London Borough of Camden v RZ (First Respondent) HZ (Second Respondent) DZ and SZ (by Their Children's Guardian Cynthia Tobierre) (Third and Fourth Respondent)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice MacDonald |
| Judgment Date | 18 December 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 3751 (Fam) |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 18 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No: ZC15C00492 |
[2015] EWHC 3751 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice MacDonald
Case No: ZC15C00492
Ms Mai-Ling Savage (instructed by Legal Services) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
Dr Rob George (instructed by Dawson Cornwell) appeared on behalf of the First Respondent
Ms Kristina Hopper (instructed by Williams & Co) appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent
Ms Barbara Hopkins (Solicitor, Hopkin, Murray, Berskine) appeared on behalf of the Third and Fourth Respondents
Ms Carter-Manning (instructed by the Attorney General) appeared as Special Advocate for the Second Respondent at the commencement of the hearing and was thereafter released
Hearing dates: 9 and 10 December 2015
Introduction
In this matter I am concerned with DZ, aged 10; and SZ, aged 6. The mother of those children is RZ and the father is HZ. The family is of Afghan heritage. Both children reside currently in foster care, having been taken into police protection on 12 th August 2015 following the service of a forced marriage protection order on the father. Interim care orders were made in respect of both children in favour of the London Borough of Camden on 14 August 2015.
This matter now comes before me for the first contested hearing of the application for interim care orders in respect of the children. That application is supported by the mother of the children and the Children's Guardian. The application is opposed by the father of the children, who seeks the immediate return of the children to his care.
The mother is currently in Afghanistan. The precise circumstances by which the mother came to be in Afghanistan are in issue and I shall deal with this in more detail later. In the circumstances, whilst I have heard oral evidence from the former and current allocated social workers and from the father, I have not heard evidence from the mother, although she has filed a statement and has been represented at this hearing by Dr George. Whilst the mother has been in Afghanistan she has given birth to a third child of the family called FZ who is now aged one year and three months old. FZ is not a subject of these proceedings but is a ward of court.
All Dr George is able to say on behalf of the mother as to when she will be able to return to the United Kingdom is that "it is hoped" that it "will be in the near future". Dr George accepts on behalf of the mother that there is at present no timetable for her return.
The forced marriage protection order was made against the mother and the father. That order remains in force and neither the mother nor the father seeks to have it discharged. The terms of that order prohibit the mother and the father from:
(a) Causing, permitting, aiding or abetting DZ to undergo marriage, whether within or outside the jurisdiction;
(b) Forcing DZ to undergo marriage, whether within or outside the jurisdiction;
(c) Using or threatening violence or otherwise harassing, pestering DZ in anyway directly or indirectly;
(d) Applying for any passport of any nationality (including an adult passport on which the child is entered) for DZ;
(e) Removing or attempting to remove DZ or SZ from England or Wales until further order.
The mother and the father are also required by the forced marriage protection order to hand to the Police immediately all travel documents in the name of DZ and SZ. Leave was given to the local authority to disclose the force marriage protection order to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Forced Marriage Unit and the United Kingdom Passport Office. The court further requested that the United Kingdom Passport Office not issue any passport (whether substantive or emergency) or other travel document to the parents or to DZ and SZ.
It will be noted that there has been a significant delay of some 16 weeks in this matter coming on for a contested hearing in respect of the application for interim care orders. That delay has been caused by the need to resolve a difficult issue of disclosure. The reasons that this issue arose, and the manner which it was dealt with are set out in the ex tempore judgment that I gave on 12 November 2015. Save for information concerning the precise current whereabouts of the mother in Afghanistan and information concerning the identity of those who are assisting her in that jurisdiction, it has been possible at this hearing to proceed on the basis of full disclosure of information to the father. The court is grateful to Ms Carter-Manning for the assistance she has provided as Special Advocate for the father during the case management stage of these proceedings and at the outset of this hearing.
Background and Evidence
Historic Involvement of the Local Authority
The family have been known to Camden Family Services since August 2011. On 23 August 2011 the local authority received a referral from the Police that the mother was the victim of domestic abuse perpetrated by the father and a paternal aunt, QZ and had been locked in a room and prevented from leaving the family home.
