact finding exercise in a case of this kind is well settled and can be summarised as follows.[23]Where a fact is asserted, it must be established on the balance of probabilities by the party that asserts it. The seriousness of an allegation and the seriousness of the consequences do not affect the standard of proof to be applied in this context.[24]In determining whether a fact is proved on the balance of probabilities, the inherent probability or improbability of an event is a matter to be considered when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred. In deciding this question regard should be had, to whatever extent is appropriate, to inherent probabilities. In this case, this includes consideration of the inherent improbability of a parent allowing their child to be sexually abused.[25]Any findings of fact made by the court must be based on admissible evidence, including any inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence, and not on suspicion or speculation.[26]In determining whether the findings sought by the mother and father are proved to the requisite standard, the court is required to consider the ‘wide canvas’ of the evidence before the court, including the wider context of social, emotional, ethical and moral factors. The ‘wide canvas’ is that made up of admissible evidence and, again, does not include suspicion or speculation.[27]The evidence of the father and the mother is of utmost importance in determining whether the facts in issue have been proved to the requisite standard. Within that context, it is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability when considering whether to make the findings sought.[28]In circumstances where, as here, the father asserts that the mother has fabricated the allegations against him, and lied to the court more widely, the legal principles to which the court must have regard include those explained in the case of R v Lucas [1982] QB 720. In evaluating the evidence of witnesses before the court, the court must bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress. The fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything. I bear in mind what Lord Lane CJ said in Lucas:
“To be capable of amounting to corroboration the lie told out of court must first of all be deliberate. Secondly it must relate to a material issue. Thirdly the motive for the lie must be a realisation of guilt and a fear of the truth. The jury should in appropriate cases be reminded that people sometimes lie, for example, in an attempt to bolster up a just cause, or out of shame or out of a wish to conceal disgraceful behaviour from their family. Fourthly the statement must be clearly shown to be a lie by evidence other than that of the accomplice who is to be corroborated, that is to say by admission or by evidence from an independent witness.”
[29]In her witness statements, the mother makes allegations of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour (which the father denies), although these are not allegations that need to be determined in the course of this fact finding hearing. As noted by Cobb J in Re B-B (Domestic Abuse: Fact Finding) [2022] 2 FLR 725, in private law cases the court needs to be vigilant to the possibility that one or other parent may be seeking to gain an advantage in the battle against the other. This does not mean that allegations are false, but it does increase the risk of misinterpretation, exaggeration, or fabrication. At all times, the court must follow the principles and guidance set out in PD12J of the FPR 2010.[30]In this case, the findings sought by the mother against the father include a finding of sexual abuse of the child having occurred whilst in the father’s care.[31]In Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27 MacDonald J said at [6]:
“Human memory is not a single, simple system. What is remembered of an experience by a child or young person will not be a complete picture akin to a photograph or CCTV recording and will vary depending on the age at which the experience took place. What an adult may consider to be a key element of a remembered experience, and therefore key to assessing the reliability of the memory, may not be significant from the child’s perspective. The physiological processes involved in the encoding, storage and retrieval of memories are susceptible to internal and external influences. Within this context, children’s accounts can be affected by their level of functioning, their emotional state, and their levels of suggestibility. It is also possible for a child to ‘remember’ an event that has not in fact occurred, or which has not occurred precisely in the way remembered. The child’s recollection of past experiences can be influenced by the process of questioning the child.”
[32]MacDonald J set out the principles that apply in this jurisdiction with a view to securing a reliable account from a child making an allegation of sexual abuse and recording that account reliably. He noted at [573]:
“The courts have long stipulated, and continue to demand, that very great care is taken when dealing with allegations of sexual abuse made by children, both in the initial phases and at the ABE interview stage (see for example Re E [2017] 1 FLR 1675 at [45]). This conclusion has been drawn from long experience and having regard to the results of a body of research into the way a child registers, processes and recalls memories, and the way in which a child may respond to figures perceived by the child to be in authority when questioned about such memories.”
[33]With respect to the mother's assertion that the child was sexually abused whilst in the care of the father, it is not suggested by any party that the court should seek to determine who the perpetrator of any abuse was. In the circumstances, the court must determine two questions of fact. First, having regard to the evidence, did sexual abuse of D take place? Secondly, if so, having regard to the evidence, in whose care did it occur? Guidance[34]I have been directed to, and have considered, the Family Justice Council Guidance on responding to a child’s reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with a parent and allegations of alienating behaviour, dated December 2024. In the Glossary of Terms ‘alienating behaviours’ are defined as:
‘psychologically manipulative behaviours, intended or otherwise, by a parent towards a child which have resulted in the child’s reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with the other parent.’
