WX v YZ (International Relocation: Supervised Contact) [2024] EWFC 430 (B)

[2024] EWFC 430 (B)

Date 18 March 2025

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT LUTON

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE NEWPORT

Name: WX v YZ (International Relocation: Supervised Contact)

Between

WXApplicant

YZRespondent

Shiva Ancliffe KC and Alexander Laing (instructed by Dawson Cornwell LLP)

for Applicant

Hannah Markham KC and Katherine Rayden (solicitor) (instructed by

Rayden Solicitors) for Respondent

Hearing Hearing dates: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 16 July 2024

Reserved judgment handed down on 23 August 2024

APPROVED JUDGMENT

This judgment was handed down by email in draft on 5 August 2024 and in perfected form on 23 August 2024. This anonymised version was uploaded on 18 March 2025.

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.

HIS HONOUR JUDGE NEWPORT:

[1]I begin this judgment by reminding myself of the words of Thorpe LJ in Re G (Leave to Remove)

[2008] 1 FLR 1587

"These cases are particularly traumatic for the parties, since each of them conceives so much as being at stake. They are very, very difficult cases for the trial judges. Often the balance is very fine between grant and refusal. The judge is only too aware of how heavily invested each of the parents is in the outcome for which they contend. The judges are very well aware of how profoundly the decision will affect the future lives of the children and how difficult it will be for the disappointed parent to adjust to the outcome."

The Children and Parties

[2]I am concerned with the future arrangements for four children, ranging in age from 6 to 16. They shall be referred to as P, Q, R and S. Save for P, the children are each subject to an application for permission to relocate permanently to European Country 1. They are subject to several other applications, as will be set out.

[3]The applicant mother (WX) is represented by Ms Ancliffe KC and Mr Laing of counsel. The Mother is from European Country 1 and has lived in the UK since 2013. She works for a multinational company. Mother is a vulnerable witness, and I am satisfied that she has been able to participate fully. In addition to seeking to relocate, Mother seeks a Section 91(14) order, non-molestation order (“NMO”) and to be able to make day-to-day decisions for the younger three children. She opposes any order for vaccination or there being an order for P to live with Father.

[4]The respondent father (YZ) is represented by Ms Markham KC and Mrs Rayden. The Father is from European Country 2 and has also lived in the UK since 2013. He opposes relocation and ultimately wishes to return to the 9/5 arrangement of shared care that was in place prior to March 2024, with shared holidays and time with paternal family in European Country 2. He also seeks a ‘lives with’ order for P, the return of her passports, and for R and S to be vaccinated in line with NHS recommendations. If supervision is still required, family members should be permitted to supervise and for this court to review, to allow time for him to complete courses. Father offers undertakings. He opposes any restriction of parental responsibility, an s91(14) order and non-molestation order.

[5]The family is undoubtedly one with an “international flavour”. The children have names from both countries. The parents are multi-lingual, and the children speak English and Mother’s language. P and Q were born in European Country 3. The family (in its varying sizes over time) has lived in several international locations.

Background

[6]The background to this case is set out in my judgment dated 28 March 2024. That followed what was meant to be a combined hearing but became a fact-finding hearing (“FFH”).

[7]Father sought permission to appeal and a stay, both of which I refused. His application to the High Court for a stay was refused on 26 April 2024 and his substantive application for permission to appeal was refused as being totally without merit on 23 May 2024.

[8]There have been further hearings and rulings since the handing down of that judgment. I have a supplemental bundle. At the DRA on 26 June 2024, I refused Father’s application to adjourn this final hearing. I adjusted the previously agreed timetable to allow for sequential statements.

This Hearing

[9]I allowed Contact Supervisor to give oral evidence at Father’s request. Although her statement was short and properly set out the limits of her evidence, she is the only person to have observed Father’s contact. That is important evidence in the context of Father’s relationship with the children.

[10]Both parents were much longer in the witness box than timetabled, despite focused questions from counsel. I am grateful to the independent witnesses for rearranging their commitments to attend court. Their evidence had to be interposed in from day 2 of Father’s evidence. I have allowed Ms Markham to take instructions from Father but that of itself has placed limits upon what she could discuss. Further applications from Mother could not properly be determined during the latter stages of the hearing itself. I acceded to Ms Markham’s request to case manage how and when any further applications were made during trial.

[11]Ms Ancliffe was unavailable on day 5 and I am grateful to Mr Laing for continuing with the case on day 5 so that the evidence could be completed.

[12]Mr Laing indicated that Mother would seek to file further evidence. Mother submitted a C2, draft statement, exhibit and submissions. I allowed Father a week to respond. In his reply, he sought to adduce a further statement of his own. I handed down a written ruling on 24 July 2024, allowing both statements. I refused Father’s application for disclosure of Mother’s solicitor’s WhatsApp communications with lawyers from European Country 1.

[13]My reference at paragraph 14 of that ruling to this not being a case of competing child arrangements in the event that relocation is granted is not a misunderstanding of Father’s case. It was a reference to proposed practical arrangements in European Country 1. I understood, and understand, the principles and nuances of Father’s case. Ms Markham sets them out in her paragraphs 148-149 and 233-241.

Law

[14]In my previous judgment, I set out the law relating to fact-finding in detail. Where required, I apply that again.

[15]The leading authority in international relocation case remains Re F (A Child) (International Relocation Case)

[2015] EWCA Civ 882

. In V v. M (Child Arrangements

[16]In Re S (Relocation: Interest of Siblings)

[2011] 2 FLR 678

, the Court of Appeal held that where there is more than one child involved, a court must consider separately the interests of each child in the light of their ages, stages of development and the nature of their needs.

[17]In Re E (Relocation: Removal from Jurisdiction)

[2013] 2 FLR 290

it was held that a judge can depart from the recommendation of Cafcass if the report is not balanced. The case must be looked at in the round.

[18]The welfare checklist is not mandatory in leave to remove applications, but it is mandatory when considering child arrangements. When considering arrangements, the children’s welfare is my paramount consideration. I keep in mind the presumption of parental involvement and the ‘no order’ principle. Any order I make must be reasonable, necessary, proportionate and in accordance with the children’s and parties’ Article 8 rights. When a child turns 16, a court can grant a ‘lives with’ order if the case is exceptional.

[19]In SL v JA & U

[2024] EWHC 1785

Fam, Judd J allowed an appeal with one of the reasons being that the trial judge had not said anything about the harm that was likely to be caused by the effect of a restricted regime (of supervised contact) upon the mother/daughter relationship, in circumstances where the parties could not pay for supervised contact for more than two hours per fortnight and family could not assist. Judd J made clear that “all those matters needed to be balanced in the overall decision the judge made”.

[20]In Re D & E (Children: Assessment and Management of Risk)

[2024] EWFC 162

, Henke J considered the issue of risk and the presumption of parental involvement under s1(2A) and what is meant by “unless the contrary is shown”. Her ladyship referred to MacDonald J’s judgment in D v E (by her Children’s Guardian)

[2021] EWFC 37

in which his lordship held that: i. The welfare of the child is paramount, and the child's best interests must take precedence over any other consideration. ii. There is a positive obligation on the State and therefore on the judge to take measures to promote contact, grappling with all available alternatives and taking all necessary steps that can reasonably be demanded, before abandoning hope of achieving contact. iii. However, the positive obligation on the State, and therefore on the court, is not absolute. Whilst authorities must do their utmost to facilitate the co-operation and understanding of all concerned, any obligation to apply coercion in this area must be limited since the interests, as well as the rights and freedoms of all concerned must be taken into account and, more particularly, so must the best interests of the child. iv. Excessive weight should not be accorded to short term problems and the court should take a medium- and long-term view. v. Contact should be terminated only in exceptional circumstances where there are cogent reasons for doing so, as a last resort, when there is no alternative, and only if contact will be detrimental to the child's welfare. vi. The key question, and the question requiring stricter scrutiny, is whether the court has taken all necessary steps to facilitate contact as can reasonably be demanded in the circumstances of the particular case. [26]. These principles must be read in light of FPR 2010 PD12J, entitled Child Arrangements and Contact Orders: Domestic Abuse and Harm.

[21]When looking at all the issues, PD12J requires me to consider domestic abuse as a substantive issue. As a general principle domestic abuse in whatever form is contrary to a child’s welfare, is harmful to them and puts them at risk. Any welfare determination that I make must protect the safety and wellbeing of the child and the parent with whom that child is living so as not to expose either of them to the risk of future harm. Specifically, I refer myself to the following: Paragraph 35 - When deciding the issue of child arrangements the court should ensure that any order for contact will not expose the child to an unmanageable risk of harm and will be in the best interests of the child. Paragraph 36(1) - In the light of-(a) any findings of fact,

(b) admissions; or

(c) domestic abuse having otherwise been established, the court should apply the individual matters in the welfare checklist with reference to the domestic abuse which has occurred and any expert risk assessment obtained. Paragraph 36(2) - In particular, the court should in every case consider any harm- (a) which the child as a victim of domestic abuse, and the parent with whom the child is living, has suffered as a consequence of that domestic abuse; and (b) which the child and the parent with whom the child is living is at risk of suffering, if a child arrangements order is made. Paragraph 36(3) - The court should make an order for contact only if it is satisfied- (a) that the physical and emotional safety of the child and the parent with whom the child is living can, as far as possible, be secured before, during and after contact; and (b) that the parent with whom the child is living will not be subjected to further domestic abuse by the other parent. Paragraph 37 - In every case where a finding or admission of domestic abuse is made, or where domestic abuse is otherwise established, the court should consider the conduct of both parents towards each other and towards the child and the impact of the same. In particular, the court should consider – (a) the effect of the domestic abuse on the child and on the arrangements for where the child is living; (b) the effect of the domestic abuse on the child and its effect on the child's relationship with the parents; (c) whether the parent is motivated by a desire to promote the best interests of the child or is using the process to continue a form of domestic abuse against the other parent;

(d) the likely behaviour during contact of the parent against whom findings are made and its effect on the child; and

(e) the capacity of the parents to appreciate the effect of past domestic abuse and the potential for future domestic abuse. Paragraph 38 - Where any domestic abuse has occurred but the court, having considered any expert risk assessment and having applied the welfare checklist, nonetheless considers that direct contact is safe and beneficial for the child, the court should consider what, if any, directions or conditions are required to enable the order to be carried into effect and in particular should consider –

a. whether or not contact should be supervised, and if so, where and by whom;

b. whether to impose any conditions to be complied with by the party in whose favour the order for contact has been made and if so, the nature of those conditions, for example by way of seeking intervention (subject to any necessary consent);

c. whether such contact should be for a specified period or should contain provisions which are to have effect for a specified period; and

d. whether it will be necessary, in the child's best interests, to review the operation of the order; if so the court should set a date for the review consistent with the timetable for the child, and must give directions to ensure that at the review the court has full information about the operation of the order. Where a risk assessment has concluded that a parent poses a risk to a child or to the other parent, contact via a supported contact centre, or contact supervised by a parent or relative, is not appropriate.

[22]Section 91(14) provides, at the conclusion of proceedings, for the court to restrict the right of a parent to make an application by requiring them to obtain leave of the court. That is not a bar on applications, but a restrictive filter. Re P

[1999] 2 FLR 573

remains good law, but such must now be read in light of section 91 and the observations of King LJ in Re A

[2022] 1 FLR 1019

[23]Section 91(14) was considered by Henke J in Re B and K (Children: Contact Section 91(14) Orders)

[2024] EWFC 167

and D & E, op cit. The court must consider such orders in light of PD12J paragraph 4A: 4A.1 Under section 91(14) of the 1989 Act orders are available to prevent a person from making an application under that Act without leave of the court. Section 91(14) leaves a discretion to the court to determine the circumstances in which an order should be made, which may therefore be many and varied. However, section 91A specifies certain circumstances “among others” in which the court may make an order. These circumstances include where an application would put the child concerned, or another individual at risk of harm. This would include, but not be limited to, a risk of harm arising where an application could be used to carry out or continue domestic abuse. A future application could be part of a pattern of coercive or controlling behaviour or other domestic abuse toward the victim, such that a section 91(14) order is merited due to the risk of harm to the child or other individual. 4A.2 Where allegations of domestic abuse are alleged or proven, the court should consider whether a section 91(14) order might be appropriate even if an application for such an order has not been made.

[24]The principles to be applied are set in in PD12Q:2.1 Section 91(14) orders are available to prevent a person from making future applications under the 1989 Act without leave of the court. They are a protective filter made by the court, in the interests of children.

2.2 The court has a discretion to determine the circumstances in which an order would be appropriate. These circumstances may be many and varied. They include circumstances where an application would put the child concerned, or another individual, at risk of harm (as provided in section 91A), such as psychological or emotional harm. The welfare of the child is paramount.

