Judge rejects Afghan mother’s accusations against husband
March 11, 2015 4 comments
A Family Court judge has rejected a number of serious allegations made by an Afghan mother against her husband.
In HU v SU (Rev 1), Mr Justice Keehan called the woman “a most unsatisfactory and unreliable witness” who had “either lied about significant events and allegations or greatly exaggerated or embellished what had in fact happened”.
The couple had married in 1999 and had four children. Both admitted their marriage had been “turbulent”. In 2011, the father was arrested after accusations of violence by the mother, but was later released and told no further action would be taken by the police.
Last year, the mother alleged that the father had sexually assaulted her and been violent towards the children. Shortly afterwards, the father changed the locks at the family home and refused to let the mother in. She took the three eldest children to a friend’s house and they have been living with her ever since. The youngest child still lives with the father.
In a fact finding hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Mr Justice Keehan noted that the latest allegations came after the mother found out the father had “taken a second wife”. The judge added that the revelation had had a significant emotional and psychological impact upon the mother.
He ruled that the mother’s allegations against him were a “misguided attempt to bolster her case against the father” and declined to make any findings in her favour. The judge added that the mother had caused her children emotional harm with her “wholly inappropriate and negative comments and outbursts against the father”.
It was “essential” that the family attempt therapy “as soon as ever possible” to repair the damage done to the relationship between the three eldest children and their father, he said.
Mr Justice Keehan then made a wasted costs order against the mother’s solicitors for their “serial failures” throughout the case, which had led to the father incurring unnecessary costs. These included a delay in providing evidence from the police and failing to include the court in important correspondence with the father’s solicitors. He concluded that the solicitors had “acted improperly and unreasonably” so he ordered that they pay the father’s legal bills.
To read the full judgment, click here.
Photo of the Royal Courts of Justice by wwarby via Flickr
March 11, 2015
Categories: Family Law