Evidence and Discussion[35]In making my determinations I have carefully considered all of the evidence in this case, written, oral and video, and I will refer to the most important evidence, as I see it, in this judgment. It is not practicable to refer to every piece of evidence and I make clear at the outset that if I do not refer to something in this judgment, that does not mean that I have not considered it. The Mother and the Father The mother[36]The mother gave oral evidence with the benefit of special measures, which were retained throughout the hearing: during her evidence the father sat at the side of the court behind a screen, and after her evidence the mother moved to sit behind the screen. For much of the time her evidence was quite difficult to follow, because the whole of it was suffused with the fears that she has developed over time about what she believes to be a secretive, powerful, dangerous and depraved organisation, which she believes is called “Lodge” or “Illuminati”, and of which she believes the father is, or wanted to be, a member, along with many others in country H, including lawyers, politicians, the judiciary and the police. She appeared preoccupied with thoughts of the far-reaching powers of this organisation and fears that it extended internationally and even to the UK, such that she and D might not be physically safe here.[37]When asked about things she had said and what she was thinking at different times in the material events in the case she conflated matters she had read or heard about more recently with what she knew at the time. By way of example, she said that a few weeks ago she learned from a friend in country H that the Illuminati were required as a condition of entry into the organisation to allow their first born child to be sexually abused, yet earlier in her evidence she had given this as a reason why, in June 2022, she had immediately assumed that D had been sexually assaulted in the care of his father when he complained of pain in his bottom. Similarly, she claimed that she had told her lawyer of this in 2023 when asked why she believed that D had been sexually abused and that her lawyer subsequently refused to act for her any more. This meant that those parts of her evidence were unreliable.[38]There was another, discrete, facet to her evidence which also impacts negatively on her reliability. Throughout her written and oral evidence the mother had referred to D as having been a three year old at the time of the events in June 2022. However, at that time he was actually four and half years old. When I asked the mother about this at the end of her evidence she was completely nonplussed. She insisted repeatedly that he had been three years old, and spent around a minute counting on her fingers and talking quietly to herself. When taken methodically through the years since his birth to June 2022, she remained completely unable to accept that he had in fact been four and half years old at the material time. It is not clear why the mother is so wedded to this false recollection, but her inability to accept what is self-evident was concerning.[39]There were a number of internal inconsistencies in the mother’s evidence, as well as inconsistencies between what she said and what more contemporaneous documents recorded, particularly in relation to events in February 2022, and in respect of the number and timing of conversations she had with D in which she asked him questions about the alleged sexual abuse. These inconsistencies undermine her reliability as a witness but also, in my judgment, call into question her credibility.[40]When questioned about the father’s allegations about alienation she was at times candid, for example, she accepted that she had described the father to D as ‘a monster’ and ‘evil’, and reflected that she should not have done so. At other times, though, she deflected when asked difficult questions about her own behaviour, referring repeatedly to how traumatic all the events had been, or reverting to her beliefs and fears about the Illuminati.[41]On the central issues of the Lodge or Illuminati and her belief that D had been sexually abused I have concluded that the mother was not being deliberately dishonest, indeed, I formed the view that she believes what she is now saying, but that her thoughts and beliefs about the Lodge or Illuminati are and have been so powerful that they have affected her recollection and rendered it unreliable.[42]On other issues, though, I have concluded that she was not telling the truth. In particular, her evidence about when and how often she had spoken to D about the alleged sexual abuse was inconsistent and not credible. Further, when giving evidence about the various disputes over contact arrangements, what came over most strongly was her absolute determination at all costs to prevent the father having meaningful contact with D, regardless of what the court in country H had ordered. At times, she appeared to concede as much, but at other times she provided explanations that were unsatisfactory and inconsistent. The father[43]The father’s evidence, by contrast, was clear and consistent. He was a little impatient at times whilst being cross-examined, and had to be reminded more than once to answer the questions he was being asked, but this was perhaps unsurprising given the rather lurid nature of some of the matters that were being put to him, and the fact that they had emerged as issues only very recently in the protracted history of this dispute.[44]He readily accepted that he ought to have told the mother at once when at Christmas 2021 D complained of pain in his bottom and the father treated him for possible worms, and he frankly said that the reason he had not included in his witness statement what he knew about the Lodge in country H was that it would implicate him or imply that he was a member.[45]It was striking, and to his credit, that whilst being cross-examined the father said that he thinks the mother is a good parent, and that, apart from her alienating him and making allegations about the Lodge or Illuminati, he thinks she’s ‘a great Mum’.[46]His demeanour throughout the hearing was quite downcast. He often had his head in his hands, both during his evidence and while listening to others, and, at times, such as when there was reference to D believing that his father didn’t like him any more, he became visibly, albeit quietly and unobtrusively, distressed. It was clear from his presentation as a whole that he has found the prolonged period of time over which he has been separated from his son to be extremely painful.[47]Overall, I found him to be a reliable and honest witness. The guardian’s report[48]The child’s guardian has prepared a very helpful report dated 27 November 2025. Although it had been envisaged in the preparations for this hearing that the guardian would give oral evidence, in the event the parties agreed that this was not necessary, and so the contents of the report are unchallenged.[49]D’s current school reported to the guardian that when he first joined the school he displayed behaviours that were viewed as indicative of an experience of trauma, and he was referred for therapeutic input, which he has received and which is ongoing. He is now described as settled, having friends, and enjoying contributing in class and assemblies. He is not achieving at the academic levels expected for his age group and is awaiting assessment for possible neurodivergence. The mother was described as a responsive parent who engages well with the school.[50]D’s counsellor, who he has been seeing since November 2024, reported that more recently there appeared to be more explicit references from D as to specific experiences and to his father. The guardian is concerned that this may reflect the instigation of the current proceedings.[51]The guardian reports that the mother is opposed to any contact between D and his father until at least the age of 13, when he will have had sufficient therapy to address his trauma. The father expressed his commitment to D and his concern that D may feel he had rejected or abandoned him.[52]When she met with D and his mother at their asylum hotel, the guardian reports that D had an awareness of the current proceedings, expressing his view that if they won he would be able to “stay here with all my friends”. At the outset of the discussion, D immediately sought to tell the guardian about “something that happened in [country H] that hurt me, to do with my dad” and, in doing so, looked towards his mother.