2.3 These circumstances can also include where one party has made repeated and unreasonable applications; where a period of respite is needed following litigation; where a period of time is needed for certain actions to be taken for the protection of the child or other person; or where a person’s conduct overall is such that an order is merited to protect the welfare of the child directly, or indirectly due to damaging effects on a parent carer. Such conduct could include harassment, or other oppressive or distressing behaviour beyond or within the proceedings including via social media and e-mail, and via third parties. Such conduct might also constitute domestic abuse.

2.4 A future application could also be part of a pattern of coercive or controlling behaviour or other domestic abuse toward the victim, such that a section 91(14) order is also merited due to the risk of harm to the child or other individual.

2.5 There is no definition in section 91A of who the other individual could be that could be put at risk of harm. However, it is most likely to be, but is not limited to, another person who has parental responsibility for the child and/or is living with or has contact with the child, or any other individual who would be a prospective respondent to a future application.

2.6 In proceedings in which domestic abuse is alleged or proven, or in which there are allegations or evidence of other harm to a child or other individual, the court should give early and ongoing consideration to whether it would be appropriate to make a section 91(14) order on disposal of the application, even if an application for such an order has not been made (since the court may make an order of its own motion – see section 91A(5)).

2.7 Section 91(14) orders are a protective filter – not a bar on applications – and there is considerable scope for their use in appropriate cases. Proceedings under the 1989 Act should not be used as a means of harassment or coercive control, or further abuse against a victim of domestic abuse or other person, and the court should therefore give due consideration to whether a future application would have such an impact.

2.8 The court should consider case law for further guidance and relevant principles, bearing in mind Parliament’s insertion via the 2021 Act of section 91A into the 1989 Act.

[25]The procedure is set out in paragraph 3.6: If the court decides to make a section 91(14) order, the court should give consideration as to the following matters:a. the duration of the order (see section 4);

b. whether the order should cover all or only certain types of application under the 1989 Act;

c. whether service of any subsequent application for leave should be prohibited until the court has made an initial determination of the merits of such an application (see section 6). Such an order delaying service would help to ensure that the very harm or other protective function that the order is intended to address, is not undermined; and

d. whether upon any subsequent application for leave, the court should make an initial determination of the merits of the application without an oral hearing (see section 6).

[26]PR is defined in s3 of the Children Act 1989. Limits can be placed upon the exercise of PR by virtue of a Specific Issue Order or Prohibited Steps Order made under s8(1). The functioning of PR within the ECHR was considered by the President in Re A (Power to Revoke Parental Responsibility)

[2023] EWCA Civ 689

[27]The issue came before the Court of Appeal only last month. In Re T-D (Children: Specific Issue Order)

[2024] EWCA Civ 793

, Peter Jackson LJ confirmed that a court does have the power to grant “over-riding parental responsibility” to one parent. The appeal was allowed as the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge was wrong to do so in this case.

[28]His lordship sets out the following:41. By its clear terms, the Act provides the court with the broadest and most flexible powers to make welfare decisions. The powers, which are themselves a welfare checklist factor, can be used individually or in combination. No two cases are the same and, where orders are needed, judges should use the powers that Parliament has given them in the way that they think best meets the needs of the case.

42. At the same time, court orders represent an interference with the freedom of parents to make their own decisions and must be used in a way that is proportionate to the presenting problem. The interference must be no more than is necessary to achieve the desired outcome for the child.

43. The court has a broad discretion as to whether orders should be made or not. There will be some disagreements that are too insignificant to warrant an order, and some questions may fall too far into the future to allow a welfare decision to be made. But where an important issue has crystallised, the court will need a sound reason for declining to decide it. For clarity, there is no inconsistency in this respect between the decisions in Re H and Re P (see paragraphs 35 and 36 above). The first case involved a welfare decision (unopposed) to exclude a father from medical decision making, while the second case involved the delegation by the court of an issue that had been presented to it for decision.

44. Cases where the court has made a shared ‘lives with’ order do not, as was once thought, require parents to be co-parenting amicably. However, shared orders are generally made with a view to encouraging parents to co-operate with each other.

45. The great majority of private law cases arise from immediate parental disagreements that can (subject to the no order principle) readily be addressed by one or more of the Section 8 orders. There will be other situations where orders can be made to resolve an issue that is likely to require a series of future parental decisions, although the details may not yet be known, or where an order may be needed to prevent an issue from arising in the first place. The court’s powers are equal to all these situations and more.

46. In a few cases, conventional, issue-specific Section 8 orders may be inadequate to the scale of the problem, and the court has been driven to go further. Sometimes, using its statutory power, it has removed the parental responsibility of an unmarried father. In other cases, notwithstanding the view expressed by the Law Commission, it has used Section 8 orders to deprive one parent of the right to exercise parental responsibility in one or more broad domains, or altogether. Such a power undoubtedly exists.

47. However, as seen above, these orders have only been made in extreme cases. It is one thing to interfere with a parent’s ability to make an individual decision, and another to deprive them of decision-making power more generally. Where a conventional order can be made, it may be disproportionate to go further. In other cases, nothing less will be adequate to protect the welfare of the child.

48. It can also be seen that in these extreme cases, the court has generally deployed a prohibited steps order as one means of achieving its objective. Where parental responsibility is being removed in specific domains, a properly drafted prohibited steps order will have the advantage of clarifying what the affected parent can and cannot do.

[29]The law applicable to NMOs is found within s42 of the Family Law Act 1996. I must consider all the circumstances of the case including the need to secure the health, safety and well-being of applicant and children. There is essentially a three-stage test - evidence of molestation, need for protection and requirement for judicial intervention to control the behaviour complained of. Molestation itself is not defined in the statute. The principles were considered by Lieven J in DS v AC

[2023] EWFC 46

[30]In Re H (A Child: Parental Responsibility: Vaccination)

[2020] EWCA Civ 664

, King LJ observed that where two parents with parental responsibility disagree as to the proper course of action with respect to vaccination, the court becomes the decision maker through the mechanism of a specific issue order made pursuant to its jurisdiction under s 8 of the Children Act 1989. The Court of Appeal articulated the following conclusions: i) It cannot be doubted that it is both reasonable and responsible parental behaviour to arrange for a child to be vaccinated in accordance with the Public Health Guidelines but there is at present no legal requirement in this jurisdiction for a child to be vaccinated. ii) Although vaccinations are not compulsory, scientific evidence now establishes that it is generally in the best interests of otherwise healthy children to be vaccinated, the current established medical view being that the routine vaccination of infants is in the best interests of those children and for the public good. iii) All the evidence presently available supports the Public Health England the advice and guidance that unequivocally recommends a range of vaccinations as being in the interests both children and society as a whole. iv) The specific immunisations which are recommended for children by Public Health England are set out in the routine immunisation schedule which is found in the Green Book: Immunisation against infectious disease, published in 2013 and updated since. v) The evidence base with respect to MMR overwhelmingly identifies the benefits to a child of being vaccinated as part of the public health initiative to drive down the incidence of serious childhood and other diseases. vi) The clarity regarding the evidence base with respect to MMR and the other vaccinations that are habitually given to children should serve to bring to an end the approach whereby an order is made for the instruction of an expert to report on the intrinsic safety and or efficacy of vaccinations as being necessary to assist the court to resolve the proceedings pursuant to FPR Part 25, save where a child has an unusual medical history and consideration is required as to whether the child’s own circumstances throw up any contra-indications. vii) Subject to any credible development in medical science or peer reviewed research to the opposite effect, the proper approach to be taken by a court where there is a disagreement as to whether the child should be vaccinated is that the benefit in vaccinating a child in accordance with Public Health England guidance can be taken to outweigh the long- recognised and identified side effects. viii) Parental views regarding immunisation must always be taken into account but the matter is not to be determined by the strength of the parental view unless the view has a real bearing on the child’s welfare. ix) This approach to the medical issues does not act to narrow the broad scope of the welfare analysis that is engaged when considering the best interests of the child with respect to the question of vaccination.

[31]In M v H (Private law vaccination)

[2020] EWFC 93

, MacDonald J granted a specific issue order authorising the administration of vaccinations to two children, ages 6 and 4 in accordance with the NHS vaccination schedule. In M v H, MacDonald J outlined the legal principles to be applied in such cases:

“When considering whether to grant a specific issue order requiring vaccination as being in each child’s best interests, those best interests are the court’s paramount consideration pursuant to s 1(1) of the 1989 Act and the court must have regard to the matters set out in the ‘welfare checklist’ contained in s 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 (Re C (Welfare of Child: Immunisation) [2003] 2 FLR 1095). Pursuant to s 1(5) of the 1989 Act the court should not make a specific issue order unless doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all. With respect to the matters that inform the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction under s 8 of the 1989 Act where the parental dispute concerns vaccination, the courts have considered the issue in a number of cases.”

Issues

[32]The issues that I must decide are:• The arrangements for the children.

• Whether or not to grant Mother permission to relocate to European Country 1 with Q, R and S (and if so, any matters under the Hague Convention 1996).

• Mother’s application for an s91(14) order.

• Whether there should be any restrictions on PR.

• Whether to direct vaccination of R and S.

Evidence

[33]I have a trial bundle and supplemental bundle amounting to over 1,800 pages. I have heard oral evidence from the parents, Contact Supervisor, Ms Houldsworth and Dr Dowd.

Mother

[34]The Mother has filed nine witness statements in total. Her fifth to eighth statements post-date the FFH.

[35]Mother’s seventh statement sets out her allegations of ongoing controlling and coercive behaviour, including the use of this litigation and financial control. One of her exhibits is a letter from Mother’s therapist. I have already said that it is not an expert report or considered to be one. It is not signed or accompanied by a statement of truth. Mother’s eighth statement adds to her first statement in terms of the detailed plans for relocation. She wants to live in European Country 1 City 1 (“City 1”). She sets out her plans for the children, including meeting their needs, education, health and contact, accommodation and employment. Mother details her support network, support available to victims of domestic abuse, likely effect of granting or refusing permission and the additional orders sought. Mother’s ninth statement was filed post-hearing.

[36]Mother gave oral evidence at length. She is a vulnerable witness. I take that into account when I assess her evidence, and I remind myself of the higher courts’ guidance when it comes to assessing demeanour. Mother had a tendency to give long answers and go off point, but when I consider what Mother said about the relevant issues, her evidence was clear and helpful. She made appropriate concessions where, for example, she accepted that Father was probably trying to help a difficult situation (the party) and where aspects of her plans were not supported by documentary evidence. I did not find her evidence about vaccinations to be well thought through. I did not form the view that her views were unreasonable but rather that she does not consider the MMR to be suitable for S given his needs. Her views must be seen in light of the fact that Cafcass do not raise any issues with her parenting.

[37]Mother raised difficulty with Ms Markham’s style of questioning. She felt that she was being directed to pages in the bundle and then it being put to her that she is lying. I explained the purpose of cross-examination to Mother. Ms Markham has to put her case, and I did not take the view that she was aggressive. I also saw no fault in Ms Ancliffe ensuring that she complied with her own duty towards her client. Many of the interruptions were in fact from me. I asked Mother to try to give more concise answers to help me understand the evidence.

Father

[38]Father has filed seven statements. As with Mother, his first four statements predate the FFH. Father’s fifth statement is his response to my findings. He does not accept them and considered my judgment to be flawed. Father’s sixth statement is his substantive statement in response to Mother’s seventh and eighth. At Mrs Rayden’s request, I extended the permissible page count to allow Father to respond to both. He set out his pleaded position, responses to factual matters, concerns about Mother’s plans, relationships with the children and the work that he proposes to do. Father’s seventh statement was filed post-hearing following my ruling on 24 July 2024.

[39]Ms Markham invites me to consider with care the impact that Father being isolated during his evidence had on the evidence he gave. Witnesses were interposed during parts of Father’s oral evidence. I can understand his feeling of being excluded. By the time of witnesses beginning to be interposed, Father had already given over a day of oral evidence. I allowed Ms Markham to take limited instructions when sought. I carefully considered what could be put to Father and asked him to leave the court on occasion to protect the integrity of his evidence. The position was undesirable but not unfair and I noticed no substantive difference in content or manner of Father’s evidence before and after witnesses were interposed.

[40]One of the real difficulties I found with assessing Father’s oral evidence is that it was laden with answers that were effectively submissions rather than factual evidence. His many, and very long, pauses caused him and counsel to both speak at the same time. I do not consider counsel to be at fault. Father repeatedly sought clarification and guidance from the court to the most basic and clear questions. He would often preface an answer with “I don’t want to be criticised”, an apology, or with direct criticism of the court, Mother, Cafcass or the question itself. Even his own counsel was not always spared from the latter.

