In F v M, a fact-finding hearing within an application by a father for access to his son under article 21 of the Hague Convention, the court found that the mother’s allegations of abuse against the father were not proved and that the mother had exaggerated and fabricated details to intentionally obstruct the child’s paternal relationship.
The decision was handed down by the High Court following a January hearing before Ms Deborah Powell KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge.
The son, D, eight, lives with his mother in England, where they are seeking asylum. The father lives in the USA. The son was born in country H in the Caribbean in December 2017, where both parents resided.
After their separation in 2019, contact with D was agreed between the parties and formalised in a court order. Contact continued in accordance with the agreements until June 2022. When D returned to his mother after the weekend with his father, she suspected sexual abuse had taken place.
D was examined by a paediatrician, “who found physical signs that were said to be consistent with but not diagnostic of sexual abuse”. The father denied D had suffered any sexual assault whilst in his care. No substantive contact has taken place between D and his father since.
The father then moved from country H to the USA, and made an application to the court in country H to transfer D to the USA. In 2024, the mother and D moved, without the father’s knowledge or consent, to the UK.
The father is not making an application for D’s return to county H, but has instead made an application for international contact under Art 21 Hague Convention.
The mother sought findings in a schedule placed before the court, including that:
“The father is involved and has exposed her to discussions and practices involving the ‘Lodge/Illuminati’ which caused conflict and fear in the marriage… And that 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.”
The father denied the allegations and sought a number of findings relating to the mother leaving the country, changing schools, concealing location, resisting safeguarding and making derogatory comments.
He further claimed that:
“The mother has engaged in alienating behaviours, and/or has otherwise exposed D to emotional and psychological harm, including by: trying to reduce/limit the father’s access to D without just cause…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…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.”
The judge noted that the mother’s evidence was 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”.”
She also noted:
“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.”
In relation to the alleged sexual assault, the judge found the mother was unable to prove this to be the case, and determining “nothing untoward of any nature, let alone of a sexual nature happened to D while he was in his father’s care”.
She added:
“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.”
Finding for the applicant, who by contrast the judge found to be a reliable and honest witness” with “clear and consistent” evidence, she concluded 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.”