[53]Once alone with the guardian, D told her that he had no dad and had been waiting for a new one, that he had now replaced his old dad with a new one, his mother’s friend Y. He spoke of being lonely without a dad and remembered spending time with his ‘old dad’.[54]The guardian asked D about what he had started to tell her initially about his father. His response was rushed and indecipherable, and she had to ask him to slow down and repeat himself. D said that he had been at his father’s house when he saw two men, who pulled his pants down and the 2nd man put his penis in D’s bottom, on the bed. He said that he had shouted lots of times, and that music had come on. The men broke out of the window and left. D came out of the room and told his father. He said that blood had come out when he wiped his bottom. D said that his father did not take him to the hospital, concluding, “that’s the whole story”. When asked why he had thought it important to tell the guardian about this straight away he responded “If I got this wrong, I would have to go back to [country H].”[55]The guardian was concerned to note that D expressed the view that his father did not like him any more. He gave an account which was apparently difficult to follow but which conveyed the sense of his father abandoning him and his mother. When asked about the potential to be back in contact with his father, D said that he would say no to that “because my mum doesn’t want me back with him anymore”. D said that he did not want “my bottom thing” to keep happening and so he did not want to go back. He said that his mother had deleted his father’s number to prevent him from contacting them and to prevent him sending people to spy on them and finding out their address and movements.[56]He said he felt “sad and mad” about his dad and conveyed that on occasions his father had cared for him well. He was “angry” about his dad, for not helping him when he screamed. He said that he remembered the incident at his dad’s house and that his mother talked about a memory book in her head, and that she can remind him.[57]The Guardian was concerned that D was experiencing a feeling of responsibility for ensuring his and his mother’s ability to remain in the UK and that this was dependent on his ability to impart a particular narrative about his experiences and his father. She also expressed concern that D’s expressed sentiment of his father posing a risk to him and his mother was likely to have been influenced by the mother’s view, raising concern about what had been shared with him. Narrative and findings ‘Lodge’ / ‘Illuminati’[58]The mother’s evidence is that in 2016 the father had introduced her to the world of the ‘Illuminati’, said to comprise people with ‘powers and principalities that worked in high authorities in all major industries’. She said that the father was excited about this world, and showed her four or five YouTube videos, including one each of the musicians Rihanna and Chris Brown, with different signs and symbols with double meanings regarding the Illuminati. She said that she found the whole situation absurd as they were regular churchgoers.[59]In around September 2016, the father, who worked at a local bar/restaurant and ran a car valeting service in what he described as a ‘side hustle’, brought a customer’s expensive car home to clean it. The mother, who said she was helping him to clean it, says that she came across a pendant with a goat’s head on it which she believed to be an occult figure, a ‘Baphomet’ head, and which she said she recognised to be an Illuminati symbol from the YouTube videos that the father had shown her.[60]The mother further alleges that a few days later the father brought up the topic of him becoming a member of ‘the Lodge’, as the same customer had allegedly asked him to join. The mother says that she immediately shut down this topic of conversation and told the father that she and her home served only God. She went on to say that the father did not bring up the topic again. She said that the father was not pleased about this, as he had wanted her to support him in this new life, to achieve wealth, that he became very argumentative and unpleasant, and it was the beginning of the end of their marriage. This is said to have occurred in around September 2016, just over a year after they were married, and 15 months before the birth of D.[61]She is convinced that the father must have become a member of the group because, after several years during their marriage of not being successful in work, having a succession of relatively low-paid jobs, the father obtained a managerial-type job in a company that had previously rejected him for employment.[62]During the court proceedings in country H, the mother claims to have encountered opposition and intimidation from a number of people, including her own lawyers, who discouraged her from raising issues about the Lodge or Illuminati, and refused to act for her when she persisted. She felt that her allegations against the father about sexual abuse of D were not being properly investigated by the police because of his connections.[63]By 2023 she claims to have been terrified of the Lodge, because, she says, she had been reading about people going missing after making allegations about the police, politicians and the Lodge, such that she wanted to leave a copy of the video, discussed below, with a prominent MP before she gave it to the police in case she subsequently disappeared. She says that the MP failed to turn up to their arranged meeting and stopped responding to her communications. She claims that there have been multiple murders, disappearances and other serious crimes that have not been adequately investigated and that caused her to flee the country in 2024. She cites the murder of a child in 2025, but, self-evidently, this post-dates her leaving country H and so cannot have been a cause of her doing so.[64]The mother relied on the evidence of Mr CJ who worked with the father at the restaurant and bar in 2016. He said that the customer referred to by the mother spoke with him about joining what he called ‘the Brotherhood’, saying that it would help him make more money. He said that the owner had a tattoo on his hand that he referred to as an Illuminati symbol that made Mr CJ uncomfortable. He refused to discuss joining the Brotherhood. He said that the father had similar discussions with the customer and was very interested in joining. He knew that there was a Lodge building in a particular area of country H.[65]The father says, simply, that he is not and has never been a member of the Lodge, which he believes to be a reference to the Freemasons, or of any other similar organisation, whether in country H or anywhere else in the world. He says that this allegation was never raised by the mother in any of the proceedings in country H and he cannot understand why it is being raised now. He had heard talk of the Lodge in country H, he knew the customer at the bar he worked at was a member, and he knew about the Lodge building referred to by Mr CJ but he didn’t know any other members and didn’t know much more about it, other than that it was said to be a secretive society.[66]The father described the Illuminati as something he had become aware of on social media in around 2016, when lots of people were talking about it and sharing videos about it. He said that both he and the mother saw some videos whilst scrolling on their mobile phones. As far as he was aware, it was a group in the music industry that promised individuals success and wealth but demanded complete commitment from them to their musical careers, even to the exclusion of family and personal life. He was not aware of any connection to the occult. He denied that he had showed the mother videos about the Illuminati.[67]The mother appears to have first raised issues concerning the Lodge or Illuminati in her UK Home Office asylum application interview in April 2025, when she alleged that the father was part of a powerful group in her home country. This was two months after she says that she had watched a YouTube video about an alleged child pornography ring linked to the Lodge in country H, with a calendar of rituals including, she said, some sort of sexual ritual taking place on 13 February.