[41]Ms Ancliffe described Father’s oral evidence as “scary”, “chilling, ominous and oppressive” and submitted that “the control he sought to exert, even over the judge, was deeply unsettling”. I was left with the impression that he was trying to control the evidence and shut down questions. I found much of Father’s oral evidence to be unhelpful, avoidant and controlling. His comments directed towards me were unsettling and undermining. I did, however, find some aspects of Father’s evidence to be clear and helpful. I accept Ms Markham’s submission that Father wanted to give his best evidence. He was consistent in which of my findings he accepts and why that is. His factual evidence about the party was consistent with Mother’s.

[42]In his seventh statement (filed after oral evidence), Father felt that I had a confused facial expression when he was asked about contact in European Country 1 City 2 (“City 2”), and this caused him to overthink and lose his train of thought. I found the opposite – this part of Father’s evidence was amongst the clearest evidence he gave. Even that focused and helpful evidence carried the preface of “I cannot believe that question was allowed to be put”.

[43]Father’s oral evidence was notably different from Mother’s in terms of acceptance. Mother accepted that she had not followed up with S’s GP or given full consideration to vaccination. She accepted her shortcomings as a parent and accepted factual matters when put to her by Ms Markham. Father stood in contrast. He accepted his use of sex workers but beyond that there was no acceptance (as is his right with reference to findings). There was no acceptance of any individual fault from him. Any acceptance by him, for example litigation pressure, was answered in the collective ‘we’ (i.e., including Mother). When challenged about it, Father explicitly said he would continue to answer in the context of his family.

Cafcass

[44]Jane Houldsworth is the third and most recent Cafcass officer. She has filed one report dated 27 June 2024 and recent disclosure. The salient parts of her written evidence are:• The Father continues to blame the mother and minimises his role. He does not show insight into the impact of his abusive behaviour on the mother or children.

• Behaviour minimisation, denial and victim blaming heightens the risk of reoccurring abuse.

• There is a risk of Father repeating the same behaviours if the current arrangements change.

• Father will require a high level of support to develop his insight and understanding of harm caused.

• Q and R expressed concern that Father is able to present himself in a different way during supervised contact. They are both fearful that his behaviour would change without supervision.

• Ms Houldsworth would be concerned about arrangements if they were not professionally supervised.

• R worries about the time she has to spend with Father and what is going to happen in the future. She struggles to sleep the night before contact and feels she has to keep her emotions in when with Father as she is worried that he will shout at her if she lets them out.

• Ms Houldsworth review Dr Dowd’s report. She does not depart from his risk assessment but considers the domestic abuse risk assessment to be limited to current arrangements rather than consider risk of unsupervised contact and a co-parenting relationship.

• Ms Houldsworth adopted Dr Dowd’s recommendations for work and suggested a further assessment by Cafcass if Father seeks to progress with arrangements.

• A service should not accept a user for behaviour-change intervention if there have been private law proceedings in the last 12 months. At least 12 months is needed after completing work.

• Ms Houldsworth applied the Cafcass ‘Alienating Behaviours’ practice aid and does not consider that Mother has acted in a way to alienate the children.

• Father’s concerns raised could be considered as DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender), another form of abusive behaviour.

[45]Ms Houldsworth recommends a ‘lives with’ order to Mother and that permission to relocate be granted. She recommends contact remain supervised until Father completes recommended work. If I grant relocation, contact should take place monthly in European Country 1 for six hours on Saturday and Sunday with a weekly video call. If I refuse permission, contact should remain as it is.

[46]In her oral evidence, Ms Houldsworth set out her training in terms of risk. She does not have concerns for R and S at school. She has read the contact reports up to 6 July 2024 and considered them to be positive with Father playing, showing affection and an interest in what the children were doing. Q, R and S were seen in the neutral environment of school. Cafcass will send letters to children from 0-18. She asked for S’s letter to be shared with him. If he has read it, Ms Houldsworth would be concerned if it was taken away from him.

[47]P was very relaxed in their video meeting. Ms Houldsworth had no concerns for her. She does not see the need for an order for P. P was positive about all family members. She did not mention a damaged relationship with Mother or verbalise things like the plan should not happen. P was very open about going to visit and would do so independently. She did not mention her passport.

[48]R was described as being articulate for her age. She specifically said that she loved Father. She is fearful of arrangements changing beyond supervision. She sees her older siblings as autonomous. R tried to explain her experiences of Father when there was no supervision. During direct work, R expressed concern about being able to be her true self with Father. Ms Houldsworth acknowledged that contact notes do not show any pressure from Father.

[49]Ms Houldsworth said that Q was not coached and was very free to speak. He did so freely and without scripting quality. He is not shutting the door on Father. He is trying to take back control. He agreed to see Father but felt pressured by Father asking to see him again. He said he was “freaked out” (para 17). He was uncomfortable with texts. Ms Houldsworth did not explore with Father. Q did not use the term “bombard” or mention Go Henry. He has not said that he wants family therapy. She did not speak to Q about GCSEs specifically, but they did talk about school. He said he is happy to move to European Country 1 and start a new school. Her understanding is that Q will have the option to finish some GCSEs. She is not familiar with European Country 1’s education system but that would not prevent a move. Ms Houldsworth did not consider it odd that Q asked about PR. She did not ask further as she had been asked to take Q’s views.

[50]Ms Houldsworth recommended professional supervision because of the nature of the findings. It is not safe for family to do so. A professional needs to understand and potentially intervene. Cafcass cannot commission or identify courses. Work is important for Father to have a foundation. Ms Houldsworth did not discuss Father’s motivation.

[51]Ms Houldsworth referred to the domestic abuse guidance at Cafcass. It suggests a 12-month break before behaviour-change work. It is not ‘tick box’. The sort of intensity of course she has in mind is on a par with DVIP – a recognised intensive programme of work with Father as perpetrator. Her understanding as that there is a need for a perpetrator to recognise that they have done something wrong. Anger management work is discrete and cannot replace domestic abuse work. Father would need to embed learning, and 12 months would be reasonable. If he does not complete work, Ms Houldsworth would be concerned about progression.

[52]Ms Houldsworth is not familiar with European Country 1’s courts, attitudes to domestic abuse in European Country 1 or the likely impact on Father’s relationship with the children. She does not know of the Cafcass equivalent in European Country 1 and hopes that the parents would move to a better place and not need further involvement.

[53]Ms Houldsworth said that video contact would also need to be supervised. She said that concrete plans are difficult with any relocation. She has written a handful of international relocation reports. She accepted that she had not included consideration of Father’s nationality’s heritage, acknowledging it could be done through video but would look different.

[54]I found Ms Houldsworth to be a straightforward and genuine professional witness. She readily accepted where there were gaps in her analysis and assisted the court in oral evidence. She brought a sense of balance to her work from the children’s perspective. Her analysis was an objective and fair analysis of this complex case. I do not criticise the part of her evidence where she referred to “finer details, bumps and challenges” in the context of what is a general and wide-ranging analysis by its nature. She helpfully explained her confidence that a mother who meets the children’s needs now and in the UK is likely to do so should relocation be permitted. There were gaps in her evidence and those must be considered as part of the overall canvas of this case.

[55]Although now of some age, I am assisted by the Cafcass reports of Ms Manser and Ms Coppen. Ms Coppen was cross-examined extensively in November about her report. I have reminded myself of its contents, her oral evidence and what I said in my judgment at paragraphs 125 to 135 of that judgment.

Contact Supervisor

[56]Contact Supervisor is the jointly instructed contact supervisor, called by Father. She has filed one very short statement. The volume of her written evidence is contained within the contact records. She makes clear that her notes do not contain any personal views. Although her evidence is not challenged, I allowed Father to call Contact Supervisor. She was taken through her evidence and contact notes by Ms Markham and cross-examined by Mr Laing. Contact Supervisor was a helpful and ‘matter of fact’ professional witness, as her statement suggested she would be. She assisted the court by giving an independent first-hand account of Father’s contact with the children and her observations of surrounding events. She quite properly limited her evidence to that that could be given in her role as supervisor.

Dr Dowd

[57]Dr Dowd is a consultant forensic psychologist, well known to these courts. He has filed one report dated 20 June 2024 to consider whether Father has a psychological disorder, condition or emotional difficulty, and to complete a domestic abuse risk assessment.

[58]Dr Dowd found indications of anger management difficulties and Father’s primary personality traits are narcissistic and compulsive in nature. Dr Dowd did not diagnose a personality disorder. The risk of domestic abuse towards Mother is moderate but the risk of harm and imminency are low. Father’s maladaptive behaviours appear to be restricted to those demonstrated within his past relationship with Mother. Dr Dowd states that narcissism can be an effective psychological characteristic that allows individuals to succeed in life and resist the impact of negative experience, but it can also be associated with an over-inflated self-ego and reduced ability to experience empathy and fully understand the consequences of one’s own behaviours for others. Compulsive traits can be associated with rigidity and inflexibility within behavioural style as well as a tendency to manipulate information in order to secure a more positive appraisal. There was no indication of sexual risk to children. Dr Dowd recommended work around anger management and domestic violence awareness over 10-15 weeks. He did not suggest that therapy focussed on personality functioning was immediately required. That consideration may become more pertinent if Father was considered to persist with maladaptive behaviours towards Mother and the children.

[59]In his oral evidence, Dr Dowd said:• The assessment method used is ‘gold standard’, consisting of a semi structured interview, self-report questionnaire (true/false response). It indicates which areas of personality functioning are prime motivators. There is a triangulation of evidence. It relies upon individuals and what they wish to disclose.

• Narcissism is associated with ego and an over-inflated sense of self with reluctance to accept a negative appraisal. All traits of narcissism do not necessarily apply to every individual. The issue is when it becomes maladaptive when it becomes clinically significant. A diagnosis of personality disorder requires evidence of maladaptive behaviours in wider aspects of life.

• Traits without diagnosis is a psychological grey area. For diagnosis to occur, a clinician has to feel that a line has been crossed. That doesn’t mean that behaviours approaching the line are not problematic. They are clinically significant.

• Social desirability is very much associated with narcissistic and compulsive behaviour.

• Father’s behaviours towards Mother can be associated with self-ego, a desire to dominate, control and disregard consequences. All are features of narcissism. Father accepted that his use of sex workers had been upsetting and emotionally harmful to his partner.

• He did not accept any findings of violence or assault or towards the children. Father has the ability to have insight. It is down to personality functioning, motivation and incentives. He chooses not to accept findings, that is an informed and cognitively sound position he has arrived at.

• Father’s use of sex workers does not contribute to the analysis of risk as it is not offending behaviour. Threats and intimidation may come under the heading considered. Isolation can be a form of intimidation.

• The Assessment does not include violence towards children. SARA-V3 focused on need for preventative measures. Measures could be put in place. A robust programme would include all aspects of violence no matter who towards.

• Anger management and domestic abuse work should be carried out sequentially and in a group structure. One-to-one work could be more beneficial and may have a shorter timescale. Triple P isn’t what is recommended.

• Dr Dowd wouldn’t expect a social worker to understand “the psychology of it” but a suitably trained social worker would be able to decide/discern the subjective impact on the children.

• Risks are transferred to children if partner violence occurs, even if only for the negative psychological impact.

• Risk can change over time. Meaningful change can take 12 months (“a calendar season to pass”) to bed in, and three months would be unlikely to offer meaningful impact. There is the need for time for benefits of such work to be evidenced.

• Rehabilitation can occur provided the parent accepts why people are concerned and has a willingness to address those concerns.

• Sequential programmes are preferable with homework to reflect. It would be a maximum of 30 weeks. One-to-one work would be more beneficial if sought and would perhaps offer a shorter timeframe.

[60]I found Dr Dowd to be a careful and measured professional witness. He answered the questions put to him in a clear, focused and direct manner. He helpfully explained where his work would fit into the process that the court has to carry out and what the limits of assessment are. I did not detect any sense that the communications between his office and Mrs Rayden had any impact upon his evidence.

Submissions

[61]Ms Ancliffe (with Mr Laing) and Ms Markham have both filed very helpful written submissions and clarification documents. I am particularly grateful to them for doing so when either on leave and/or alongside other matters.

Analysis and Discussion

[62]This judgment must analyse a significant number of issues, allegations, case law, subtleties and nuances. It is written in sections but should be read as a whole.

[63]The starting point is my FFH judgment. It cannot and must not be put to one side. I remind myself of the abuse and controlling behaviour that I found Father had perpetrated towards Mother and the children. Ms Ancliffe helpfully summarises my findings in her submissions. I found that Father engaged in coercive control in the form of degrading behaviour, threats, humiliation, intimidation, and verbal abuse used to harm, punish or frighten Mother; physical abuse, including two violent assaults in front of the children; sexually humiliating and risky behaviour; sexual assault, including post-Mother’s wish to separate; repeated oral and vaginal rape; financial abuse; patterns of coercive control towards the children, such as withdrawal of affection, using the threat of discipline to control behaviour, trying to control narratives, name calling, demeaning and favouring; and slapped Q on multiple occasions, as well as choking him by the neck and holding him against the wall. I also found none of the Father’s allegations to be proved.

