Diplomat shunned daughter and 'threatened to kill' grandchild

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/aug/13/diplomat-shunned-daughter-threatened-kill-grandchild

Version 0 of 1.

A foreign diplomat allegedly “threatened to kill” a grandchild born to his unmarried daughter in the UK, the high court has heard.

A family division judge said issues of diplomatic immunity had arisen because a local authority in London wanted court orders to provide the daughter, now almost 17, and her five-month-old baby with a home and adequate protection.

Social workers had reported they were at “serious risk” of physical and emotional harm, said the judge. The local authority’s evidence “also alleged that the maternal grandfather had threatened to kill the baby”.

The judge said the case raised the question whether the father’s diplomatic status – he was an envoy at a high commission in London belonging to a Commonwealth country until May this year – prevented the English courts from making orders intervening.

In a ruling of concern to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mrs Justice Pauffley declared the court did have jurisdiction to make orders. The Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 states that “the person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable” and immunity extends to family members “forming part of his household”.

The judge ruled that the girl, who had suffered mental health difficulties, had not formed part of the maternal grandfather’s household since November last year, when the local authority first offered her foster accommodation under the 1989 Children Act.

The judge also ruled that the young mother, who had spent time in hospital, was “essentially abandoned to the care of the local authority” when the rest of her family left the UK in May this year. The police had stood ready to intervene in the event of any attempt to force them “against the mother’s very firmly expressed wishes” to leave the UK. There was none and the maternal grandfather and his wife left the UK in May.

The judge declared that neither mother nor child was subject to diplomatic immunity and the court had jurisdiction to rule that it was lawful for the local authority to provide both with accommodation under the 1989 act.

The judge said neither the FCO nor the high commission involved had chosen to take part in the case or attempted to persuade her not to exercise her jurisdiction. But the FCO had asked that the parties, their family members and country of origin should not be identified.

The girl had come to the UK in early September 2013 with her parents, but was admitted to hospital in March last year because of mental health problems. She was an in-patient for several months but made visits back to her parents’ home.

During that period concerns arose and the local authority asked the high commission to waive diplomatic immunity for assistance to be given to the family. It partially agreed to permit an assessment to be carried out, but gave no formal response to requests for the waiver to be extended to allow the local authority to draw up a care plan.

Since mid-November 2014, the young mother had been in local authority accommodation because her parents did not wish her to return home after her discharge from hospital. She had become estranged from them “largely, so it would seem, as the result of their attitude towards her pregnancy and the birth of her child”. Her father had stated he did not want her home “either in the UK or abroad”.

Local authority evidence described claims “that the maternal grandfather wished for the mother to have an abortion and that she should travel abroad for an arranged marriage. It is also alleged that the maternal grandfather had threatened to kill the baby.”

In April this year, information reached the local authority suggesting the maternal grandfather would be transferred back to his home country and travel plans were being made for the whole family.

The local authority applied for court orders to ensure mother and child, who were being looked after in a foster placement, were not removed from the jurisdiction. The judge ruled: “The evidence strongly suggests the maternal grandfather would not welcome the mother back, either to his home in the UK or his home country.

“She had become persona non grata and could well be at considerable risk, together with the baby, from the maternal grandfather.”