CQ, DQ & EQ (Children), Re

In fact-finding proceedings concerning forced marriage and child protection, the court must assess the evidence cumulatively and fairly, while applying forensic caution to lies, retractions and inconsistencies. A threat to marry a child off may amount to coercive and seriously harmful conduct even where there is insufficient evidence of a settled marriage plan or an actual risk that the marriage will occur. Cultural context is relevant but cannot replace analysis of the individual facts. Under the forced marriage protection jurisdiction, the court must consider health, safety, well-being, and the child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings. In care proceedings, the threshold and welfare questions remain distinct, and any final interference with family life must be necessary and proportionate.

The Chief Constable of Sussex applied for forced marriage protection orders under section 63A of the Family Law Act 1996 concerning three siblings. Brighton and Hove City Council sought care orders for the two younger children. The applications arose after the children travelled with their mother to a North African country, were told that they might remain there, and later sought assistance from the British Embassy. Allegations included threats of forced marriage, physical assault, detention, pressure to retract allegations, and failures by the father to secure the children’s return.

The hearing was a fact-finding hearing. The court considered conflicting accounts, later retractions, cultural context, language difficulties, and the parents’ conduct. The central issues were which allegations were proved on the balance of probabilities and what consequences followed for the statutory threshold and protection of the children.

1. Standard and approach. The local authority and police bore the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities. The court was entitled to draw reasonable inferences from established facts. In applying a Lucas direction, it considered each witness separately, including age, cultural context, ascertainable motives, and overall credibility. Lies and retractions were assessed cautiously and did not automatically determine whether the underlying account was true.
2. Forced marriage protection. Section 63A of the Family Law Act 1996 permits protection from being forced into a marriage or from an attempt to force a person into marriage. The court must have regard to all the circumstances, including health, safety and well-being, and to the protected person’s wishes and feelings so far as reasonably ascertainable in light of age and understanding. Force includes coercion by threats or other psychological means.
3. The evidence did not establish a firm plan to marry CQ against her will, nor an identified groom. It did establish that the mother threatened to marry CQ off in a punitive context. The threat was profoundly harmful because it conveyed coercion, dominance and control. There was insufficient evidence that DQ or EQ had themselves been threatened with forced marriage or were at actual risk of it.
4. The court found that the children had been removed from school and that their education had been seriously and irresponsibly disrupted. It found that Uncle M had hit DQ and EQ, that the mother had failed to protect them, and that the children had been detained against their wishes in the North African country. It also found that the mother caused CQ and DQ to be pressured to retract allegations and sign documents they did not understand, and that both parents had instructed or encouraged false accounts to British authorities.
5. The threshold criteria for the care proceedings were crossed. The court stated that final orders would require an holistic welfare analysis, consideration of realistic options and care plans, and a necessary and proportionate assessment under article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Final welfare orders were to be addressed at the subsequent hearing.

Not an appeal. The judgment records earlier interim orders and directions made in the same proceedings, but no prior decision under appeal.