[64]How a party subject to findings of fact responds is an important part of the welfare stage. It is the reason that courts routinely direct witness statements after a period of reflection. Father sought permission to appeal, which he had every right to do. At each stage prior to its determination, I have considered Father’s position in light of the fact that an application for permission to appeal was outstanding.

[65]On 28 March 2024, Father was represented by Mr Kingerley KC, assisted by Ms Caffery. Leading counsel argued Father’s case carefully and strongly. I heard submissions and directed supervised contact until the following hearing some three weeks later. The recital records “the father does not intend to take up the interim spending time arrangements ordered at paragraph 27”. Father went a step further in his fifth statement of 11 April 2024. In addition to setting out the perceived flaws in my judgment, he asserted that my judgment had “emboldened” Mother and that the “allegations, lies and exaggerations are increasing in number once again”. That assertion is contrary to my FFH judgment.

[66]On 17 April 2024, Ms Markham set out Father’s position. She said “Even if his appeal is dismissed, he will never accept that he has behaved as you have found. He finds your findings to be egregious, and he is not going to change.” Father expressly stood by those words in his oral evidence. On that occasion, I again considered interim contact and directed that it remains supervised.

[67]Father’s application for a stay was refused on 26 April 2024 and his substantive application for permission to appeal was refused as totally without merit on 23 May 2024. Sir Jonathan Cohen dismissed the Father’s claim of bias as not being a proper ground of complaint, noting that I “could not have given the case more assiduous or considered case management”. His lordship held that “it is hard to think of a more thorough investigation having been carried out” and that I “considered the case with care and calmness”. Also of note is his lordship’s ruling that “The criticism of the judge and the mother’s lawyers expressed in submissions/skeleton arguments is at times intemperate and should not have been expressed as it was”.

[68]My findings stand. It is not open to either party to re-litigate. It is, however, open to the court particularly at welfare stage, to review its assessment of the relationship between parent and child (in this case, Father and the children). It is not an analysis that is “frozen in time”.

[69]Before considering the welfare aspects of this case and the issue of relocation, I must consider factual matters. Ms Markham has helpfully drafted a schedule of allegations she has drawn out of Mother’s post-FFH statements. Counsel have, rightly, not covered each and every point in their detailed cross-examination. I shall determine only those that are proportionate and relevant.

Parental Influence/Alienation

[70]Father stood by his previous statements. His most recent allegations can be drawn from his sixth statement. At paragraph 45, he refers to Mother trying to disrupt contact as the hearing approached, and at paragraph 46, suggested that comments of hers to Contact Supervisor makes him concerned about what is said behind closed doors. At paragraph 49, Father alleges that Mother manufactured the whole situation (netball) to disrupt contact. He makes further allegations about R attending a party on 6 July 2024 and communications being manufactured. He confirmed in oral evidence that he stood by his allegation regarding Mother’s extreme behaviour and her false threats of allegations to destroy him.

[71]Father repeatedly referred to P’s statement and criticised the way in which I dealt with it at the FFH. He explicitly referred to P saying that Mother had gaslit the children. He says “The pressure is taking its toll on P and she has been reduced to tears on a number of occasions as a result of [Mother’s] behaviour. I repeat the concerns I have raised in the past for how P has been treated by her mother because P was strong enough to resist the gaslighting to which she said she was subject”, and “she is terrified of being “caught” with me by her mother”.

[72]Father felt that the court process has failed P. He said that when she tried to speak, there were different attempts to shut her down. Father doesn’t know what P has made about being joined and then removed. He thinks it has negatively impacted upon her, and he encourages Mother and P to work on their relationship. In response to Ms Ancliffe, Father said that the pressure on P has increased. She is very independent and Mother attempts to control her, but he does not. Father said it was a pity that I did not meet her. P’s words were “what is the point”. Father said that he does not recognise in any way that he has scapegoated P and pointed out that P hasn’t said so either.

[73]I have already dealt with P’s statement and my approach to it. Sir Jonathan Cohen held that “the judge could properly decline to draw significant support for either party from her unsigned statement. It was “commissioned” by her father and was thus not entirely objective; she makes points in favour of and against both parents. But what shines through is her disinclination to take sides between them. The judge was entitled to conclude that there was little of persuasive impact in the statement prepared on behalf of a child who did not give evidence”. In his lordship’s response to a request for clarification, he used the word ‘arranged’ rather than ‘commissioned’.

[74]Under the heading of “gaslighting”, P said “Gaslighting is trying to make someone believe stuff; it’s a normal phrase. Mum has said stuff that I don’t remember”.At paragraph 41, she says “it’s just mum”. At paragraph 50, P says “She is just loud when she is on the phone. She’s not doing it so people could hear but it happens”. At paragraph 56, “When she gets upset, she doesn’t really think. I don’t think she means half of what she says to be honest”. Taken at its highest, I do not consider that P’s paragraph 60 is an allegation of gaslighting, nor is that suggestion supported elsewhere in her statement. Nothing said by P to Ms Houldsworth since supports it.

[75]Mother stated, “What appears to be happening is that [Father] is buying tickets (for example to sports matches) for him and P for a date that P would ordinarily be spending with me” and “I believe that [Father] will purchase these tickets before discussing them with P, and it leaves her feeling as if she is obliged to accept them. My understanding is that P is made to feel guilty if she says no”. I do not make a finding in respect of concerts/events/tickets. P did not support Mother’s views about her being manipulated when Ms Houldsworth spoke to her.

[76]One further matter in respect of P remains, that of her very recent involvement with Mr Ford. P has spoken to three different Cafcass officers. She spoke easily and freely to Ms Houldsworth only days before speaking to Mr Ford. Father said that was he was doing his best for P to be able to travel and that the “only thing he could suggest” is that she contact Mr Ford. Mr Ford asked for funds, which Father provided. I cannot see why P would want to speak to a solicitor again given her views about not wanting to get involved and being “Team get it over and done with”. There is no mention by P to Cafcass of any wish to speak to a solicitor during a conversation that took place days after she was unable to travel to Rome. I was left with the impression that Father wants P to speak to someone other than Cafcass for his (Father’s) benefit. The strength of feeling in his oral evidence about how I treated P’s statement supports that.

[77]Separate from the allegations of Mother gaslighting P, Father alleges that Q is “very much influenced by [Mother’s] emotions which she is often unable to control”. He said in oral evidence that he thought that there was an element of Q trying to protect his mother by saying what she wants him to say. Father said that he does not believe that Q is being encouraged to attend contact and that Mother was actively encouraging him not to stay by “putting the whole school on alert” (Father quoting Mother’s evidence at FFH). Father said that it has built up over time and the longer it goes on, the more difficult it becomes for Q to take a different route, even if encouraged by the Mother. Father said that Q has not witnessed physical acts because they have not taken place. He is concerned for Q as it must be weighing on his mind.

[78]Ms Houldsworth said that Q has not been coached. He was free to speak to her. He was honest that he feels he has had to repeat himself. He spoke freely without any scripting quality. He changed subjects. He was trying to take back control. Ms Houldsworth had the impression that Q was doing well. He told her that life was good. She thinks he was genuine about wanting to go to European Country 1. Ms Houldsworth did not consider it odd that Q mentioned PR and felt it was coming from him and not from someone else. She was not concerned that he was being influenced. Any lack of analysis of their relationship does not undermine her views about coaching.

[79]Mother believes that Father is or was monitoring Q’s phone and cut off funding to his Go Henry card. In oral evidence, Mother said that Father has access to Life 360 (on an iPhone) and the only way he could know that “[initials]” is the emergency number is by getting information from getting into Q’s phone. I cannot be satisfied on the evidence that is before the court that Father has misused Life 360.

[80]As to the relationship itself, Mother said that Q told her that he is overwhelmed by the number of messages from Father. She has not seen or counted them and takes what Q said at face value. Mother described Q as impulsive and said that the possibility of him saying something different to her and then to Father is “too twisted”. Q did not use the word “bombarding” to her.

[81]Father agreed with a description of Q as a very polite young man. He has lost activities and seems to be losing friendships. Father does not bombard him but offers support. It is difficult for him to know what will be said if he responds to a message or prompts one. He thinks there is an element of Q believing that he is protecting Mother by doing and saying what she wants him to. Father stood by his assertion that his relationship with Q had been “decimated”. He doesn’t use that word lightly and their relationship is nothing like the one that they have had for Q’s entire life. He did not think that Q meant that he felt pressured when they meet. There were “things at the forefront of his mind that never took place”.

[82]I do not find that Father has bombarded Q with messages in terms of number. Q did not say that he had, and I do not have evidence or even examples in support of that contention. Father’s evidence about the nature and subject of messaging would suggest short messages about sport. It is the impact on Q that is the issue. He has told Ms Houldsworth that he feels pressure, seemingly more from the follow-on to their January 2024 meeting. Ms Houldsworth was careful when she told Ms Markham that she asked for Q’s views. Her evidence is not undermined by her lack of exploring the issue with Father. His view about that has been abundantly clear for some time. I accept her evidence.

[83]Father denied cutting off Q’s access to his Go Henry card. Q asks him to top it up every now and again and he has continued to put pocket money on it through an app. Father was not told about Q’s new bank account and found out when his sister was given the details to give money. There is no dispute that Q has a new bank account but to infer a need for a new account would be speculation and not an inference that can properly be drawn from the evidence.

[84]A party took place on 11 May 2024. There is no dispute that P received messages from [Friend], a friend of Q’s. In oral evidence, Mother said that P came into her house about 10pm and her that Q’s friend had contacted her (P). Mother went to the venue and P stayed with R and S in bed. Q was in shock and had a panic attack. He asked for help. Mother went into the house. Father was sitting outside Mother’s house. He flashed his lights causing Q to panic more. In cross-examination, Mother said that she thought Father was trying to help by using his lights. She did not have a clue whether or not he got out of the car. Father said he didn’t just turn up at any house party. He went (to Mother’s house) to support the children and did not get out of the car.

[85]Following oral evidence, there is in fact less of a factual dispute between the parties than appeared on paper. The issue is Q’s perception. Q told Ms Houldsworth that he had a panic attack at the party. The totality of the evidence suggests that Q’s panic attack occurred before [Friend of Q’s] called P, and therefore before either parent became involved. Mother’s evidence and the impression Ms Houldsworth formed was that Q becoming aware of Father’s presence made it worse. I accept what Q says but given Mother’s oral evidence, I do not make a negative finding against the Father.

[86]Mother told the court that Father’s solicitors wrote to her solicitors on Friday 7 June 2024 seeking her consent to P travelling on 14 June. Mother was at R and S’s sports day. She states that the trip would have been planned since at least 10 May, when Father did not agree her proposal for Father’s Day. She was not made aware of the trip, or her consent sought until a week before due travel. She did not accept having knowledge of the trip beforehand.

[87]Mother said that she did not know where P was. She may be in Rome. Mother does not remember what she told Q. She denied stirring things between the siblings. On the Monday, Mother found out that P was in [Local Area] with nothing to do. She had been on trips with Father to London on the Saturday and Sunday. She accepted that P did not need to be in school. If she came back on the Sunday, it would have been when Mother was away. She is normally at home on Sunday evenings. Mother remembered Q struggling to get his walking boots for his Duke of Edinburgh course (“DoE”).

[88]Father told the court that P finished her exams on 14 June. It was one of the most important days from a schooling point of view. His understanding is that P went to Mother’s house. As P was not allowed to go to Rome, Father created other activities for her, with him and also with friends. P was contacted over the weekend about shoes and a bag for Q’s DoE. Father told Ms Ancliffe that he presumed that P was having a conversation with Mother given their open relationship.

[89]Within Mother’s exhibit 9 is a screenshot from Snapchat between P and Mother. It shows that Mother was unaware of P’s precise movements from Friday 14 June to the following Monday. The Sunday was Father’s Day. P was at Father’s house on the 18th as Ms Houldsworth asked her to step out to take her video call.

[90]Father’s case is succinctly set out in his sixth statement – “I do not believe that R told [Mother] that she did not want to go to netball practice, nor that it was because of my friends. I do not even know what this means. R does not see my friends at netball practice. There are other parents dropping and collecting their children, but we do not stay and watch. I believe that this whole situation was manufactured by [Mother] to disrupt contact before the final hearing”. Father reminds the court of how much R loves netball and that it was the Mother who initiated her playing at School 1, which is school rather than club netball.

[91]The netball issue began with contact on 19 June 2024. Contact Supervisor records that “At the end of the contact, R and [Father] discussed plans for Saturday, when the contact will be increased by 2 hours, with her advising she would like to go netball and climbing, which [Father] agreed to organise”. R practised netball and basketball during the session. There is no mention of any upset.