[68]It is not possible from the available evidence to make findings about the existence or nature of any body known as the ‘Illuminati’ or whether, and if so to what extent, such a body might overlap with the body known as the ‘Lodge’. I am, though, satisfied that there is a body in country H which is known as the ‘Lodge’, which is likely to be a Freemasons’ Lodge. I make no other findings about the nature of the Lodge: there simply isn’t sufficient evidence to do so.[69]Although the mother referred repeatedly in her evidence to having ‘28 reasons’ why she thought the father was a member of the Lodge, in reality there was very little evidence at all, and none of it was probative. The evidence of Mr CJ was of little assistance as it essentially simply confirmed what the father himself had said about the customer at the bar and the existence of the Lodge in country H, and was otherwise riddled with speculation.[70]The father’s evidence about the Lodge and Illuminati was, in my judgment, straightforward and honest. I accept that he is not and never has been a member of or involved in the Lodge, or any body called the Illuminati, and that he had no interest in joining them. To the extent that he obtained a better job than those he had had previously, this was both unremarkable and due to his own efforts to get on in life once he had become a father.[71]I reject the mother’s allegation that he exposed her to discussions and practices concerning these bodies. The height of her evidence on this issue is that he showed her a few videos publicly available on social media, and that a customer whose car he was cleaning had left a pendant in it that the mother believed to be connected to the occult, and had subsequently asked the father if he wanted to join the Lodge. None of the matters she referred to expressly, in my judgment, amount either singly or cumulatively to ‘exposing her to discussions and practices’.[72]I similarly reject the mother’s allegation that the references to the Lodge or Illuminati caused conflict and fear in the marriage. It was her own evidence that at the time she found the father’s references to the social media videos to be ‘absurd’, which does not suggest that she was in fear then, and that he never mentioned the subject again. She appears to be genuinely in fear now, but in my judgment this is a fear that has evolved over time as a result of the mother’s own researches into the Illuminati and discussions with friends and family other than the father, during which she has learned more about the Illuminati’s supposed practices, and which she has, apparently unconsciously, projected back to the time of her marriage and the events in June 2022 and what followed. Alleged sexual abuse[73]The mother’s second allegation is that the father failed to protect D from sexual abuse perpetrated by a third party whilst D was in the father’s care. In considering this allegation, it is necessary to set out some of the history that precedes the events in question.[74]Between September 2020 and April 2022 the mother changed D’s school six times, on the basis that, as she described it in a written report to the police in April 2023, ‘he was sustaining injuries and neglect at these schools, and he was unable to explain what happened and teachers were being dishonest.’ On the first occasion, the father agreed that this had been appropriate, as D had not been looked after properly. On the other occasions, though, as was submitted on behalf of the guardian, the mother’s actions were in response to incidents that would not typically cause parents to remove children from a school, and this is evidence of the mother being over-protective of D and having a pervasive fear that he was being exposed to abuse by other people.[75]In December 2021, when D was staying with the father and having a bath, he complained of pain when his bottom was washed. The father thought that this was probably due to worms, or to D having wiped his bottom too hard, so he gave D some worming medicine and applied some aloe vera and the problem seemed to resolve. He did not tell the mother at the time, which he accepted in evidence he should have done.[76]There was then an incident around 14 February 2022 about which the mother has given a number of different accounts. In the written report to the police in April 2023 she said that on that day D had complained of pain in his bottom while she was washing him, and that this was after the father had failed to return D home the day before and had kept D overnight without her consent. She said in the report that she became suspicious but thought maybe it was time to worm D for the first time.[77]In her statement in her support of her asylum application in the UK the mother said that when the father returned D on 14 February 2022 D had looked very scared of his father and that, although she hadn’t thought much of it at the time, after a few days she had realised that D ‘must have been either verbally, psychology (sic) or physically abused by his father’.[78]By the time of these proceedings the mother was making no reference to this claimed incident of D complaining of pain in his bottom in February 2022 or to him appearing scared of his father. Instead, she claimed that her aunt, who often collected D from school, had informed her that a teacher had discovered blood in D’s underwear and that this raised serious concerns for her regarding D’s safety in the father’s care.[79]At the beginning of her oral evidence, however, the mother volunteered that it was incorrect to say that a teacher had discovered blood in D’s underwear. What she now said had happened was that her aunt had been informed that D’s underwear had been disposed of, without being told the reason, and the aunt had speculated to the mother that there may have been blood in the underwear and that this might be the reason for the teacher disposing of the underwear.[80]This is a significant discrepancy. It is doubtful that such speculation in 2022 could have given rise to serious concerns for D’s safety in his father’s care, as the mother now claims, and it is notable that no such claim was made in the proceedings in country H. Rather, it shows the mother asserting in 2025 a reason for her behaviour in 2022 that simply did not exist at the material time, and jumping to the most serious of conclusions based on the flimsiest evidence.[81]In around March 2022 the mother’s aunt told her that, when caring for D, she had woken to find him asleep with his pants pulled down and a pen sticking out of his bottom. The father was informed of this and was so concerned that he went to the police, but they did not take any action.[82]That, then, was the background to the events of June 2022. The mother’s evidence is that on 19 June the father brought D home three hours late from his weekend contact, and when she gave him his bath after dinner and went to wash between the cheeks of his bottom, D stood on his tiptoes and started crying ‘ouch’. In her oral evidence she expanded on this account, saying that he had been standing on a shower stool while she washed him, and that she took hold of his forearm to steady him after he cried out and his arm hurt him as well. She said that she was very concerned and immediately suspected that he had been held down and had been subjected to sexual abuse. She explained that she had been a victim of sexual assault as a child, having been held down and raped, and she immediately believed that the same had happened to D.[83]The next day she went to the police, and then, on 21 June 2022, she took D to a paediatrician, Dr S. The mother says that Dr S told her that there were signs of recent penetration into D’s anus, but the short, one page letter that Dr S produced the next day said only that:
“The history was of suspected abuse and an examination and letter were required of me as to my findings. ... On physical examination, he appeared well nourished and had no obvious external bruising or scratches. His abdominal examination was normal as was the examination of his penis and testicles. Anal examination revealed a patulous anus with a small fissure at about 5 o’clock. These findings although not diagnostic of abuse are concerning given the history.”