The Police report states that when the Police visited the home both parents denied any violence. Following receipt of the referral in relation to that incident, social services undertook an unannounced home visit on 24 August 2011 and the mother was said to have been seen to have visible bruising on her arms and alleged that the father had punched her and that he had been violent towards her since her arrival in the United Kingdom in 2008. These latter allegations were not and have not been further particularised. The mother also alleged that the paternal aunt had hit her and DZ. Both the father and the aunt denied those allegations. The Police appear to have taken no further action. The mother makes no allegations of domestic violence against the father in her statement to this court dated 23 September 2015 but has so alleged to those assisting her in Afghanistan.
Following these allegations, the mother and the children were placed in a women's refuge on 25 August 2011 before returning home on 31 August 2015, it being said that the mother had minimised the concerns regarding domestic abuse during a Section 47 investigation and had changed her story regarding the origin of her injuries. During this period DZ alleged that the father had hit her brother SZ using his hand. The children were made the subject of child in need plans.
In June 2012 the family went to Afghanistan due to a family bereavement. In August 2012 the father returned, but the mother did not and the children remained with the mother in Afghanistan. The father contends that the mother was refusing to return to the United Kingdom. There is no evidence before the court to confirm or refute this contention.
In November 2012 SZ returned to the United Kingdom having been collected by his father. The father informed Social Services that the mother and DZ had remained in Afghanistan. In March 2013 the local authority closed the case as it appeared that DZ and her mother had not returned and there was no indication that they would return. SZ remained in the care of his father at this time and there appear to have been no concerns regarding the father's care justifying the case remaining open to the local authority. At some point in 2013 or early 2014 the mother and DZ returned to this jurisdiction.
On 10 April 2014 Camden received a further referral from a paternal cousin, HZ, who stated that she had visited the family home on the morning of 10 th April and was informed by the father that the mother had travelled to Afghanistan earlier that day. HZ advised the local authority that DZ had told her that the mother was crying that morning (it would appear to be accepted by all parties that the mother had received news prior to her departure that her sister had been involved a serious accident in Afghanistan) and said that DZ was scared that her father was going to hit her (DZ). HZ also said that the father had threatened to murder her (HZ) and warned her to stay away from the family. There is no statement from HZ before the court and it would not appear that the local authority has sought to obtain one. In the circumstances, what HZ may or may not have said about these matters is only before the court in the form of, at best, second hand hearsay.
An initial assessment was completed by the local authority in June 2014. The father informed the local authority that the mother had travelled to Afghanistan when she was 8 months pregnant as her sister had been critically injured in a car accident. The children were seen by social workers and no concerns were raised. The case was again closed due the absence of any identified concerns with respect to the children.
The Allegation of Forced Marriage
On 7 August of this year an allegation was made to the local authority that the father was planning to take DZ, then aged nine, to Afghanistan in two weeks' time with the plan that she would marry her adult cousin, aged eighteen. The source of that allegation was the mother.
With respect to the allegation of forced marriage, those allegations are set out (a) in two referral letters sent by those assisting the mother in Afghanistan, which letters formed the basis of the original referral to the local authority, (b) the minutes of a professionals meeting from 11 August 2015, which detail a telephone conversation between the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2021-02-25, PA/11738/2017 & PA/00957/2018
...girl to be protected: [7]. At [8], Peter Jackson J recalled what had been said by Macdonald J in London Borough of Camden v RZ & Ors [2015] EWHC 3751 (Fam) and Re E [2016] EWHC 1052: that the court is dealing with the assessment and management of risk. The court was not required, he noted, ......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2021-02-25, [2021] UKUT 108 (IAC) (GW (FGM and FGMPOs) (CG))
...girl to be protected: [7]. At [8], Peter Jackson J recalled what had been said by Macdonald J in London Borough of Camden v RZ & Ors [2015] EWHC 3751 (Fam) and Re E [2016] EWHC 1052: that the court is dealing with the assessment and management of risk. The court was not required, he noted, ......