[92]In oral evidence, Father said that the contact report prior to the ‘netball report’ recorded R as saying she wanted to go to netball. She was not crying when she left his home. He did not accept that R was referring to club netball. Ms Houldsworth appreciated that contact reports do not show pressure. R was involved in the conversation after she came in. She said that it was very clear that R is uncomfortable.

[93]Contact Company’s contact note for 22 June 2024 records: “When I arrived, I greeted the children and [Mother] asked me to come inside as she wished to speak to me, which I agreed to. [Mother] informed me she was aware R was due to go to netball practice today and she does not want to go, citing R as saying she does not want to see her father’s friends. I explained if R did not wish to go to netball, we could let her father know and he can change the plans. [Mother] explained R does not feel able to tell her father she does not want to go, to which I responded, it is necessary for [Father] to be informed of R’s wishes, as it would be unfair for her to attend netball if she does not want to. [Mother] explained R does not feel able to tell her father, as she has not been wanting to attend netball for some time and he has not taken this on board. I enquired how [Mother] wanted me to address the situation and we agreed for me to speak to R. R came into the room and after checking whether it was okay for her mother to remain in the room, I greeted R for a second time. I explained her mother has informed me she does not want to go to netball. R explained she does not want to go to the Saturday morning netball club, as she does not want to see her father’s friends. I explained that if she did not want to go that was fine and I wanted to know what she wanted to do about letting her father now. R was unable to answer and I could see the situation was making her feel uncomfortable. I suggested I explain to her father what she had told me when we get back to the house and R agreed that was what she wanted”.

[94]Contact Supervisor told the court that the session was characterised by R feeling awkward. R had said that she did not want to go to netball and did not want to see Father’s friends. R did not feel able to tell Father. Normally, R would talk freely to Father, and this was out of the ordinary. Contact Supervisor said that because it wasn’t discussed, it left an uncomfortable feeling and was unresolved. She told the court that she did not think that the netball situation would have been better if Father had discussed it with R. R was quite anxious and might have felt that she was being put on the spot. R did not feel able to speak to Father, stated clearly by her during pick-up. The netball issue was the only time Contact Supervisor needed to challenge Father. Contact is normally free flowing. Mother does not discourage contact at all.

[95]Father did not place any pressure on R regarding netball. R did enjoy playing netball, which she does at school and for a club. Contact Supervisor did not criticise Mother for speaking to her about R and netball. At the time, there was no other mechanism for her to do so. I do not consider that Mother interfered with the plans. Contact Supervisor’ note and her evidence suggest that R was not in the room when Mother raised it. It was Contact Supervisor who asked R and she confirmed her reasons.

[96]I heard evidence about arrangements for R to attend a birthday party on 6 July 2024. On 5 June 2024 (and thus a month in advance), Ms Couves emailed Ms Sheikh and said “[Mother] proposes that contact takes place from 9am-3pm this day, if this can be accommodated. If it cannot, then R’s contact with her father should be the priority”.

[97]The contact note of 19 June is also relevant to where Father parks. Contact Supervisor told Mr Laing that she had been told to park a little bit away from the house but not why. It could possibly be linked to my findings. She appreciated that it was important. She said that Mother was upset and may have been at the door when Contact Supervisor arrived. She was slightly agitated. She reminded Contact Supervisor that Father is not meant to park in front of the house and asked that they do not park there in future. It was obvious that Mother was upset. R and S walked through and into the hallway. She did not believe that S took it on board. R was watchful. She would have seen and heard what happened but there were no obvious signs of distress.

[98]It is unlikely that Mother has influenced R. Contact Supervisor saw no sign of it in her brief observations of Mother. Her evidence supports what Mother says about the netball discussion at the start of contact. Mother did not have Contact Supervisor’ number to call her first and I agree with Contact Supervisor that it would have been better to have discussed it beforehand. I do not reach the conclusion that any of these matters have influenced R.

[99]Mother told Ms Markham that she has been extremely careful about what she tells the children. She has had to introduce that she wanted to move to European Country 1. She felt that Q and P are young adults and should be involved. She made it clear that it is a court decision. Mother was cross-examined about trips to City 1. She said that they visit each time they are in European Country 1. Taken to the photographs, Mother said they met with her cousin and his children. They go to the same café. She was asked to be careful what she discussed, and she was. She was specifically asked not to look at schools. Mother said she had been transparent and did not talk about relocation. The children only ask when they will know. Mother does not discuss supervision with the children, and she will say that is what the court thinks best now.

[100]Father has long suspected that Mother is influencing the children. I did not find that to be so in my judgment at FFH and Ms Houldsworth does not consider it to be so now. She has exercised the professional curiosity that Ms Coppen did not feel she could when she reported just before the FFH.

[101]I do not consider it likely that Mother has influenced the children. They are aware that moving to European Country 1 is a possibility and something that Mother wants to happen. The contact note of 6 July 2024 gives an independent view of how R and S view the options they have. They were openly discussing the next school year and teachers with Father. Ms Houldsworth found no sign of the children having been coached.

The Litigation

[102]In her seventh statement, Mother stated “[Father] is using this litigation as a vehicle of continuing abuse. [Father]’s conduct has been relentless, unforgiving and ceaseless. I have found the pressure intolerable”. She was of the view that Father’s behaviour had worsened, and he would attack her though interim contact, the court process and finances. She invited the court to take all reasonable measures to protect her. Mother criticises Father for his repeated attacks on her lawyers, despite Sir Jonathan Cohen’s judgment. Mother relies upon the timing of correspondence about P going to Rome. The impact, Mother wrote, was “a significant impact on me, my well-being, my mental health, and by extension on the children”. She concluded her sentence with a criticism of the court for allowing this. Mother stated that the consequence is that she has had to increase the frequency of her therapy.

[103]In oral evidence, Mother said that she constantly refreshes her email to see if anything has come in from her solicitors. She is living on the edge of not knowing what is coming next. Her words can be twisted. For the children, it is not good when Mother is unsettled as they feel that as well. Mother said that Father will offer collaboration but then it is his way or no way. If she doesn’t agree, Father takes her to court. She gave the example of repeatedly being asked for Contact Supervisor to meet with Q. Mother considered that Father’s actions would not be unreasonable for any normal person but for Father, it is abusive. In contrast, Mother said, when her team send correspondence out of hours it is ‘no hurry’ and without a deadline or something that requires an urgent response. Father’s team pressurises Mother to respond quickly with threat of consequence.

[104]Father denied instructing his solicitors to cause distress. He has also received correspondence out of hours, including from the court. He echoed some of what Mother has said about the litigation as it isn’t unique to her. Father described it as constant. His personal email is the first and last thing he checks in the day. Father said that the impact on him has included losing a solicitor that he has worked with since day 1. He signed off on the letter that criticised Ms Couves. Father apologised directly to Ms Couves (who was sitting in court). He reminded the court of Mother’s team using phrases such as “rotten cherries on top of cakes”. He described his three applications in a month as “an unusual sample of data”. Father said he has no reason to doubt that Mother has PTSD and “by choice I don’t think anyone should be going through what we are. I think we will all suffer pressure. I will continue to answer in the context of my family”.

[105]It is not for this court to comment on Father’s application for clarification to Sir Jonathan Cohen. His lordship’s views are clearly set out.

[106]I accept what both parents say about how the litigation has made them feel. I have no reason to doubt either when they speak of the repeated checking of email or the impact of an email about this case appearing. Both parties have made several applications, some by C2 and some by email. The difference between the parties is that post-FFH, Father is the abuser and Mother the victim. Applications and correspondence thereafter should be read in that context, especially from the point of the dismissal of his appeal.

[107]Father’s C2s are dated 15 May, 19 June, 1 July and 3 July. Each must be read alongside what else was happening in the case, content of statements and what was said by the High Court.

[108]Father partially succeeded in his half-term application. It was made less than a month after I carefully set out the pattern of contact pending final hearing.I agreed with Father’s submission about moving his Saturday contact to the Bank Holiday Monday and added an hour to one of the midweek sessions (Mother having already agreed the other). Two important matters arise from this C2. The tone is critical of the Mother, including for asking for a reason to move the Saturday to the Monday. The other issue is that the apparently reasonable basis for changing the Saturday and Father’s availability on Father’s Day is not as set out. There is no mention of Father having purchased [sport] tickets in 2023 or the reason for Father being away on the Father’s Day weekend. I set out my reasons in respect of Father’s application for Q to join contact.

[109]Father’s reply about an “unusual sample of data” suggests no understanding or recognition of what effect otherwise reasonable applications might have had on Mother. Again, context is important. In her evidence, Mother accepted that she was critical of actions that for anyone else would be reasonable.

[110]Ms Ancliffe describes Father’s sixth statement as “a diatribe of untrue personal attacks against M, her leading counsel, her junior counsel, and her trainee solicitor. F’s latest statement extends that untrue attack to the partner with overview of M’s case”. She submits that Father seeks to relitigate and go behind my findings.

[111]I accept Ms Markham’s submission, generally, that Father would not have had control over the timing of all correspondence sent on his behalf. The emails from Ms Caffery on the evening of the Friday before the bank holiday weekend related to contact the following morning (a Saturday). I cannot see how either party was not aware of them or their timing.

[112]I do not consider that any individual application made by Father is abusive or controlling. I do however consider that the cumulative effect, the timing and the background of repeated criticism of a legal team representing a vulnerable victim of serious domestic abuse to be controlling. Father’s oral evidence left little doubt about his views towards Mother or her team. Mother said in evidence that Father’s actions would be reasonable if carried out by anyone other than him. I agree.

[113]Ms Houldsworth noted Father’s comments to her about alienation. She said that this “could be considered to be DARVO (deny, attack and reverse victim and offender). [Father] could be deflecting the blame from his behaviours on to [Mother] by saying she is influencing R, when there is no evidence of this. This is another form of abusive behaviour”.

Financial Conduct

[114]Mother stated in her written evidence that she has “just enough” to live on. She contrasted her financial position with Father remaining in the FMH and his receipt of £1.7m gross. She alleges that Father had spent what he wanted and then offered her half of what was left, “which was little”. Mother was cross-examined about MPS. She said that Father did not make full disclosure, transactions on credit cards. He declared that he did not have liquidity and could not get to the end of the month. Without disclosure, the judge at MPS took Father’s case at face value. Mother’s team are still waiting for information about the [company] shares. She agreed that a proposal for legal funding was accepted but later withdrawn by Father. Mother felt that Father was misleading as he has more funds than just his income. Mother acknowledged that Father spends £5,000 per month on supervision.

[115]As at FFH, I remind myself that this is not a financial remedy case. That is ongoing and in front of a different judge and subject to a different statute. My findings up to March 2024 stand. The Father’s offer to divide the remainder equally and then its retraction in favour of an equal division after some further payments has already been adjudicated upon.

[116]The level of maintenance paid by Father to Mother is now a matter of court order (MPS). There are no findings of non-disclosure in the FR proceedings. Whether there will be at the end is not for me to speculate upon. I heard evidence about the [company] shares. Mother suggested that there was a delay in disclosure, causing her FR team to try to work out the value (approx. £900,000). The true value is £1.7m (or $2.1m in USD gross). There is no dispute that legal funding was agreed in the first instance but is now not agreed.

[117]Although I accept Mother’s figures and that the situation is unresolved, I make no further finding of post-separation financial control beyond that already made. That will be a matter for the Mother to raise in the FRC, if relevant to those proceedings.

Father’s Relationship with the Children

[118]The Father’s relationship with the children is of fundamental importance in this case. It must feature throughout my welfare analysis. Although it is set out at the start of this part of my judgment, its importance and influence does not remain there. Words are linear but an analysis is not.

[119]I have not found that the Mother has influenced the children.

[120]Ms Markham invites me to reconsider my findings in respect of R’s relationship with the Father. I previously found that R is scared of her father and that he makes her feel, worried, nervous and pressurised. Ms Markham submits that the court now has a wealth of evidence which gives a very different picture.

[121]The first session took place on Saturday 27 April 2024.Collection took place from Mother’s house. R and S were not hesitant or resistant to seeing Father. He and R discussed netball, Father’s [European Country 2] family and sport. Father was (appropriately) taken aback when R mentioned a date. Both children appeared very at ease with Father and snuggled on the sofa. Contact Supervisor described R as appearing slightly subdued and quiet on the journey back and that she was quiet during the first few minutes of contact itself. Both children said they wanted to see Father again the following week.

[122]Tuesday 30 April was the second session and the first with a collection from school. Both children appeared pleased to see Father. R was slightly uneasy by the presence of Contact Supervisor. She relaxed as they approached the school gate. Father was responsive to this. It was another positive session.

[123]On Thursday 2 May, both children were familiar and at ease with Father. S jumped into his arms. R was fine in the car but had a degree of sadness while hugging and kissing her father. That was not of significant concern.

[124]On 7 May, R appeared more relaxed at the school gate. She and S spent much of the contact in the garden entertaining themselves and playing with the dog.