[84]The mother claimed that she did not read this short letter at the time and only became aware many months later that Dr S was saying something different in writing from what the mother claims she had been told in person. This is not credible. Not only is it a very short letter that would take just moments to read, and there would be no reason not to have read it at the time, but also it was provided to the mother’s lawyer and discussed at a meeting with the father and his lawyer on 1 July 2022. I find that the mother was aware of the contents of the letter by 1 July 2022 at the latest.[85]I also reject the mother’s claim that Dr S told her in person that the physical signs were of recent penetration. There is an irreconcilable difference between that account and what is contained in Dr S’s letter, with no possible explanation put forward by the mother for why, in the space of 24 hours, the doctor’s opinion would or could have altered so significantly. I have concluded that the mother is not telling the truth about this issue. She has become so wedded to her genuinely held belief that D was sexually abused whilst in his father’s care, and so frustrated that the authorities in country H have not reached the same conclusion, that she has fabricated some details in a bid to support her position.[86]On 1 July 2022 a meeting took place at the office of the mother’s lawyer, with the mother, the father and his lawyer present. Some time before then, it is clear that the mother’s position was that she had questioned D about why his bottom was painful when she washed him on 19 June. In an email dated 7 July 2022 the father’s lawyer stated that “the questioning of [D] by your client resulted in [D] indicating that the alleged perpetrator was a person that lived next door to my client.” In a letter dated 11 July 2022 the mother’s lawyer referred to having “shared and discussed the ordeal which the child told his mother he experienced at his father’s home during his last visit with him over the period June 17-19, 2022”.[87]The mother, in her oral evidence, claimed that she had not spoken to D at all about her belief that he had been sexually abused until she took a video of her questioning him in April 2023. That is not only inherently unlikely, but it is also clearly inconsistent with what was stated by her own lawyer in the letter of 11 July 2022. I am satisfied that she had spoken to D about it prior to the meeting on 1 July 2022.[88]The father’s account of the meeting is that the mother made an allegation that D had been sexually molested by a neighbour of his, said to be called ‘John’, who was said to live downstairs and to drive a red truck. At that time, the father says, he did not live in an apartment, had no neighbours called John and none who drove a red truck. The mother denies making this allegation, but I accept the father’s evidence.[89]The father agreed at the meeting on 1 July to suspend his contact with D for the next few weeks and to allow D to be seen by a psychologist, Dr B, because he was concerned about what was being alleged and wanted to know if someone else was responsible for harming D. It was intended that a joint letter of instruction from both lawyers would be prepared for Dr B, but this did not happen and instead the mother took D by herself to an appointment with Dr B on 7 July 2022. Dr B concluded that: “I met with both mother and child today to assess the situation with regards to the child’s possible experience of sexual abuse. Based on discussions with the child and my observations, please note the following conclusions:[1]There is evidence the child has had a traumatic encounter that appears to be of a sexual nature.[2]The details of the encounter, in relation to the certainty of where the encounter took place and who likely orchestrated it are unclear at this time.”[90]Neither parent was subsequently kept updated about the investigation, until in early 2023 the father was informed by the police that they had found the allegation to be unsubstantiated and he sought to resume contact with D. The mother, dissatisfied with the police’s conclusion, made two videos of her questioning D about the alleged abuse, on 24 March and 15 April, and gave them to the police.[91]Only the video of 15 April 2023 has been disclosed in these proceedings, and it was not disclosed until after conclusion of the oral evidence in the fact finding hearing. The father and the child’s guardian submitted, having watched it, that it was essential the court view the video, and it was therefore adduced in evidence despite its late disclosure.[92]What that video shows is very concerning. D is shown being questioned by his mother in the bathroom at their home when they are getting ready for the day. His toothbrush is waiting on the sink beside him. He looks confused and somewhat fearful of what is being expected of him. From the mother’s introductory remarks on the video it is clear that there has been an earlier, recent, conversation with D about the allegation. The mother then questions him in a series of leading questions, including, early on in the recording, asking him “has anybody ever put penis in your bottom?” She asks him how many people had done that and he is seen counting on his fingers up to eight, to which the mother responds “Oh Jesus” and is audibly upset. When she asks him where it happened, at which house, D almost triumphantly answers “Daddy’s house”. The questioning continues for around eight minutes in total and then the video cuts off suddenly. It is not clear whether that was the end of what the guardian rightly said might be described as ‘an interrogation’.[93]It is clear that, as submitted on behalf of the father, the account that is given by D in this video must be treated with the utmost caution in considering the mother’s allegation against the father in these proceedings given the way in which it was elicited.[94]Dr Momoh submits on the mother’s behalf that the video shows an imperfect approach from a distressed parent, but that it was not done in a malicious way. As the guardian submits, though, it is difficult to believe that anyone might think the questioning on that video was appropriate, even if that person had a genuine subjective belief that abuse had occurred. The guardian considers that the mother having spoken to D in that way has caused him harm. I agree.[95]Having reviewed the videos, the police resumed their investigation, with the mother now making a new allegation, that D had been sexually assaulted by a third party in the father’s presence and the father had recorded this on a cell phone. He denied this, the police interviewed D again, and the allegations were again found to be unsubstantiated.[96]In April 2023 the mother alleged for the first time that the father could be the person who had sexually molested D, which he denied. The police again found this to be unsubstantiated.[97]In October 2023 the mother applied to the court in country H for full custody of D with no contact between D and his father. The court ordered that there be a psychological evaluation of D, which was undertaken by a Ms L and reported on 25 January 2024, and a Social Inquiry Report by the Social Services department, which was issued on 22 January 2024.[98]D was spoken to by the assigned welfare officer. He told her that the last time he saw his father ‘a guy tried to fight him and he was a little sad about that.’ He said that he missed his father a little and so was glad to see him when he visited. He added that his father is usually nice to him when they spend time together and that he buys him things, notably a race car that he could sit in and drive around. The welfare officer interviewed both parents and wider family members. Her conclusion was that the investigation had not substantiated the allegations of sexual abuse and so there was no reason to limit or prohibit contact between the father and D.[99]Ms L, Child Psychologist, interviewed D on four separate occasions and carried out a Child Sexual Behaviour Inventory assessment. The results were reported as showing that:
‘there was no psychological trauma that would have resulted from an alleged sexual molestation claim when D was 3 years old.’
