The Court of Appeal (CoA) has recently provided crucial guidance on the handling of complex family cases, particularly those involving allegations of transnational marriage abandonment (TMA) and other associated forms of abuse.
Facts:
The parents married in Afghanistan in 2009 and have two daughters, A and B, who were born in 2011 and 2015, respectively. In 2014, the father began a relationship with L, who lives in England. In 2017, he made a dishonest application to settle in the UK, claiming to be unmarried. This application was initially rejected due to records showing his marriage to the mother. He then submitted a forged divorce certificate, culminating in his leave to enter the UK in February 2019, whereupon he set up home with L and married her.
In March 2019, a further forgery, purportedly from the mother, requesting that the children join their father for "good education and lifestyle," was produced. The mother was unaware of any of these activities until 2020. The father spent time in Afghanistan with the family and abroad on business or with L. Until mid-2022, the children remained with their mother.
In April 2022, the father applied for a visa to bring the children to this country. He stated that he had sole responsibility for the children and that they lived with an aunt. He did not inform their mother that he was doing this, and, in the application, he referred to her by an incorrect surname. He produced another allegedly forged letter from a "hospital therapist" claiming that the mother had abused the children. In summer 2022, he took the children from Kabul to Pakistan under the guise of a medical checkup, aiming to bring them to the UK. The mother, however, contacted the British Embassy, stating she did not consent, leading to visa refusal and the children's return to Kabul. In June 2023, a family council (Jirga) rejected the father's plan to remove the children to England.
Despite the family council's rejection and the mother's position, the father obtained leave for the children to enter the UK in April 2023. On 5 July 2023, he took them from school and brought them to England without the mother's consent. She did not discover that they were in the UK until August 2023, and some further time passed before she knew where they were living.
Since arriving in England, the children have refused all contact with their mother and show no regret about leaving Afghanistan. In October 2024, A began to be treated by CAMHS in England, receiving individual and family therapy sessions related to "physical and emotional abuse and neglect at the hands of her mother in Afghanistan". The mother only learned of this in February 2025.
The core dispute at the initial fact-finding hearing, presided over by Mr. Justice Trowell in the Family Division of the High Court, was whether the mother had consented to the children's removal. The Judge found that she had not consented and further, that the father had assaulted the mother shortly before their removal. The father did not appeal these findings. However, the Judge refused to make a finding of TMA against the father or of directly alienating behaviour by the father and L. He also found that the mother had abused the children.
Decision:
The CoA allowed the appeal and remitted the case to another Family Division. The Court noted that child abduction can be an extreme form of domestic abuse, falling under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (DAA) definition of controlling/coercive behaviour and psychological, emotional, or other abuse (as per PD12J). Any reference to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (right to family life) by an abducting parent is thus "misconceived". Thus, TMA is explicitly recognised as a form of domestic abuse and harm to children per PD12J, paragraph 2B and, citing Re A (Children), the Court reiterated that "abandonment" and "stranding" are not narrow terms. The core feature is the exploitation of vulnerability to prevent a spouse from returning to the UK, and it can take many forms, as specified.
Implications:
This case clarifies that any deliberate, premeditated child abduction is considered a "pernicious form of child abuse" and an "extreme form of domestic abuse". The CoA also reminds us that TMA is a recognised and serious form of domestic abuse under PD12J and must be identified where the facts support it. Making a specific finding of TMA is not merely semantic; it provides "common justice" to the abandoned parent and can be crucial in their efforts to overcome the practical obstacles (e.g., visa applications) created by the perpetrator to reunite with their children. This empowers victims of such abuse.
The judgement sends an unequivocal message to Family Court Judges that proven instances of serious dishonesty, forgery, and repeated child abduction must profoundly impact credibility assessments and the overall narrative. Moreover, a parent found to have "comprehensively perjured himself" cannot be treated as equally unreliable as a parent who has consistently told the truth about core facts.