[125]On 11 May, the Father and children went to a climbing centre. They discussed Father’s European Country 2 family and P. R had a tight hug with Father.

[126]Contact on 16 May was the first session since R’s trip to PGL. She excitedly told Father about it. Both she and S appeared relaxed. She became animated and overtired, to which Father responded appropriately. She and S spent some time in their rooms on their own. Father calmed S down when he became frustrated.

[127]Ms Markham places particular weight upon the note from 4 June as it is the first note after Father’s visit to European Country 2. The children were noticeably excited to see Father. There was a lot of discussion about Father’s trip to European Country 2, the impending visit of Father’s relatives from European Country 2 and reminiscing about Father’s European Country 2 family and heritage. R and S were very interested. S asked when he could stay overnight, and Father appropriately diverted the subject.

[128]The note of 8 June is also of significance. Father’s sister Paternal Aunt 1 and her daughter Paternal Cousin attended the session. R and S, along with their relatives, were clearly happy to see one another and there was constant laughter. S shared lots of information about European Country 2 and European Country 2 [sport]. Contact Supervisor observed a warm and comfortable relationship between the children, Paternal Aunt 1 and Paternal Cousin. The children appeared keen to spend time with them and asked when they could see them again. Both required some reassurance they would come back for a further visit. The contact was “characterised” by the children’s opportunity to connect with their paternal family, identity and Father’s European Country 2 heritage.

[129]I have dealt with the ‘netball’ contact notes separately. The note is relevant to the parental relationship as well as factually.

[130]On 27 June, R said she wanted to practise netball when asked. She and Father were noted to be more like their usual selves.

[131]On 2 July, Father gave S a gift from Paternal Aunt 2 in European Country 2. He was very excited to receive a European Country 2 [sport] team programme. He and R called Paternal Aunt 2 to say thank you. Contact Supervisor observed R to be more demonstrative with Father than usual. She was more spontaneous with hugs. S read his favourite football programme.

[132]On 6 July, there was discussion about R’s allocated teacher for the next term. P talked about getting a second dog. On the journey home, S said that that he knew why he and R did not sleep at Father’s home, because the judge at the family court said it was best. The children and Father sang a European Country 2 language song.

[133]On 12 July, Paternal Aunt 2 was present. Contact Supervisor thought R and S were ‘still’ surprised to see Paternal Aunt 2. It isn’t clear whether that means they were and remained surprised she was there or whether they were surprised that she was still there by the time they came downstairs.

[134]On 16 July, Father and S discussed the final of the Euros and [sport] games involving [[sport] team]. The children spent much of the time playing sport in the garden.

[135]Sessions on 20, 23 and 27 July were all positive. S noticed P’s sports flag that she had brought from a trip to European Country 2. S asked about watching sport and Father suggested he ask Q to set it up for him.

[136]Contact Supervisor described Father has having certain standards. He would pick the children up on behaviours if they fell short. There was nothing of concern or of a safeguarding nature. He doesn’t raise his voice or lose his temper. He is very attentive with all the children and helps S with his fine motor skills. There is a lot of laughter, often generated by S. R does not tend to engage until away from school then it is full-on. Contact Supervisor described Father and R as spending a lot of time together. She goes to him. They play chess and sudoku inside, basketball, football, hoops and netball outside. She seeks out cuddles, more often than before. She wants to practise her netball skills. R’s approach was more noticeable on 2 July 2024, after the netball issue. She was initiating more than usual.

[137]Contact Supervisor reminded the court that she was there to supervise rather than observe. Despite that appropriate caveat, she told the court about R being more demonstrative than usual with lots of spontaneous hugs. She saw nothing that would give an observer any concern. Importantly, she did not describe the sessions as ‘performative’, i.e., they were genuine.

[138]Father’s contact with R and S has been excellent. Mother herself accepted that it was “flawless”, and its positive nature has been reflected in the case put on her behalf. The contact notes stand in testament and the oral evidence of Contact Supervisor brought the contact to life. In her paragraph 92, Ms Markham lists some of the things that the Father does with R and S that are part of their usual routines and time. I noted similar in the early days of supervised contact in my written ruling of 22 May 2024.It is the nature of normality that gives these aspects of contact their strength.

[139]Father finds it very worrying that R used language like she did to Cafcass. He cannot reconcile documents like that with what he sees. He said to me that I had got it wrong, and that P had said that the children were being gaslit. Father does not recognise R’s words. He said if they are genuine feelings, he hopes he can change them. Father said that Contact Supervisor’ description of R is his lived reality with her.

[140]Mother accepted that the contact notes are very positive, as she did in her eighth statement. She said there is a discrepancy between what she sees at home and what Cafcass see, with the notes. Mother said that Father can be a lovely person. She said if someone (not maternal family) was visiting he would be lovely, “the best person, the best cook, very attentive”. Mother felt that Father and children were on best behaviour. She said that R keeps things in and doesn’t feel she can bring them out. The children feel that nothing can happen with a supervisor there.

[141]I have read all the contact notes, in the bundle and those filed subsequently. I do not comment on all of them. Collectively, they show that R has very much enjoyed contact. Father has been very responsive to her needs and there has been a lot of warmth, hugs and cuddles between them. That is in the context of supervised contact. What then is the role and relevance of supervision to R’s views?

[142]The context is set out by R herself to Cafcass. R told Ms Houldsworth that she struggles with emotions, to sleep and her emotions about Father. She specifically said that she loved him. She is fearful of arrangements changing beyond supervision. She felt safe with a supervisor and had concerns about going. R has expressed that she doesn’t feel that she can let her true emotions out with Father. She was trying to explain her own experiences of Father when there was no supervision. R said that she loved her father. Not all her views are negative. She goes on to say that she doesn’t want to spend a lot of time with him until she is older, braver and has more responsibility over her choices.

[143]Contact Supervisor spoke very positively to Cafcass on 3 July 2024. There is an emphasis on kindness from Father towards the children. It does not seem performative. Contact Supervisor did not accept saying to R that she was lucky to have a dad who cares for you so well but did accept saying you are lucky that dad cooks you lovely dinners. She would not challenge R’s perception of her (looking like Father’s friend). S had asked whether she was Father’s friend. Contact Supervisor has not observed any issues whatsoever.

[144]Even prior to FFH, R was having enjoyable contact with Father within the same timeframe as telling more than one Cafcass officer about her fears. Ms Markham directed me to a note in the children’s GP records about a holiday. I set out R’s account to Ms Manser.

[145]R’s presentation at contact does appear to be at odds with what she says about Father to Mother or Cafcass. R’s account to Ms Houldsworth is the explanation and it is consistent with what she has said in the past. R loves her father, she told Ms Houldsworth that as recently as June. She has plainly enjoyed warm, loving and tactile contact with him. But R knows it is supervised. She told Cafcass of her fears that Father would go back to doing ‘bad things’ if there was no supervision. R described Father as having two personalities.

[146]S’s relationship with the Father is a positive one. He loves Father and has very much enjoyed contact. He repeatedly asks when he will see Father, when he will see paternal family and when he can sleep over. He mentioned a dream about living with Father. S has not had the same negative experiences as his siblings, as I found at FFH. He did not raise concerns about either parent with Ms Houldsworth and has said that he would like to have sleepovers again.

[147]Asked about S’s letter, Father said “I don’t know how anyone thinks it appropriate that the letter is potentially the first and last thing he reads. I ask you to reflect on whether that is appropriate”. Challenged as to whether he saw Cafcass as being best placed, Father said that he hoped they would be, but “history tells us that any professional body can be open to review and see if it is fit for purpose”. I do not accept his criticism of Cafcass or of S’s letter.

Welfare

[148]I turn then to my welfare consideration. Some aspects of the checklist and composite will overlap and be relevant to more than one aspect. The ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned considered in the light of his age and understanding.

[149]I remind myself that wishes and feelings are not the same as what a child says. Actions are also highly relevant. The checklist requires consideration of ascertainable wishes and feelings in the context of the child’s age and understanding. That exercise is more difficult when there is a disconnect between what a child says or how they act with one parent and where there is a suggestion of influence or gaslighting. As set out above, I have not found that the Mother has subjected the children to influence or alienation.

Child P

[150]P spoke to Ms Manser in May 2023 at a time when her relocation was also sought by Mother. School noted as feeling that P could mask her feelings. P felt that mid-GCSEs was an odd time to move. She said it would be nice to be near to her grandparents, she speaks fluent [European Country 1’s language] and felt “in the middle” about going. P was worried for Father if she went and concluded that her view was “possibly slightly more to stay because of dad”.

[151]P spoke to Ms Coppen in November 2023, by which time Mother was not seeking her relocation. Ms Coppen noted: “In respect of the relocation, if the Judge agreed the move to European Country 1, P said she would stay with her dad as she is right in the middle of her GCSEs. She said she would miss her mum and siblings and might join them eventually, but 'the schooling system is different there so I would have to adjust'. Thinking about her brothers and sister, P said that they would likely miss their dad but they would 'be fine'. 'We go to European Country 1 often'. If the Judge refused the move to European Country 1, P said that it would be 'bad' for her mum as 'she really wants to go'. Overall, P said 'I would like them to stay but if they really want to go then I don't want to stop them'. P would like to have the option to choose whether she goes to European Country 1 or not so would prefer for No Order to be made in respect of her on this issue”.

[152]Ms Houldsworth spoke to P by video on 18 June 2024. P described her life as good. She plans to continue at the same school to do A-levels in history, politics and English. She is not sure about university. P is happy with the arrangement where she can decide the time with parents herself. She told Ms Houldsworth that she would miss her siblings if they moved to European Country 1, but it wouldn’t be too bad. She thought her siblings moving to European Country 1 would be nice for them. She was confident in her ability to travel independently to see them. This stands in contrast to P’s paragraph 28. Ms Houldsworth could not recall P using phrases like “there is no point” or being negative. P did not mention her passport.

[153]P’s views are also contained within the letter from Mr Ford. It is dated 3 July 2024 and is approved by P. Her preference to remain in England with Father is set out. P does not give any view about whether relocation should take place. She says that if it does, she would “like to see her mum and siblings in European Country 1 and in England. She anticipates that this will take place during her holidays and the odd long-weekend during term-time”. In my judgment, P wants to remain where she is to complete her education and wants to be able to travel to see her siblings, should they relocate to European Country 1. When her own relocation was a possibility, her view was a balanced one.

Child Q

[154]In May 2023, Q told Ms Manser that he wanted to live with Mother and spend time with Father. He was keen to move to European Country 1. He was unphased about relocating. He took a different view when the possibility of moving to another part of the local area was discussed. In his letter to me, he said he would like to live in European Country 1 as it would be a new start. His later letter of 19 October 2023 is copied into Ms Coppen’s report. By this time, Q had chosen not to stay at Father’s home. The letter reads: Dear Judge, I am sending you this letter because I want to make my opinions clear on what I would like to do. Firstly, I would like to not go to my dad's house for the time being but I would like to be able to go whenever or if I change my mind. I would love to carry on living with mum for the time being. I would also like to move to [European Country 1] instead of somewhere else in [Local Area]. I think S and R would be better off staying at Mum's instead of going to Dad's because R has told me she is scared. Yours sincerely Q

[155]Q told Ms Houldsworth that he wants to move to European Country 1. He would like a fresh start and to move schools. He has no concerns about travelling back to the UK. He is not concerned that he would be changing schools during his GCSE years. Q also asked whether Father’s PR could be removed. Ms Houldsworth accepted not discussing with Q what losses he might face or the disruption to education.

[156]I am satisfied that Q wants to live with Mother and wants to relocate to European Country 1. He has been consistent throughout and, on each occasion, has given reasons for his view. As importantly, those reasons are given in the context of what was happening in the case and with contact at the time. There is a gap in Ms Houldsworth questioning of Q but that must be balanced against his age, wishes and feelings as well as his lived experience. He has said from the first Cafcass report (at the end of his year 9) that he is happy to change schools. Although Q discussed the ability to be able to choose his arrangements with Father (in our meeting), he did not depart from he had told Ms Houldsworth.

Child R

[157]Ms Manser’s section on R begins with “R (9) struggles with anxiety about her family situation. She would have preferred to stay in the family home with her mother and siblings”. Ms Manser noted that R broke out into an immediate smile when she asked about European Country 1 and said “I like it there and I like my grandparents. They have a dog. If I had a choice I would live there when I grow up”. She preferred European Country 1 to [Local Area]. In her letter, R wrote “I want to live in European Country 1 as I feel that is where my heart is”.

[158]R spoke to Ms Coppen about relocating. She said that she would like to move to European Country 1 to live with her mum, stating “it feels like home”. She felt that she would make friends easily and get used to stuff. If I was to say no, R told Ms Coppen that she would feel “quite annoyed”. R repeated that she wanted to see Father but not stay overnight.