[100]She reported that D gave a different factual account of the alleged abuse on each occasion that she spoke to him. He also said that his mother had told him his father is a monster and that he should not pray for him because he is not nice. He said that he did not want to speak to his father because his mum had said that he was evil and a monster and he should not speak to him. When asked if he would like to spend time with his father he replied that he doesn’t need his father in his life, he only needed his mother. However, when shown a video of him hugging his father and pictures of him with his father, he was reported to be a little emotional; he said that he missed his father sometimes and missed talking to him and playing with him. He said that he didn’t tell his mother that he missed his father because of what his mother had said about his father.[101]It was Ms L’s opinion that D did not have any recollection of any sexual assault taking place and, taking account of his age at the time of the alleged incident, he was ‘unable to fully recount the exact sequence of events unless it has been told to him’. She cautioned that if he was continuously reminded of an event he could not remember this would be emotionally and psychologically damaging for him. She considered that he did ‘not show any signs of psychological nor emotional trauma as a result of an alleged sexual assault.’[102]Ms L also interviewed both parents. She concluded that the mother had had unpleasant experiences in childhood and early adulthood that had impacted her overall outlook on life and interpersonal relationships with others. She was exhibiting signs and symptoms of long term post-traumatic stress disorder and therapy was recommended not only so that the mother could address her own issues, but also in order to help D grow up in a positive and supportive environment.[103]Ms L made a number of recommendations, including that D receive therapy to address the perceived negative feelings he had against his father. She observed that he was conflicted about his feelings for his father and wanting to remain loyal to his mother. She also made clear that conversations negatively influencing D’s perception about his mother or father should stop.[104]I have carefully considered whether the available evidence is capable of proving, on the balance of probabilities, the mother’s allegation that D was sexually abused whilst in the care of the father.[105]There is no police report of their investigation. There is no account of what D may initially have said, if anything, to the mother. There is no account of what, if anything, D said in his first interview by the police in June 2022. There is no ABE interview, or anything like it. There is, in fact, no evidence other than the mother’s own, rather vague account, that D made any complaint in 2022.[106]The letter from the paediatrician, Dr S, is very short. Dr S was not a court appointed expert and the terms of her instruction are not clear, although it is clear that the father was not involved at all. There is no information as to what history she was provided with, save that the mother accepted in evidence that she did not consider as a possibility anything other than sexual abuse. Dr S did not identify what, if any, other explanations there could be for her physical findings.[107]The letter from the first child psychologist, Dr B, is also very short. Dr B was also not a court appointed expert, there is no letter of instruction, and the father was not involved in the instruction or her assessment. The letter contains no detail about her assessment of D and it is not clear to what extent, if at all, the mother was involved.[108]The report of the second, court appointed child psychologist, Ms L, is more detailed, but her assessment took place some 18 months after the alleged incident. Nonetheless, her conclusion is clear and reasoned.[109]It is important to note that the court has no information about standards of good practice and procedure in the investigation of sexual abuse allegations by the police and medical professionals in country H. It is self-evident, though, that the court does not in this case have access to the range and depth of material which it would have available to it if the alleged events under consideration had taken place in this jurisdiction.[110]The mother submits that the evidence is sufficient to prove her allegation, the father that it is not. The guardian, unusually at a fact finding hearing, but not uniquely, has not adopted a neutral position: she submits that the evidence in relation to the allegation of sexual abuse falls far short of what would be required to prove it. I agree. In my judgment, the evidence of sexual abuse is tenuous, weak and inconsistent and I have no hesitation in finding that the mother has failed to prove that any sexual abuse of D occurred. Further, I am entirely satisfied that nothing untoward of any nature, let alone of a sexual nature, happened to D while he was in his father’s care on the weekend of 17-19 June 2022. Alienating behaviours[111]Having dealt with the mother’s allegations in detail above, and rejected them, I can take the father’s allegations more shortly.[112]He alleges that from 2022 onwards the mother has engaged in a range of alienating behaviours and/or has otherwise exposed D to emotional and psychological harm. I have in mind, in considering each of these allegations, the Family Justice Council Guidance referred to above.[113]There are three necessary elements that must be established before finding that a parent has engaged in alienating behaviours:a. that the child is reluctant, resistant or refusing to engage in a relationship with a parent; andb. the reluctance, resistance or refusal is not consequent on the actions of that parent towards the child or the other parent, which may therefore be an appropriate justified rejection by the child, or is not caused by any other factor such as the child’s alignment, affinity or attachment; andc. the other parent has engaged in behaviours that have directly or indirectly impacted on the child, leading to the child’s reluctance, resistance or refusal to engage in a relationship with that parent.[114]I am entirely satisfied as to all three elements in this case. D is and has been reluctant to engage in a relationship with the father, this is not consequent on anything said or done by the father to D or to the mother, and the mother has engaged in behaviours that have directly and indirectly impacted on D, leading to his reluctance to engage in a relationship with the father.[115]Where a parent has engaged in protective behaviours, defined in the glossary to the Guidance as ‘behaviours in order to protect the child from exposure to abuse by the other parent, or from suffering harm (or greater harm) as a consequence of the other parent’s abuse’, then those behaviours will not be alienating.[116]Although the mother honestly believed that D had been subject to sexual abuse whilst in the care of the father, her belief was not only wrong but unjustified. D did not need to be protected from exposure to abuse by the father, or from suffering harm as a consequence of abuse by the father. Her behaviours were not protective.[117]I address the detailed allegations below. Trying to reduce/limit the father’s access to D without just cause[118]In November 2020 there was a court order in country H making provision for D to visit his father on alternate weekends from Friday after school until Sunday at 3pm, and on Father’s Day, and for half of the summer and Christmas holidays and half of D’s birthday. Those arrangements were confirmed in a subsequent mediation agreement in October 2021.[119]On 15 February 2022 the mother sought to reduce the father’s time with D by making an application to the court to curtail his weekend visits by three hours, on the ground that the father was said to have repeatedly returned D later than permitted.[120]The father says that the mother alleged he was not doing homework with D (who, it should be noted, was then just four years old) and that the judge commented that this was not sufficient justification to limit his time with D and this would only be considered if the child was in danger. The court did not reduce the time to be spent with the father at the weekends.