Justice Nathalie Lieven Must Resign
This UK-based family court judge poses a grave danger to the lives of children and families. Here are two specific cases demonstrating why she must vacate the High Court effective immediately.
There are some family court judges who take their jobs seriously—who consistently strive to deliver fair and just rulings in accordance with the law and with the best interests of children at heart. Far too many, however, deliver the antithesis of justice. Whether due to extreme negligence or brazen corruption, they treat the bench as if it were a throne.
One such abomination to the profession is Nathalie Lieven of the United Kingdom, who currently sits on the British High Court, doing her absolute best to endanger the lives of children while violating the basic human rights of perfectly fit parents. I will address two specific cases of her brazen lack of professionalism, one of which intentionally endangered the life of a toddler.
CASE #1
The UK National Health Service (NHS) sought to force a disabled woman to abort her pregnancy at 22 weeks, arguing that her mental capacity rendered her too incompetent to care for a child. Aside from the fact that forcing a woman to have an abortion is a grotesque violation of bodily autonomy, any concerns over the woman’s ability to safely care for the child had already been addressed. Her mother had volunteered to be the primary caregiver, with the support of the assigned social worker.
Yet the NHS persisted, perversely insisting that it was in the woman’s best interest to abort and sought to impose termination. The would-be mother fought back. The case went before Justice Lieven in 2019, who acknowledged the NHS’s position was radical:
“I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the State to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn't want it is an immense intrusion. I have to operate in [her] best interests."
Despite this recognition, Lieven proceeded to rule against the woman and ordered the pregnancy be forcibly terminated. As if delivering such a cruel ruling weren’t enough, Lieven added insult to injury by belittling the would-be mother:
“I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll.”
Calling her cold would be putting it mildly.
FALLOUT
While the pro-life side was predictably outraged, many pro-choice advocates were also furious. The woman’s right over her own body had been stripped away in one of the cruelest ways imaginable.
The decision to abort should rest solely with the woman (though I strongly support narrowing the window to 10–12 weeks for many reasons I won’t delve into here). One could argue a would-be father deserves a say—especially in late-term abortions—but the notion that anyone, let alone the government, can force an abortion is incomprehensible. It evokes China’s brutal one-child policy.
What could have justified Lieven’s decision? A brief look at her history shows she was an abortion activist for 15 years before becoming a judge. In 2005, she argued against parental consent for minors seeking abortions:
“The long-held belief among parents that they know what is best for a child is out of date and represents a traditional paternalistic approach that contradicts social changes in western Europe,” she told the high court.
Representing the Family Planning Association, Lieven argued that parents were no longer necessarily the best advisors on contraception or abortion—and had no right to know if their children were seeking treatment.
I agree that a parent shouldn’t be able to dictate whether or not his/her teenage daughter aborts a pregnancy or not. That goes back to principles of bodily autonomy, so… fair enough. But should doctors be allowed to encourage it and perform the procedure without the parent even being consulted or even notified? Aren’t parents supposed to at least have a voice in the medical decisions of their minor child?
Not in Lieven’s twisted world-view.
In 2005 Lieven reduced the rights of parents to be notified if their children are having abortions and in 2019 enhanced the rights of the government to impose abortions. Interesting two-punch whammy right there, eh? She also argued for at-home abortions and the repeal of pro-life laws in Northern Ireland, becoming a leading voice for abortion advocacy groups in the United Kingdom, exposing that she wasn’t just pro-choice, but a radical pro-abortion activist so extreme that she supported the government killing the unborn against a mother’s will.
Any Judge with such an extremist position should rightly recuse themselves from ruling on any cases even remotely in the ballpark of a pregnancy matter.
After ruling in favor of the NHS, Lieven further discouraged the woman from appealing the decision because if the appeal were to fail then the NHS would either force a late-term abortion (which would be illegal since the UK’s 1967 Abortion Act limits termination to 24 weeks) or forcibly remove the child from the mother after being born. It’s not clear which consequence she was threatening, but this is the quote from Lieven:
"I think (she) would suffer greater trauma from having a baby removed. It would at that stage be a real baby.“
So, according to Lieven, the lesser trauma would be an immediate forced abortion.
Here’s a wild idea, Judge—how about inflicting no trauma?
Lieven’s thoughtless tunnel vision led her to criminally inflict harm in gross violation of international and domestic human rights. Thankfully, her ruling was overturned.
John Deighan of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children stated:
“The initial decision to perform an abortion on a disabled woman against her will, when her mother had promised to look after the child, caused shock and outrage around the world. A forced abortion is one of the worst things that can be done to a woman... Serious questions must now be asked about how this decision happened, and the country will need assurances that this will never happen again.”
Indeed. Lieven should have been investigated, and reforms implemented.
John Deighan of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children stated:
“The initial decision to perform an abortion on a disabled woman against her will, when her mother had promised to look after the child, caused shock and outrage around the world. A forced abortion is one of the worst things that can be done to a woman... Serious questions must now be asked about how this decision happened, and the country will need assurances that this will never happen again.”
Indeed. Lieven should have been investigated, and reforms implemented. So what happened to Justice Lieven after her initial ruling garnered international condemnation? The same thing that happens to any cop, judge, or politician who engages in unethical behavior. Absolutely nothing.
CASE #2:
Lieven wasn’t satisfied with damaging her own citizens—she expanded her callous abuse internationally.