[159]R told Ms Houldsworth that she would like to move to European Country 1. In the context of R’s description of contact with Father, paragraph 13 reads: “When exploring the potential move to European Country 1, R said she would like to move to European Country 1. She said she speaks European Country 1’s language, likes European Country 1, wouldn’t mind moving school and would like to spend more time with her maternal family. R told me she would want to live with her mother and spoke positively about their relationship and the care she receives from her. R said she would keep in touch with her friends and her father by telephone, but if she “had” to see her father, she would travel back to England, or he could travel to European Country 1. R told me that her sister P did not want to move to European Country 1 but said she doesn’t see her that often as she spends more time at their father’s house now, and that P will be going to university soon. R expressed a wish to meet the Judge to share her wishes and feelings directly”.

[160]I do not accept that R’s ascertainable wishes and feelings have not been properly explored. There are gaps, as Ms Houldsworth accepts, but it is the court’s task to consider what may be competing sources about R’s wishes and feelings. R’s clear views that appear, on the face of it, to contradict her actions in contact. Ms Houldsworth was cross-examined on the contact notes and had the benefit of speaking to Contact Supervisor. She did not depart from her report. I am satisfied that R wishes to move to European Country 1. She has been consistent throughout in that view, despite living 5/14 with the Father at the time of the first two Cafcass reports and having very positive contact with him at the time of the latter report.

Child S

[161]S would like to live in European Country 1 as it is “really fun”. He went on to speak positively about his paternal family in European Country 2. When speaking to Ms Coppen, he said that not seeing Father would make him sad. He would be able to go to the beach more (in European Country 1). Overall, moving would make him really happy.

[162]Ms Houldsworth’s paragraph 9 states: “When exploring S’s views about potentially moving to European Country 1, he said he thought it was a good idea and he would like to move there, adding "everything would be good, and I could see my aunties and grandparents". S had a basic understanding of things that would change such as his school, home and spending time with his father. S told me he would feel excited to change school and have a different home. He said he would "go on a plane or drive back to England to see him [Father], it only takes about an hour", S said he would not mind travelling back to England to spend time with his father”.

[163]Father is particularly concerned that S does not understand the impact of moving to European Country 1. He said that S has not given any indication that he isn’t going back to school. He talks about things as if his life isn’t going to change. At contact on 27 July 2024, S “spontaneously announced he had a dream about living with his father every day”.

[164]S is too young to understand the implications of a move and from his discussions with Father about teachers, it is not something he is comprehending in the immediate future. Ms Manser noted that S was able to distinguish what he wanted from what he thought his mother wanted. He is positive about European Country 1 but would miss his father. Less weight can be placed on S’s wishes and feelings given his age. I reach the conclusion that he wants to see both parents.

Physical, emotional and educational needs

[165]P and Q are at School 1, an outstanding state school. P has just finished her GCSEs, and Q is undertaking his GCSE courses. R and S are at School 2. The schools are local to [Local Area], the FMH and where Mother rents. Ms Houldsworth said there are no concerns for R and S at school. Both R and S have excellent school reports from July 2024 (adduced post-hearing). R’s ability in her favourite subject of English is noted and S is described as “an astounding little boy”. The reports add to Ms Houldsworth’s comments about the progress of R and S in school and S’s education needs in particular. The children are secure in school and friendship groups. They are well known to staff and have access to pastoral care. The latter is particularly important in this case.

[166]The children’s academic progress and approach to education is an important factor when considering whether relocation is best for them or not. In respect of all the children, Ms Houldsworth concluded that “The children are all reported to be achieving well academically and could therefore likely transition to a new school with ease”. Q does not have specific education needs but has struggled at times.

[167]S has particular health needs which will need to be met wherever he is. He requires urology, ophthalmology, endocrinology, physiotherapy and a paediatrician with specialist knowledge in brain and neurodevelopmental conditions. There is no dispute that his needs are being met by the hospital in London. Father questioned a lack of attendance with specialists since April 2023, but Mother is meeting S’s health needs to the satisfaction of Cafcass. I have read the plans submitted by Mother.

[168]In her report, Ms Manser wrote at paragraph 126: “126. It is my professional opinion that the children’s needs could be very well met in European Country 1, and they would benefit from the support and connection of their European Country 1 family. However, when weighed against the importance of the relationship with their father, it is my opinion that the parental relationship is more important to the children’s long term emotional wellbeing. I am also concerned about the impact this could have on P’s education. Therefore, whilst I can see that the children may have a good life in European Country 1, the time is not right, and it is my professional opinion that the children should remain in the UK”.

[169]Some of those factors remain now. Ms Manser was satisfied that the children’s needs could be met in European Country 1. Ms Houldsworth remains of that view.

The likely effect on the child of any change in their circumstances

[170]A move to European Country 1 would be a big change for the children. They would change their country of residence, schools, friends, home, day to day culture and spend less time with their father. Ms Houldsworth took account of these important factors when she gave evidence.

[171]Mother’s plan is to use Airbnb if relocation is granted. She would rent. That would mean at least one further move for the children in the near future, at a time when they would be attempting to settle in new schools. The detail of her proposal is set out. Mother is from European Country 1. City 1 is a place well known to her and to the children. The children read, write and speak European Country 1’s language and are familiar with City 1. It is described as a small city, much like Cambridge. It is 1½ hours from City 2. Mother intends to buy within the [region of City 1]. Any doubt that there might have been regarding Mother’s spreadsheet comment is answered by the case put on her behalf in court.

[172]Mother works for [Employer]. It is a global company, and her case is that her new role could be performed from England or European Country 1 and then formally transferred to European Country 1. Father doubts this and has provided a copy of Mother’s contract of employment (as disclosed within FR proceedings) which states that her role is in London. Mother relies upon an email from [Employer] dated 10 July 2024. That states: “[Mother] is currently employed by [Employer] LLP (a limited liability partnership registered in England (“the UK Firm”)). She is now working in a role which is funded by and directed by our Global and EMEA network. She has been seconded by the UK Firm to perform her role. [Mother]'s role has changed but her employment conditions have not changed, and her UK Firm contract remains in place. The role is location agnostic and can be performed from European Country 1. Should [Mother] move to European Country 1, she would continue to report to me and her salary would still be funded by EMEA. However, as [Employer] and [Employer] European Country 1 are separate legal entities and [Mother] needs to be attached to a physical firm in order to be able to fulfil tax and other employment requirements, if she moves to European Country 1, her contract will need to be formally taken by [Employer] European Country 1”.

[173]Mother is no stranger to working internationally, having done so in a number of countries over a 20-year period. There are restrictions and requirements within her 2014 contract but the most recent evidence I have is from Mother’s employer. I would have expected her to raise any relevant and remaining restrictions, if there are any. She does not. Mother’s role is a new one but a global one. Her contract would transfer to the European Country 1 firm, but her salary remains. The role is remote. If Mother needs to work in an office, she is 1½ hours from City 2 on the train. She is a working parent, and I have no reason to conclude that she would not make appropriate arrangements for childcare, as and when required.

[174]Mother expects her financial situation to improve should she relocate. It is well known that [Local Area] is an expensive and very desirable area to live in. There is perhaps some limited indication of the difference in the likely cost of living in comparative house prices. With financial remedy proceedings still ongoing, the affordability and sustainability of property is relevant.

[175]Mother’s case is that the children have access to free healthcare in European Country 1 using the [health care system] and private healthcare arranged by [Employer]. There are several public hospitals in City 1. Mother states that S’s needs would be met in the same way. Each type of doctor needed is available in City 1. None of the Cafcass officers doubted Mother’s ability to meet the children’s medical needs (even when vaccination was discussed). The Father could not comment on post-separation but made it clear that he was not saying that Mother was not responsible. He reiterated his positive words about Mother’s approach to her pregnancy with S.

[176]Mother is of the view that Q could continue his counselling with [counsellor] remotely. R would be able to commence her counselling remotely through her healthcare policy. Father does not consider remote counselling to be in R’s best interests. If remote counselling is deemed suitable by a counsellor and R is happy with it, I do not see why it would not be in her best interests.

[177]Considering the combined views of Cafcass and the Father’s acceptance of Mother’s attention to S’s health needs prior to separation, I am satisfied that each of the children’s health needs would be met in European Country 1. There is no real suggestion that they are not met in England.

[178]The Mother has not chosen a specific school for the children in European Country 1 but has provided details of one of three that would be chosen. Her preference is for European School 1, next to where she intends to live. In her oral evidence, Mother said that the schools are bilingual, meaning they offer three to four subjects in English. Her secondary options are detailed in her witness statement. As Mother and the children are not resident in European Country 1, the education system is not in a position to enrol the children in a specific school. All will be local and will provide specific places for special circumstances, similar to the UK. Her statement makes clear that her relocation is linked to acts of gender violence. My findings make that clear.

[179]Q’s education had particular (and understandable) focus in oral evidence. He is part way through his GCSE curriculum. It is a crucial time for him as it would be for any 15-year-old undertaking GCSE courses. Mother does not know what Q thinks his education will look like. She said that he will be able to do international GCSEs privately or through school and every year he passes in England has an equivalent in European Country 1.

[180]Father said that Q will sit what he called the standard exams next year, along with [a language], geography, business and PE. He has already completed [European Country 1’s language]. Father is not clear from the information given that Q’s work can be transferred to the IGCSE. He has read school websites. He distinguished between learning English as a second language and growing up in a household where a language is spoken. Father submits that there is no clear evidence of what Q’s education will be, and Mother’s plan lacks absolute clarity about finishing GCSEs. Ms Markham submits that the IGCSE follows a different curriculum.

[181]Q told Ms Houldsworth that he is happy to move to European Country 1 and start a new school. Mother did not have specifics about courses when they spoke. Her understanding is that Q will have the option of finishing some GCSEs. That was a consideration for Ms Houldsworth, but it would not prevent a move.

[182]Mother pointed out that all the children will have support to change to the system and there will be assessments to make sure that they catch up. She was not specific. Ms Houldsworth confirmed that S does not have a SENCO at school and his recent school report does not allude to any difficulties. There is no dispute that S does not have an EHCP.

[183]I do not consider Mother’s plan for schooling to be deficient. It does lack “absolute clarity” as Ms Markham submits but it is sufficient for the court to consider whether it meets with the children’s best interests. R and S are at primary school. Any lack of detail in plans is much more relevant to Q as he is mid-GCSEs. When P was that stage, Ms Manser took the view that she should not relocate because of the impact upon her education. The children’s relationship with the Father (as it was) was a significant factor for Ms Manser. That factor is rather different for Q, as is the fact that he wants to move schools and P did not.

[184]The children’s cultural needs are European Country 1 and European Country 2. They have grown up in England and have furthered their cultural needs through their parents and, although disputed in part, through their wider families. Their cultural needs would be met should they remain in England in the same way.

[185]Should the children move to European Country 1, their [Mother’s nationality] cultural needs would be met. They would live with their [Mother’s nationality] mother, in European Country 1 and be involved with the wider maternal family. The real question is in the event of a relocation whether their [Father’s nationality] cultural needs would be met. As the children speak English, as do the paternal family, a further important aspect is whether their English language needs would be met in European Country 1. In his post-hearing statement, Father described himself as fluent in [Mother’s first language]. That is of obvious practical benefit but does not undermine the importance of the English language to the children.

[186]P and Q are bilingual. Both parents followed advice and spoke to them in their native languages. I have no doubt that P and Q will remain fluent in English. Father is understandably concerned with S’s likelihood of retaining English given his age. There is no evidence to suggest that R and S are doing anything other than excelling in English.

[187]The children’s European Country 1 cultural needs could be also met by regular visits to European Country 1.

[188]Mother acknowledged that her statement relating to Father’s European Country 2 culture was perhaps poorly expressed. She accepted that the children may not wish to stay with another European Country 2 family. She said that every [Father’s nationality] activity they did in European Country 3 was through a pub called [pub]. The family went to a European Country 2 pub in any European Country 1 city they travelled to. Mother did not mean that Father’s culture is reduced to the pub but rather it is the centre of the European Country 2’s community. Activities such as sports are watched there.

[189]Mother told Ms Markham that she really supports a relationship with the paternal family. They do not live in the UK and have to travel even now. Her opposition to family supervising was to specific members of the paternal family, who she felt were biased and heavily involved. She does not oppose those members of the family seeing the children and described potential supervisors. Q maintains his own link to the paternal family through online gaming with his cousin.

[190]Father said that there was nothing before the court to suggest that the children will continue with their European Country 1 culture. He described Mother’s proposals as “borderline racist” and asked what would happen if he was a Muslim and there was a suggestion of a kebab shop in City 1. He said it was offensive to refer to the pub, a throwback to a different generation. He asked me and Mother to “reflect” on the suggestion that S could continue his European Country 2 culture in the pub. In cross-examination, Father said that the pub still had some importance. He confirmed that both cultures were celebrated during marriage. He also acknowledged that she had said that the door was open to the European Country 2 family once she is satisfied that they have a sufficient understanding of findings.

