Vulnerability in the Family Court – logistics, practicalities and adaptations.

 X and Y (Care Proceedings: Fact Finding: Death of a Child: Expert Evidence), Re [2025] EWFC 132. 

In X and Y (Care Proceedings: Fact Finding: Death of a Child: Expert Evidence), Re [2025] EWFC 132, Mrs Justice Knowles made findings that a 2 year old little girl had suffered horrific injuries at the hands of her parents, and that her mother had ultimately killed her at her home in November 2023. 

The word “vulnerability” is often used in our work in the Family Court. It applied to all parties in this case, most notably of course the children involved. This case is striking however for the particular characteristics of the family which included a profoundly deaf and non verbal father, who did not have BSL as his first language. 

In relation to family background, the judgment records; 

“The father is now 31 years old and was 29 when P died. He is one of seven children and was born in Afghanistan. His parents were married but his father divorced his mother when the father was still a child and his mother, together with her children, had to leave the family home to live with other relatives. The father has described being physically and emotionally abused by his own father, including being whipped with a cord. It seems that his deafness may have been a trigger for this abuse. The father’s mother, E, confirmed that her former husband was physically abusive to her and to her children. The father did not attend school until he was 9 years old, attending a school which catered for deaf children. This appears to have been a positive experience for him as he learned some basic signing. In his early teens, the father left Afghanistan with his mother’s encouragement and eventually arrived in Belgium where he obtained refugee status. He attended a school for deaf children where he learned Flemish sign language. After he left school, he worked as a gardener.” §82

The father later left Belgium and came to the UK in 2019. 

In relation to the mother; 

The mother was born in Afghanistan to married parents and has a number of siblings. Her parents were extremely poor and the mother did not go to school but helped in the home or in the fields where her parents worked. She has never had a job and is illiterate. Prior to registering her marriage in Kabul, the mother had never even left her village.

The mother was unsure of her age, having never celebrated her birthday within her country of origin. She told the Court that she thought she was in her early twenties at the time that she gave evidence, having married the father when she was about 13 years old, soon after she had her first period. The father referred to a later date for the marriage. The documentation did not particularly assist with the timeline. 

At the point that the mother travelled from Afghanistan, she left her child in the care of the paternal family. She told the Court that the Taliban would not permit the child to travel. She lived with the father following her arrival to the UK in a very small and “rather run-down” ground floor flat. The mother quickly became pregnant with her second child, and later her third. 

The communication issues in this case were stark; 

“It is important to acknowledge that communication between the mother and the father was extremely poor. The mother was only able to use basic signs and the father struggled to make himself understood. The mother told me that she could not sign and was often unable to understand the father when he spoke to her. That was corroborated by the father who made his needs known by displays of temper, frustration and anger. Neither knew or comprehended much of the other’s thoughts, feelings and desires and that gulf between them soured their relationship and rendered both singularly ill-equipped to meet the needs of their children.” §89

The father’s communication

There has been previous guidance from the Family Court in relation to working with deaf parents, notably in Re A & B (Children) (Deaf Parent – Assessment and Practice) [2021] EWFC 10, and Re C (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 128. The Court in the present case referred to the guidance of Re C at paragraph 42; 

“…It is crucial for professionals and those involved in the court system, in particular judges, to understand one profound difference between the ordinary need in cases where parties to the proceedings may speak a different language for there to be “translation”, and the need for a different character of professional intervention in these cases.  This need is not solely or even largely one of “translation” as would be the case in the straightforward translation of one verbal language to another; the exercise is one of “interpretation” rather than translation.  Communication between a profoundly deaf individual and professionals for the purpose of assessment and court proceedings involves a sophisticated, and to a degree bespoke, understanding of both the process of such communication and the level and character of the deaf person’s comprehension of the issues which those in the hearing population simply take as commonplace.  For a profoundly deaf person, the “commonplace” may not be readily understood or accessible simply because of their inability to be exposed to ordinary communication in the course of their everyday life.  What is required is expert and insightful analysis and support from a suitably qualified professional, and the advice this court has in the reports we have, a suitably qualified professional who is themselves deaf, at the very earliest stage.”

In Re A & B, the Court identified 12 lessons to be learnt, at paragraph 142, founded on the principles of the Equality Act 2010. In X and Y, the support required included the need for Flemish sign language; Vlaamse Gebarentaal. As a result of the father’s need for VGT interpretation, remote assistance was obtained from experienced and qualified interpreters. He was appointed a deaf intermediary, Chantelle De La Croix, who has extensive experience of assisting deaf parents in Court. Ms De La Croix uses BSL interpreters, who also attended remotely. 