In 2022, a Hague Convention case involved an American couple in a paternity and custody dispute. The mother had deceived the father, poked a hole in a condom, lied about birth control, and used him for his genetics. All of this was admitted by her in writing. When he had refused a relationship, she faked a miscarriage and fled California.
Months later the father learned she was in Oklahoma, still pregnant. Her own family warned he must intervene because she was both bipolar and a diagnosed sociopath. Deeply alarmed, he filed for sole custody in June 2020.
After paternity was confirmed, the mother fled the U.S. in March 2021 and sought asylum in the UK under false pretenses—calling the father a “cat-microwaving cyber terrorist” who was trying to kill her. This was textbook projection as official police reports confirmed it was the the mother who had paid to have him killed.
The maternal grandmother testified in Oklahoma that she feared a murder-suicide would result if her daughter’s custody rights were lost. The U.S. court granted the father sole custody and issued a felony warrant against the mother. Meanwhile, the UK’s West Midlands Police removed the neglected, malnourished child from her.
Despite the U.S. court orders heavily favoring the father, the child was placed in UK foster care and the matter was scheduled to be argued under the Hague Conventions. The initial UK judge absurdly questioned the father’s paternity despite official orders and documentation. The case stalled for six months.
Now enter Justice Lieven.
She ruled that the mother had “lawfully removed” the child because, in her bewildering opinion, the Oklahoma court had not addressed custody—despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. No effort was made to contact the Oklahoma court. Instead, the Local Authority paid a legal “expert” from Oklahoma who was willing to play ball who plainly had no idea what she was talking.
Judge the highlights of this kangaroo court for yourself:
Lieven then argued that removing the child from the abusive mother, likely permanently due to the criminal warrant for her arrest in the United States, would be too traumatic. But separating the child from his safe and lawful custodial father? No hesitation. The UK unlawfully claimed jurisdiction, and international law was ignored due to Lieven and the Local Authority’s shameless misandry.
To be clear, there were zero findings of abuse by the father against the minor child.
FALLOUT
Lieven wasn’t done. She also oversaw the care proceedings that followed (Case #CV21C01255). Despite explicit warnings by even the Local Authority of a high risk of attempted abduction, plus the mother being evidenced to have hired a hitman to kill the father, Lieven prioritized the mother resuming supervised contact. The father objected, predicting disaster. He was right.
Within one minute of the visit starting according to CCTV surveillance footage (below), the mother violently abducted the child, assaulting both the contact supervisor and foster carer in the process.RAW COURT FOOTAGE and CCTV SURVEILLANCE:
LONGER COMPILATION OF JUSTICE LIEVEN’S CONDUCT
THROUGHOUT THE CASE:
Only after subjecting the poor child to such predictable trauma did Lieven acknowledge the level of risk the mother posted, which had been obvious to anyone with even cursory knowledge of the case—but still refused to return the child to his father. Instead, she ordered the child to be adopted by the mother’s relatives in Florida—relatives who had aided in the abduction and pledged to reunite the child with his abuser.
The aunt was physically disabled and had a history of child abuse. The uncle was a convicted arsonist with a record of domestic violence. They lived in a cramped mobile home with two pit bulls and the grandmother, who had encouraged the father to commit suicide.
Yet Lieven determined this was the safer environment.
The father’s attorney, the child’s foster carer, and his supportive foster carer were all barred from testifying. Lieven’s ruling was not the result of ignorance—it was willful, targeted sabotage, further enabled by the grossly complicit Coventry City Council:
If you’re still wondering how I know all of this, you’ve probably surmised that I am the father. The following compilation demonstrates what my son had to endure because of the callous, unlawful judgments rendered by Justice Lieven:
After yet another year of detainment following the final ruling, my son was placed with his Florida relatives on May 10, 2024. Florida enforced Lieven’s ruling without any discussion of the merits behind the foreign order, conflicting with my constitutional rights as an American, which protect a parent from having his/her child removed by the state without substantive evidence of neglect or abuse. Neither exists.
The Local Authority and the Aunt further deepened the traumatic separation between father and son by cutting off even remote contact from October 2023 until April 2025.
Due to this case being ongoing and confidential I cannot disclose any details regarding the proceedings in Florida as per court orders. I have disclosed the UK proceedings due to the fact that I am well beyond their jurisdictional reach to prosecute and the matter being of public interest. All videos presented here have long been public on other platforms, including Youtube, TikTok, and Rumble.
The bottom line is that the United Kingdom detained my American son in foster care for no lawful reason whatsoever and I will not rest until Justice Nathalie Lieven’s horrific conduct is fully exposed, justice is served through meaningful compensation, and she is removed from the bench with extreme prejudice.
Lieven is a disgrace to the judiciary and a stain on the reputation of the United Kingdom. Of all people, she is the least suited to render judgments of any kind, let alone in family court, where the traumatic consequences are profound and long-lasting. The lives of children and families must never be entrusted to her again.
Justice should be blind—not the judges.
If you would like to financially support the legal battle to reverse Justice Lieven’s orders to at long-last reunite father and son, please donate and share our story on social media.
We are in immediate need of at least $5,000 for the final hearing and additional resources will go toward my son’s recovery from this traumatic ordeal. If 200 people donate just $25 we’ll reach our minimum goal. Thank you.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE
You can further explore our case here: https://linkin.bio/justice4keanu/