[121]The mother’s response to this allegation as set out on the schedule is that in February 2022 the father had breached the court ordered access arrangements by keeping D overnight without her consent and returning him to school late, and that it was then that her aunt picked D up from school and subsequently informed the mother that a teacher had discovered blood in D’s underwear, which the mother said caused her serious concern about D’s safety in the father’s care. As I have already explained in this judgment, this was not true.[122]The father’s account was that it was agreed between them that D would stay with him an extra night as the mother was out on the Sunday when the father wanted to return him, that he would source a Valentine’s Day costume for D to wear to school the next day and that he would take him to the mother’s work place at 9am on the Monday morning so that she could see him in his costume before he went to school.[123]I accept the father’s account of what happened that weekend. It would have been out of character for him to have kept D for an additional night without the mother’s consent, and, even if he had done so, there would have been no reason for him to take D to the mother’s workplace on the Monday morning rather than taking him straight to school unless, as the father says, the mother wanted to see him in his costume.[124]The father was not asked in evidence about the mother’s broader allegation and I am not able to reach a conclusion about whether he had ever, or repeatedly, returned D later than the court order provided or the mother had agreed. Even if he had, it would not be an appropriate or child-focused response to seek to reduce the time D was able to spend with him. I find this allegation proved. Pursuing allegations of sexual abuse against the father despite police investigations concluding the allegations were unsubstantiated[125]In June 2022 the mother jumped to an unwarranted conclusion that D had been sexually abused in the father’s care. She did not approach the issue with an open mind, and, indeed, closed her mind to any other possibility, even in the face of equivocal evidence of abuse having occurred and the police concluding that the allegation against the father was unsubstantiated. She questioned D about the alleged abuse in an entirely inappropriate and leading way. When more thorough reports were obtained in 2024 she closed her mind to the conclusions in them and chose instead to believe that they were the result of a Lodge/Illuminati conspiracy to protect the father.[126]The mother has been dishonest in some of the details that she has given in these proceedings, most notably about the timing and number of conversations she has had with D about the allegations, and about the initial conversation with the paediatrician, Dr S. She has done so in a bid to bolster her allegations in these proceedings in the knowledge that they have been repeatedly found to be unsubstantiated in country H. Her determined pursuit of the allegations has impacted D in a number of ways, including the need for repeated questioning of him, by the police and other professionals, about the alleged abuse and his father’s alleged role in it.[127]I find this allegation proved. Failing to comply with court orders for contact between the father and D[128]On 8 April 2022 the court in country H confirmed and formalised the terms of the mediation agreement and contact schedule.[129]Once the mother had concluded in June 2022 that D had been sexually abused in the father’s care, she was determined to limit contact between them as much as possible.[130]Following the meeting on 1 July 2022, at which the father had agreed to suspend direct contact but it had been agreed that there would be phone contact, when the father called the number he had been given for D’s phone it was unavailable and he was unable to make contact using the mother’s phone number either. I am satisfied that the mother did not allow the telephone contact to take place and told the father that all communication from then on would have to be through their lawyers. I find allegation 1(c)(i) is proved.[131]On 31 January 2023 the father’s lawyer wrote to the mother’s lawyer stating that there was no reason for the temporary cessation in contact to continue. There is no evidence, however, that the content of this letter was communicated to the mother, or that she responded to it in any way. I do not find allegation 1(c)(ii) proved.[132]On 1 March 2023 the father telephoned the mother to tell her that he intended to resume contact with D. In her response to the schedule the mother alleged that she had become scared of the father because of his threats and bullying harassment. In evidence, however, she agreed that she responded “not over my dead body, go and speak to your lawyer”. I reject the suggestion that the father was threatening, bullying or harassing in that phone call. I find allegation 1(c)(iii) is proved.[133]On or around 21 March 2023 the father went to the mother’s house, with her agreement, to see D. When he arrived D wanted to go for a pizza with the father, but the mother would not allow this and said that the father could only see D at the mother’s home, supervised. The father suggested that the mother’s brother, G, who had taken on something of an intermediary role between the parents, could go with him and D to have pizza, but the mother continued to refuse. I find allegation 1(c)(iv) is proved.[134]In September and October 2023 the father again attempted to have phone contact with D, which the mother frustrated. On 8 October 2023 the mother sent the father a voice message in which she was heard asking D why he didn’t want to speak to the father, and D responded “Daddy is a bad man”. This was the result of things that the mother accepts she had said to D in 2022 and 2023, when she described the father as ‘a monster’ and ‘evil’. Although the mother contends in the schedule that the father needed to understand that his attempted interaction with D was causing D discomfort and distress, any discomfort and distress was, in fact, the result of what the mother had said to D about the father and not anything said or done by, or attributable to, the father. Allegation 1(c)(v) is proved.[135]In October 2023 the mother applied to the court in country H for full custody of D with no contact between D and his father. This was not granted, and the court ordered on 17 November 2023 that there be indirect contact by way of video calls. The mother said in evidence that she bought a phone specifically for D, which she kept herself, and that the father never called it. However, she told the author of the Social Inquiry Report that the father ‘rarely’ called to communicate with D. In her witness statement she claimed that D never wanted to take part in the video calls with his father and that although she assisted him to talk and engage on a number of occasions, that when she left the room because she felt physically repulsed by the father, D would put the phone down and go off and play.[136]I accept the father’s evidence that, following the order of 17 November 2023, when he called the number that he had been given it was unavailable and he was not able to speak to D. Allegation 1(c)(vi) is proved.[137]At the beginning of December 2023 the father, who had returned to country H from his new home in the USA, went to the mother’s home to see D. The mother’s brother was with him, as was his wife and his own father. D was happy to see the father and jumped into his arms but shortly afterwards some male relatives of the mother arrived in the street and began trying to fight with the father, who left. I accept the mother’s own evidence that the men were her cousins and that one of them confronted the father over what he believed to have been the father’s failure to protect D from sexual abuse. The mother was not directly responsible for her cousin’s actions on that day, although she was responsible for leading him to believe wrongly that the father had failed to protect D from sexual abuse. Furthermore, the court order in place at time provided only for indirect contact by way of video calls. I find allegation 1(c)(viii) is not proved.