The Court also had the benefit of a cognitive assessment by the consultant clinical psychologist, Dr O’Rourke, who identified the education gaps, and the difficulty for the father, given that neither Flemish nor English was his mother language. At home in Afghanistan he had used a system of informal home signs, and had only come to understand VGT when he spent time in Belgium. He had never used BSL prior to his time in the UK. 

The Court approved the following participation directions, in the light of the reports and assessments relating to the father; 

a) that the father was afforded the presence of his intermediary at all times during hearings and for conferences with his legal team;

b) that the father was afforded the benefit of two Flemish sign language interpreters during the hearing and in conference. These interpreters would need sufficient breaks to maintain their concentration. A deaf relay interpreter was not necessary as the intermediary felt able to monitor the communication herself. There was thus no need to book separate court interpreters who would have been BSL signers rather than Flemish signers. Continuity of signers was considered by all those involved with the father to be essential;

c) short breaks should occur after about 40 minutes of the proceedings to allow the interpreters a break and for the intermediary to check the father’s understanding; and

d) the Advocates Toolkit should be used to prepare questions for the father.

Communication – challenges and adaptations

This case was complex, both in the nature of the evidence and also the steps that were necessary to take to ensure that the parents could give their best evidence. The following matters related to the father, although it is also noted throughout the judgment that the mother required verbal interpretation which was not straightforward. 

In the course of an earlier hearing, an International Sign Language interpreter was used for the father. ISL is used at global events, but is not regarded by some interpreters as the appropriate mechanism, as it is an amalgamation of other languages, rather than a truly global language, which does not exist, any more than it does in spoken languages. The use of an ISL interpreter was a necessary step at a stage prior to the VGT interpreters being available, but was no substitute for full interpretation. 

Working with interpreters remotely, particularly with a client who was in custody, posed a number of challenges, including the need for prison visits to be able to accommodate a hybrid attendance, which requires pre-authorisation by the prison authorities. In Court, care was required to ensure sight lines were clear, and that the interpreters, who worked in teams of two, could maintain concentration and have appropriate breaks. They also had to be able to see the intermediary, who would sign to them if there was a difficulty with communication for the client. 

Working in this way highlighted issues such as the distraction effect for the father if too many people could be seen on screen, and the impossibility of the use of remote interpreters if they appear in the small boxes sometimes seen on the CVP system. It was necessary for the Court to “pin” the relevant interpreters on the father’s screen. Likewise, it proved impossible for the intermediary’s BSL interpreters and the VGT interpreters to appear on the same link, as the competing interpretation in two different languages was confusing for the father. The Court permitted a separate teams link to be used for the BSL and intermediary to have their own line of communication. 

As the father appeared from custody, and laptops were not permitted in the dock area, a large screen was made available in front of the dock for him to watch and follow the evidence. Simple written summaries were sent to the interpreters in advance of the witness evidence expected to given that day, in order that they could prepare themselves and understand the issues that required interpretation. 

When giving evidence, the Father required sight of the screen with his interpreters, and also had the support of the intermediary, who was in person throughout, next to him. She needed to have sight of her own interpreters and the VGT interpreters, in order to monitor the father’s understanding and provide feedback on any difficulties as they arose. 

Pictorial aids were used to assist both parents, and a system was also devised allowing the deaf intermediary to intervene by raising a picture card, if she perceived a difficulty for the father, or required a repeat of a question or time to intervene. 

The steps taken in order to facilitate and ensure that the father was able to give his best evidence required careful thought and planning, and working with the communication team as a whole. It was necessary to use separate planning meetings with the intermediary and interpreters, in order to properly prepare for client conferences and for Court. The work was extensive and highlighted the extent to which adaptations must be made to facilitate proper participation. 

Conclusions

The tragic facts of the case are set out in the judgment in full. It was important that the father was able to give evidence to the Court and explain his position. The case represents a constellation of vulnerabilities seen in both parents, which were compounded by the father’s deafness;

“The mother and the father each brought their respective vulnerabilities to the marital relationship: the mother had her lack of education; cognitive difficulties; limited life experience in a small village in Afghanistan; total ignorance of English; an almost complete inability to communicate with or even to understand her husband because she could barely sign; and her expectations/behaviour formed by a deeply conservative and religious upbringing. The father’s difficulties mirrored many of those seen in the mother though he had advantages not available to her, such as being able to work outside the family home and a wider life experience away from Afghanistan. Their relationship was deeply unequal and frustrating for both of them.” §176

The case highlights the complexities that arise and the care that must be taken in order to ensure that the Court has the best evidence and that parents under such difficult circumstances can be heard. 

Jacqueline Thomas KC

Kalsoom Maqsood