C Against Dt And Others In Respect Of Rt
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Sheriff A M Mackie |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] SC GLA 37 |
| Court | Sheriff Court |
| Date | 05 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | B1715-19 |
| Published date | 28 May 2021 |
SHERIFFDOM OF GLASGOW AND STRATHKELVIN AT GLASGOW
[2021] SC GLA 37
B1715-19
JUDGMENT OF SHERIFF ANDREW M MACKIE
in the cause
C
Applicants
against
DT
First Respondent
and
GT
Second Respon dent
and
HF
Third Respondent
In respect of
RT
Protected Person
Act: Jackson
Alt: Guinnane , counsel for first respondent; Cooney for the protected person
GLASG OW 5 February 2021
The Sheriff, having resumed consideration of the cause, finds the following facts admitted or
proved:
(1) The protected person is 17 years of age. Th e protected person is ordinarily resident
with h er mother at an undisclosed address within the Sheriffdom of Glasgow and
Strat hkelvin. This court has jurisdiction. The first respondent is the father of the protected
person. The first and second respondents are brothers.
2
(2) The protected person’s parents entered int o an arranged marriage in 2000 in
Kyrgyzstan. They are first cousins. The first respondent is from Pakistan. The mother of
the protected person grew up in that part of Russia which is now known as Kyrgyzstan
(oth erwise the Kyrgyz Republic). The families of both parents of the prot ected person are
from a Pathan background. The parents of the protected person’s mother told her that she
shou ld marry her cousin and, although she did not want to marry at the time, she felt she
had to marry because that was what had been decided for her.
(3) When the protected person’s parents were married, the protected person’s mother
was 17 or 18 years of age and the protected person’s father was 34 years of age. At the time
of the marriage of the parent s of the protected person the protected person’s father had two
sons. The protected person’s mother did not know whether the protected person’s father
had been married prior to 2000 and has never met anyone ident ified by the protected
person’s father as his wife.
(4) After their marriage the prot ected person’s parents lived briefly in Kyrgyzstan and in
Pakistan before moving to Glasgow in or around 2002 where they lived until 2010. The
protected person was born in Glasgow and lived in Glasgow until she was 6 years of age.
The protected person’s parents also have a son who was born in Glasgow on 29 January
2005. The protected person lived in family with her brother from that date un til
October 2018.
(5) Prior to 2010 the protected person’s mother told the first respondent that she was
unh appy and that she wanted him to change. She gave him an ultimatum that, if he did not
change, she would divorce him. The protected person’s mother sought support and
assistance from the first respon dent which he did not provide when the couple were living
in family with the protected person and her brother in Glasgow.
3
(6) During 2010 the second respondent travelled to Glasgow from his home in
Peshawar, Pakistan. Peshawar is a region of Pakistan in which a number of people from a
Path an background reside. While present in Glasgow the second respondent persuaded th e
protected person’s moth er to travel to Peshawar with the first respondent, the protected
person and the protected person’s brother to attend a wedding. Upon the family’s arrival in
Pakistan it became clear that no such wedding was due to take place and that the first
respondent had, in fact, decided that the family would henceforth live in Pakistan with the
second respondent and other members of the first respondent’s extended family in their
home in Peshawar.
(7) Upon the family’s arrival in Pakistan the first respondent removed the phone which
had been in the possession of the protected person’s mother. The protected person’s parents
argued and the protected person’s mother was assaulted by the first respondent. The
protected person’s moth er was forbidden by the first respondent from leaving Pakistan and
from contacting her family in Kyrgyzstan. When the protected person’s parents lived in
Glasgow th e protected person’s mother had often spoke to her family in Kyrgyzstan by
telephone.
(8) After their arrival in Pakistan the protected person’s mother was forbidden by the
first respondent from leaving the family home. Peshawar is an area where some women are
not treated as the equals of men and where some people follow tradition s such as women
not leaving the family home without men and requiring a man’s permission to leave home.
The protected person’s moth er was expected to remain within the family home at all times
and to cook and clean for the family, as were the other women in the household of the first
and second respon dents. The protected person’s mother stopped eatin g and drinking for
several weeks in protest at her treatment.
To continue reading
Request your trial