[138]A couple of days later, the father understood that the mother had agreed to contact taking place, but when he attended at the mother’s home at the agreed time to see D, the mother and D were not there. As the court order provided only for indirect contact by way of video calls, allegation 1(c)(ix) is not proved.[139]There was a court hearing on 2 February 2024 at which the mother’s non-compliance was raised, following which some telephone contact was allowed by the mother, although she did not encourage D to participate, she made her distress at the contact clear to D, and on at least one occasion she gave him his tablet device while he was on the phone to the father, causing him to become distracted and to disengage from the call. Allegation 1(c)(vii) is proved.[140]At a court hearing on 1 March 2024 the mother sought to have all contact between D and the father supervised by her in her home. The court refused this and ordered that the father was to have direct contact with D on alternate Saturdays from 9am to 6.30pm, beginning on 9 March 2024.[141]On 7 March 2024 the father met with the mother at the passport office to apply for D’s passport. He was not told of any plans to take D abroad.[142]The mother admits that on 9 March 2024 she pretended that D was unwell so that the contact did not go ahead and sent a series of misleading text messages to the father. In evidence she described her actions, somewhat cynically, as ‘playing along to get along’. At this time she has admitted that she had made up her mind that she would now defy court orders intentionally and was actively planning to remove D from country H without the father’s knowledge. Allegations 1(c)(x) and (xi) are proved.[143]On 14 March 2024 the father applied to the court for transfer of primary care and control of D to him and permission to relocate him to the USA, because he believed that the mother was unable and unwilling to act in D’s best interests and was likely to be causing D significant emotional and psychological harm.[144]On 16 March 2024, without informing the father or seeking his consent, the mother left country H with D by aeroplane, arriving in the UK on 17 March 2024. On 22 March 2024, the day before the father was due to have contact with D, she sent him a message via WhatsApp in which she informed him that she had taken up an opportunity for a new life abroad and asking how they could make access work as D lives with her and would be in another country. She did not tell him where they were. She freely admitted in oral evidence that she had no intention of facilitating contact and there has been no contact at all between the father and D since then. Allegation 1(c)(xii) is proved. Repeatedly referring to allegations of sexual molestation to D directly or in his presence[145]D’s GP records show that on 3 May 2024 the mother told the doctor in D’s presence that D had become distressed whilst being cleaned around his anus and had described sexual abuse in the father’s care, that he was depressed and questioning why this had happened to him, and that he was anxious about his father finding them.[146]The mother’s own evidence about the number of times she had spoken to D about the alleged abuse was inconsistent. At different times she said she had, and then she hadn’t spoken to him about it in June 2022. She now claims that she made only one video of her questioning D in early 2023 about the allegations of sexual abuse, although it is clear from her own written report to the police that she in fact made two videos.[147]She said in oral evidence that “I constantly ask him are you sure something happened, he says ‘yes mummy’”. She said that when they arrived in the UK she had a conversation with him in the asylum hotel, in around June 2024, when she asked if he remembered what happened in country H and when he said ‘yes’, she said:
‘I want to make sure that I did not give up my life, I didn’t put myself in immense trouble, are you sure about what happened in country H’ and he said ‘yes mum’
. She claims that when she has to speak to professionals in front of D that she puts headphones on him so that she cannot hear what she is saying.[148]It is clear from the guardian’s report that the mother had, prior to the guardian’s visit, discussed the alleged abuse with D again, leading him to proffer his account as soon as he began speaking to her.[149]I find allegation 1(d) proved. Making derogatory comments about the father either directly to D or in D’s presence[150]The mother admits that she described the father as ‘a monster’ and ‘evil’. It is clear from the report of Ms L, the psychologist, that she had also told him he doesn’t need the father in his life, and from the report of the guardian that she had said in his presence that she had deleted his father’s number to prevent him from contacting them and to prevent him sending people to spy on them and finding out their address and movements.[151]Allegation 1(e) is proved. Removing D from country H without the father’s knowledge or consent, or court order[152]This is admitted by the mother. Seeking to obstruct the father’s access to basic information about D and involvement in D’s life[153]In her response to the schedule of allegations the mother denies intentionally obstructing the father’s access to information about D or his involvement in D’s life, but then goes on to seek to justify the same. She describes the father as having a ‘toxic, violent, abusive nature’, but the remainder of her evidence contains no material to support any of those adjectives, and I reject that description of him.[154]I accept the father’s account that it was the mother who decided repeatedly to change D’s schools in country H, and that she did so on several occasions without reference to him. In an affidavit dated 14 March 2024 in the court proceedings in country H the father stated that he had no idea which school D was then attending or how he was doing in school. I accept that evidence. There was no justification for the mother withholding this information from the father.[155]The mother admits that she concealed from the father the fact that D was in the UK. Once these proceedings started, she admits to having also withheld their address, and details about D’s GP and school.[156]Whilst this has doubtless been frustrating and distressing for the father, further compounding his feelings of isolation from D, I am not convinced, given the total loss of contact between D and the father, that these issues have themselves impacted directly or indirectly on D and lead to his reluctance to engage in a relationship with his father or caused him harm. For that reason alone, although the substance is true, I do not find that this has amounted to alienating behaviour or has otherwise exposed D to emotional or psychological harm. Resisting safeguarding measures[157]Similarly, whilst it is not disputed by the mother that she sought to set aside the order of Cusworth J on 7 July 2025 directing the local authority to undertake a safeguarding check at their confidential address, and thereafter refused to allow the authority to carry out an in-person check, there is no evidence that D would have been aware of, still less affected by, these actions, and this was therefore not alienating behaviour within the meaning of the Guidance.[158]Further, it was specifically envisaged in the order of 7 July 2025 that the mother, who had failed to attend the hearing, might apply to set aside the direction for local authority welfare checks, which she says she did on the advice of her solicitor, and the mother did cooperate with CAFCASS. In the circumstances, I would not characterise her actions in this respect as ‘resisting safeguarding measures’. Conclusion[159]For all these reasons, I conclude that the mother’s allegations against the father are not proved, and that the father’s allegations that the mother has engaged in alienating behaviours, and has exposed D to emotional and psychological harm, are made out.

Cited in 1 later judgment