A v SM and HB (Forced Marriage Protection Orders)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR. Justice Baker |
| Judgment Date | 25 January 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 435 (Fam) |
| Date | 25 January 2012 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Docket Number | No. FD11FO5022 |
[2012] EWHC 435 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Mr. Justice Baker
(in Private)
No. FD11FO5022
In the matter of an Application for a forced Marriage Protection order under Part 4a Of the Family Law Act 1996
And in the matter Of A,B, And Of C,D,E,F, And G (minors)
MS. SUSAN GEORGE (instructed by Goodman Ray Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR. ISLAM (Instructed by Eton Law Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the First and Second Respondents.
This is the final hearing of an application under Part 4A of the Family Law Act 1996 for forced marriage protection orders. The applicant is a young woman, A, now aged 20, who seeks orders in respect of herself and her six younger siblings: B, a girl born 9 th December 1993, and therefore now aged just 18, C, born 6 th December 1995, and therefore now aged 16, D, born 30 th October 1996, therefore now aged 15, E, a girl, born 28 th August 2001, and therefore now aged 10, a further boy called F, born 22 nd October 2002 and therefore now aged 9, and another boy, G, born 25 th December 2005, and therefore now aged 6.
The first and second respondents to the application are the parents of the seven children, the father SM, and the mother, HB. The third respondent is the grandmother of the seven children. It was indicated by the applicant's counsel at the outset of the hearing before me that no order was sought against the third respondent, and accordingly I indicated that I would discharge her as a party, although in the event she remained present during the hearing.
It is the applicant's case that the mother and father intend to force her to marry. She asserts that during a family trip to Bangladesh in August of last year she had cause to believe that they were imminently planning to force her into marriage, but she was able to escape with the assistance of the Forced Marriage Unit at the British High Commission. The applicant further asserts, however, that following her escape her parents successfully forced her sister, B, to go through a ceremony of marriage against her will. The applicant's allegation is now supported by B who, following the family's return to England, managed to get away from the family home in circumstances I shall describe below. As a result of these event, the applicant asserts there is a risk that, unless prevented by a court order, her parents will in due course force her younger siblings to marry against their will.
As a result of these allegations, the local authority for the area in which the family lives in England, Bedfordshire County Council, has started an assessment under s.47 of the Children Act 1989 and the applicant proposes that, in the event that I make the findings and orders she seeks, a copy of my judgment should be disclosed to the local authority. The father and mother emphatically deny these allegations. They deny that they have ever forced, or attempted to force any of their children to marry. They accept that B went through a ceremony of marriage in Bangladesh in September 2011, but assert that she did so voluntarily. It was, they say, a love match. They assert that the applicant has fabricated the allegations because of her antagonistic feelings towards them derived from previous difficulties between the applicant and her parents, and that she has persuaded B to support her false allegations.
At the outset of the hearing the parties indicated that they would agree to a continuation of interim forced marriage protection orders, made at an earlier stage in these proceedings, to last until the children reached the age of 18. But it was made clear on the respondents' behalf that their agreement to this clause would be on the basis that no findings were made in respect of the applicant's allegations. I indicated, however, that I did not consider this to be an appropriate way forward. In my judgment the allegations were sufficiently serious for it to be necessary for the court to conduct a hearing to determine whether or not they were true. Accordingly, a fully contested hearing has taken place at which the applicant, B, and their parents have all given oral evidence. At the conclusion of their evidence, and having heard submissions from counsel, I reserved judgment until today.
BACKGROUND HISTORY
The parents are Muslims and come from Bangladesh, but have lived here for most of their lives. I have set out the dates of birth of their children above. The parents assert that the applicant was a difficult teenager, who displayed aggressive behaviour towards her siblings and the parents and caused damage to property leading to the police being called on at least one occasion. It seems that the applicant also got into trouble with the police in other respects, and received cautions for shoplifting and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The applicant accepts that there were difficulties between her and her parents, but asserts that she was the victim of domestic violence inflicted by them. She asserts that she suffered years of domestic violence at their hands, culminating in an incident in October 2008 when her father struck her on the head with a plank of wood. Whatever the circumstances of this incident it is agreed that the applicant left the property and thereafter stayed away from the family home for some time. She is still living away and currently studying religious studies and sociology at university. Subsequently, however, a reconciliation of sorts was achieved, although as I have said, she has not returned to live at the family home.
In the summer of 2011 the parents made arrangements for the family to go on holiday to Bangladesh in August and September, and invited the applicant to accompany them. After some discussion and negotiations the applicant agreed but only on certain terms, namely: (i) that she had possession of her passport throughout the trip, (ii) that she had possession of a return ticket throughout the trip, (iii) that an internet connection was set up at the accommodation where she would be staying; and (iv) that her parents paid her a sum equivalent to one week's wages to ensure that she had sufficient money in Bangladesh. The parents agreed to these conditions and thus the whole family departed for Bangladesh on 15 th August.
The events of the next few weeks are a matter of significant dispute between the witnesses and I shall consider the evidence about those incidents below. The agreed facts are as follows. A few days after arriving in Bangladesh, the applicant contacted the British High Commission claiming that she was in danger of being forced into marriage, and with the assistance of members of staff she returned to England on 21 st August. About a fortnight later, in early September, B met a young man, R, who is the son of a religious leader in the village where the family was staying. On 23 rd September, having known R for less than three weeks, B went through a ceremony of marriage with him attended by other family members. A few days later B spoke to the applicant over the telephone. The contents of the telephone call are a matter of some uncertainty, but it is the applicant's case that B told her that she was going to get married and did not wish to do so.
As a result of this call the applicant became concerned about the dangers of B being forced into marriage. On 29 th September she therefore made an ex parte application to the High Court under Part 4A of the 1996 Act. At an emergency hearing on that day Bodey J made an order: (i) giving permission to the applicant to apply for forced marriage protection orders in respect of her six siblings, (ii) making a forced marriage protection order in respect of the applicant and the six children, (iii) making a non-molestation order preventing the parents molesting or threatening violence towards the applicant or the six children, (iv) directing the parents to produce the six children to the British High Commission in Bangladesh and disclose the children's whereabouts, (v) directing them to facilitate the return of the children to the jurisdiction within seven days of service of the order; and (vi) making all six children wards of court. He further made passport orders in respect of the passports of adults and children, and gave other ancillary directions, including listing the matter for a further hearing on 6 th October.
On 4 th October the three respondents were personally served with the orders in Bangladesh. On 6 th October Coleridge J extended the order of 29 th September, and listed the matter for a further hearing on 18 th October. On 16 th October, the parents and the six children, including B, returned to Heathrow where their passports were seized. On 18 th October the parents attended at the High Court with B at the next hearing, which was listed before Moor J. As I understand it, B did not come into the court room on that occasion. The parents denied the applicant's allegations and told the judge that they had not forced B into any marriage. It seems that in fact they did not tell Moor J that B was married at all. The learned judge extended the forced marriage protection orders and gave directions for a final hearing to be listed on 1 st December, including directions for the filing of evidence.
On 18 th November the parents and B filed statements. In their joint statement the parents repeated their denial of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
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)
...under the auspices of a care order is required notwithstanding the existence of a forced marriage protection order (see A v SM and HB (Forced Marriage Protection Orders) [2012] 2 FLR 1077). It is possible to envisage cases where, notwithstanding the general position that forced marriage pro......