H (A Child)

In a fact-finding hearing, the court must determine disputed events by applying the civil standard of proof: whether an event is more likely than not to have occurred. The assessment requires the court to consider the evidence as a whole, including contemporaneous conduct, inconsistencies, recordings and the inherent probabilities. Serious findings may be made where the evidence establishes them on the balance of probabilities. The court may reject a party’s account and find that conduct formed part of a deliberate plan where the surrounding evidence supports that conclusion.

This was a fact-finding hearing concerning H, a young child, and a dispute between his parents. The mother alleged that, during a family trip to Pakistan, the father retained her passport and H’s passport so that she would be stranded there while he returned to the United Kingdom with the child. The father denied retaining the passports and alleged that the mother intended to remain in Pakistan with H.

The court considered the parties’ conflicting accounts, their relationship history, evidence about events at Lahore airport, recorded telephone calls, and related Pakistani proceedings concerning H. The central issue was what had happened to the passports and whether the father had intended to prevent the mother and child from returning to the United Kingdom.

1. Standard of proof. The court applied the civil test in determining the disputed facts: whether the alleged event was more likely than not to have occurred.
2. Assessment of the evidence. The court assessed the evidence cumulatively. Relevant matters included the deterioration of the marriage, the mother’s prior fear of being stranded, her copying of the passports, the father’s conduct immediately after the airport dispute, inconsistencies in his account, and the contents of recorded telephone calls.
3. Findings. The court found that the mother had arrived in Pakistan fearful that the father intended to leave her there. It found that the father intended to retain her passport and H’s passport for his own purposes, return to the United Kingdom with H, and prevent the mother’s return by cancelling her visa. The plan failed.
4. The court rejected the father’s denial and found that he had lied about significant matters. It also found that he had considerable involvement in the Pakistani custody litigation brought by his mother, although he was not a party to it.
5. The judgment was a first-instance fact-finding determination. No separate final order or costs order is stated in the judgment.