Z, Re (A Child) (Inherent Jurisdiction: Stranding: Significant Harm)

In family fact-finding proceedings, allegations must be proved on the balance of probabilities. The seriousness of an allegation does not alter that standard or reverse the burden of proof. The court must assess all relevant and admissible evidence in its proper context, including hearsay, the child’s account, the alleged perpetrator’s evidence, the wider family circumstances and inherent probabilities.

In allegations of sexual abuse, failures to follow Achieving Best Evidence guidance reduce the weight of evidence where appropriate, but do not make it inadmissible. A court must guard against speculation, contamination and the child-protection imperative. Stranding and abandonment are not terms of art. The central feature is exploitation, or attempted exploitation, of one spouse’s vulnerability to prevent or hinder their entry to or return to the United Kingdom.

The mother applied under the inherent jurisdiction for her daughter, Z, to be made a ward of court and reunited with her in Pakistan. Z had travelled from Pakistan to England with her half-sister in July 2022 and remained living with her father. The mother alleged that her agreement to the journey was conditional upon joining Z in England and that the father later stopped all contact between them.

The father and his family alleged that the mother had abused Z, sexually exploited her and been involved in a burglary. The principal evidential issue concerned an intimate video, MB7, said to have been made by Z and sent to her mother. The court conducted a composite fact-finding and welfare hearing. The central issues were whether Z had been stranded from her mother, whether either parent or the paternal family had abused Z, and what findings were necessary for future welfare decisions.

1. Fact-finding approach. The court applied the simple balance of probabilities. The burden remained on the party seeking each finding. A respondent had no obligation to prove an alternative explanation, and failure to provide one did not establish the opposing case.
2. Assessment of evidence. The court was required to consider the evidence in its totality and to distinguish legitimate inference from speculation. It was permissible to conclude that the evidence left the court uncertain whether an event was more probable than not. Hearsay evidence was admissible in these proceedings, but its weight required careful assessment, particularly where the child had not been cross-examined.
3. Sexual-abuse allegations. The court treated compliance with the ABE guidance as important good practice. Initial questioning should be limited, open and properly recorded, including the questions asked, the child’s words, the setting and demeanour. Failures did not render evidence inadmissible, but could substantially reduce its weight. The accounts attributed to Z had been obtained or recorded in circumstances involving leading questions, inadequate records and possible contamination by the adults’ narrative. They were therefore unreliable.
4. Findings. The mother had been Z’s primary carer in Pakistan. She had not agreed to Z living apart from her for a significant period and had been misled about the father’s intention to arrange her travel to England. The court rejected the allegations that she had been involved in the burglary or had sexually groomed Z. The video was likely made after Z accessed sexualised online material and likely combined a requested medical photograph with her own dance video; there was no reliable evidence that it had been sent to the mother.
5. Stranding and significant harm. The concepts of abandonment and stranding were not terms of art or formulaic categories. Their core feature was exploitation or attempted exploitation of a spouse’s vulnerability, including through controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour. Z had suffered significant harm through being brought to England on a false premise, being deprived of formal education for a year, and having contact with her mother stopped without an effective mechanism for resolving the issue.
6. The wardship continued. Interim welfare orders had been made, and the further private-law and public-law orders required for Z’s best interests were left for the subsequent hearing.

This was a first-instance decision of the High Court (Family Division). The application had been managed through successive hearings before judges and deputy judges of the Family Division. The court determined the disputed factual allegations and left future welfare orders for a later hearing.