[191]Ms Houldsworth agreed that there were gaps in her analysis of the paternal family and European Country 2 culture, but she was satisfied that Mother has considered European Country 2 identity and supported it. In oral evidence, she said that the Father’s European Country 2 family could travel to the UK to see the children when Father sees them.

[192]I remind myself of the evidence of Paternal Aunt 1 at FFH. Although I did not accept her factual evidence about July 2022, I did accept her evidence about Mother’s involvement with the paternal family and how she described the paternal family’s relationship with her, all of which took place at a time when Mother was subject to the abuse that I later found.

[193]Paternal family members have joined contact in recent weeks. It was plainly enjoyable to R and S and contained focus on European Country 2. That tells the court that the paternal family can be involved in contact in a positive way.

[194]I accept that Father’s European Country 2 culture and heritage is very important to him. It is sometimes expressed in a sporting context, itself of great significance, but runs much deeper. It is also of considerable importance to the children that they have continued exposure to their father’s European Country 2 heritage. I do not find that Mother minimises or undermines the important of Father’s European Country 2 culture or, particularly, of the European Country 2 family. Father’s valid point about the pub being a generational issue does not undermine Mother’s attempts to promote European Country 2 culture. Some of the results of her attempts to promote European Country 2 culture may be questionable but her intention is not.

[195]Ms Houldsworth recommends that a minimum of monthly weekend contact (6 hours each on Saturday and Sunday) in European Country 1, plus a weekly video call. In the school holidays, the children should come to the UK to spend time with Father. Q should be invited rather than ordered to attend. Mother supported there being more frequent contact than that.

[196]Mother did not have a specific supervisor in mind at the time of her oral evidence, but her solicitors have since found one. Her proposed supervisor AC speaks English and is able to supervise in City 1 or City 2. Ms Ancliffe submits that there is something to be said for some contact taking place in City 2 and that it is recognised that some should take place in City 1. Father gave helpful evidence about City 2, and I accept his preference (if relocation is granted) to have contact in City 1 as it is where the children would have their lives.

[197]Father told the court that he does not have sufficient details to provide proposals. He could not find a supervisor. He spoke about challenges and gave the example of video contact. He wanted greater clarity around how it would work logistically, where it would take place, who would supervise, language, accommodation, whether the supervisor would stay for the weekend.

[198]Father is asking the court to increase the amount of contact he has and to remove supervision as quickly as is appropriate. He said that there is no reason why overnight contact is not in place now. Father said he will take as much time as he can get and that he does not see the need for previous arrangements to change. Father told Ms Markham that he is looking to move to unsupervised contact immediately. He has no idea about summer holiday plans but would like the children to see their European Country 2 family.

[199]There are obvious logistical difficulties with proposals for weekend contact in European Country 1, whether or not it is supervised. The first is travel, one of obvious importance. The nearest airports are [Airport 1] and [Airport 2], both served by Gatwick. Mother provides examples from Friday night to [Airport 2] and returning Monday morning. Both would require Father (and P if he joins him) to be able to get to Gatwick in time for the Friday flight. That means a Friday afternoon on the M25 or a train from [Local Area] or City Thameslink stations. There is then the wait time at the airport, which Gatwick advises to be two hours as boarding requires 45 minutes. On the Monday, Father would land at Gatwick at 0750 GMT. His travel would be easier if he went to and from the City.

[200]Whatever the arrangements and arguments about time, Ms Ancliffe accepts that it will take some flexibility from Father to work. She is right about that. Father gave evidence to say that he does not have that flexibility. That stands in contrast to what he said in March 2023: “If [Mother] is successful in her application, then I would seek to have the children for the majority of the school holidays, the cost of travel to be shared equally. I would expect to be free to travel to European Country 1 to spend time with the children during term-time with reasonable notice. I would seek unfettered indirect contact”.

[201]Father changed job in March 2023, followed by gardening leave. There is some dispute about the length of it. Father discussed his current role in oral evidence and said that he goes into London three days per week if he can. He is based at [London location]. He has teams in India, Boston and Minneapolis with an expectation that he travels there more than he has done, not having travelled to India or Minneapolis for a year. He went to Boston recently. Father added to his oral evidence in his seventh statement. I accept that Father’s first statement is of some age and his day-to-day requirements may have changed since his first statement. Father’s oral evidence suggested that he has a degree of flexibility although there are, understandably, restrictions upon it. He did not say, for example, that he has to be in his London office five days per week. Father has attended contact at 3pm or 3.15pm on a weekday since April 2024.

[202]Cost is another factor. Father is paying significant sums to Contact Company for supervision in his home. The costs obviously increase as the amount of contact increases. Using AC as an example, I do not consider that the costs would be prohibitive of any contact taking place in European Country 1. It may have an impact on how frequently the Father can travel in the short-term but financial remedy proceedings have yet to conclude, the end of these proceedings will mean an end to legal fees (in this case) and Father has the benefit of shares. They may not be immediately liquid (that being a matter for the financial remedies judge) but they are an asset.

[203]I do not accept that European Country 1’s gender violence laws are a ‘spectre’. From the evidence I have, they are the European Country 1 laws and procedure relevant to what I have found Mother to be – a victim of gender violence. Professor D does not say that European Country 1 laws will undermine any judgment I make or the approach of the European Country 1 courts.

[204]A move to European Country 1 for Q, R and S would undoubtedly bring about significant change against a backdrop of them already having undergone significant change. Although Father does not agree with my imposing supervised contact, he was correct when he spoke about the change of so doing. Prior to that, the children have had to cope with the change from one family home to living separately from one of their parents on either nine or five days in any given fortnight. Changes have also impacted upon the children’s relationships with wider family.

[205]Mother believes that the children have been caught up in proceedings and need a break. She describes them as “social and adaptable” and feels that they would transition well to new schools and friendships. Mother told the court that P is “super important” to her and all her siblings. P has a young adult life, with trips to London with friends and study. S has the life of a six-year-old and Mother does not have a picture of them spending every day together. She accepted that there would be an impact on them but said it would not be a radical change.

[206]The most significant changes for the children are likely to be the change in their relationship with both Father and P, and to P in her relationship with her siblings and that with her mother. The children are full siblings and have always lived together.

[207]P will have the choice where and when she wants to be. Mother said in her statement and repeated in evidence that she will love and support P in any decision she makes. Her door will always be open and there will be a room for her in European Country 1. P will have the option to regularly travel to European Country 1 and could spend significant amounts of time there. That would allow her to continue with and strengthen her relationships with Mother and her siblings. P is likely to feel a sense of loss if the siblings go, especially with S (given the contact notes). P’s own views as expressed to Cafcass suggest that it may not be as significant a change to her.

[208]Q, R and S clearly love P. No doubt they too will be sad without her, even though the present arrangement is that they see her half the time. The children are of different ages and interests. P has spent much of her time studying and may go to university. The children have the option of video and social media as well as regular face-to-face contact.

[209]Should they move, I am satisfied that the children will be able maintain their relationships with the Father and with P through the many and varied forms of contact. They will be able to further their European Country 2 heritage through their father, who may be joined by the paternal family when he sees the children in England. The paternal family will not see the children any less than they do now if that was to happen. Q has his own link to his cousin through gaming. Father will be able to continue to teach S to pray and sing in European Country 2’s language during contact.

The child’s age, sex, background and characteristics of his which the court considers relevant

[210]P is 16. She has just completed her GCSEs at School 1. She plans to study A-levels at the same school and may go to university thereafter. She has struggled with her mental health and her school has been concerned for her. P plays sport which involves a degree of travel and the risk of injury (relevant as she may need family assistance if that happens). She is fluent in European Country 1’s language. P divides her time between Mother and Father.

[211]Q is 15. He has completed a year of his GCSE work at School 1. He has struggled with aspects of his mental health. School noted that he had discovered his voice during proceedings. Q plays [sport] at school and used to play for a club until it became too serious. He has not spent time with Father since late January 2024. Like P, he is fluent in European Country 1’s language. Although Mother’s home would be European Country 1’s language speaking, Q will still be able to speak English to his siblings and his cousin during online gaming. He supports [teams] in [sport] (which will be in English) and has the opportunity of contact with Father. Any time he has with paternal family is also likely to be entirely conducted in English, as would be any time he returns to the UK.

[212]R is 10. She is about start Year 6 at School 2. She spent 5/14 with Father prior to March 2024 and has since had supervised contact with Father. She speaks European Country 1’s language. R has also had mental health difficulties and had a counsellor. Ms Houldsworth described R as being articulate for her age. She was keen to have her views heard.

[213]S is 6. It is common ground that he has not had the same experiences as his siblings. He is described by the parents and Cafcass as hilarious. S speaks good European Country 1’s language and is improving. He has had the same contact arrangement as S. He has particular health needs, but not particular education needs.

Any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering

[214]I have made significant findings of harm against the Father. They are set out in my judgment and travelling schedule. I must apply PD12J in light of my findings. Ms Ancliffe describes the abuse suffered and its impact on Mother as a magnetic factor. She submits the same in respect of Q and R. There is no doubt that the Mother and the children (save S) have suffered significant harm.

[215]As Ms Markham rightly submits, risk is not a static factor. Henke J’s recent decision provides authority for the manner in which the court must consider short-, medium- and long-term risk, and its impact upon the case.

[216]With reference to emotional needs, Mother states “It is my position that the children’s emotional needs would be better met if my application to relocate is permitted. My relationship with [Father], and the two years since, have been extremely taxing on me and on the children… The children and I have been subjected to serious abuse. I do not know if I will ever fully recover from what has happened to the children and to me; I imagine that it will take me years to process and understand how the abuse experienced has had an impact on me and the children. However, I do think that I will be mentally stronger, for myself and for the children, if we are allowed to move to European Country 1. The move would be an opportunity for us to move forward with our lives and start afresh, in my home country where I can feel safe, and where I have family close by”.

[217]Mother feels that her ability to parent the children will be better in European Country 1 than in England. She describes the likely effect of refusal on her as “[Local Area] is a small place and people talk. [Father] has many friends within the community who have been given details of our relationship and separation, many of which are untrue” and “I fear that I will never feel safe here alone with the children. I will always be looking over my shoulder wondering if [Father] is around”. Q told Cafcass that he wanted a fresh start, away from teachers and peers being aware of his circumstances.

[218]Ms Houldsworth told the court that assessing risk is a core part of her role. She always reviews PD12J paras 36 and 37 and said that controlling and coercive behaviour is a big feature and a pattern of behaviour. She concluded that my findings are very serious and indicate a high level of concern. Her recommendation is for professional supervision because of the nature of the findings. It is not safe for family to supervise as a professional needs to understand and potentially intervene. With family, it is difficult for them to do and there would be the risk of turning a blind eye if family know that reporting could cause contact to stop.

[219]In response to Ms Markham, Ms Houldsworth said it is important that Father is able to make changes so that he and the children can rebuild their relationship. If that relationship is safe, rebuilding would assist their sense of identity. She said that the recommended work is important as it would give Father a foundation. Asked about timescales, Ms Houldsworth said that domestic abuse guidance at Cafcass takes advice from the Respect website, that there should be a 12-month break between proceedings and behaviour-change work. She thought that 12 months would be reasonable to complete and embed learning. Ms Houldsworth had earlier told Ms Ancliffe that she did not recommend a specific course. Cafcass do not commission or identify courses.

[220]I do not accept that Ms Houldsworth carried out a ‘blunt’ assessment or that her lack of seeing Father and children together undermines the totality of her evidence. Ms Houldsworth, like the court, was assisted by very positive and unchallenged contact notes from Contact Supervisor and Dr Dowd’s report. In essence, the two important parts of the process were carried out by those well placed to do so and they were duly considered by Ms Houldsworth. There would have been little if any purpose in Ms Houldsworth discussing my findings with Father – he does not accept them and considers that I was wrong to make them. There is no nuance to analyse in that aspect of the case.

[221]Ms Houldsworth is further criticised by Ms Markham for a lack of discussion and understanding about what work Father might do. Her report lacked in certain aspects, but I was assisted by her oral evidence. It is Dr Dowd who has advised on what aspects of behaviour need to be addressed, a view from which Ms Houldsworth did not depart. How that might be addressed was also a question for Dr Dowd and he acknowledged what he would expect an experienced social worker to do thereafter.

[222]Ms Houldsworth, Dr Dowd and Triple P have all suggested looking for local services or to ask the local authority. That is unsurprising following the DAPP course no longer being available. It is not always for Cafcass officers to advise the court on what specific courses are needed. In any event, Ms Manser advised Father to sign up to Caring Dads over 18 months ago and that has not happened. He initially told me in evidence that he had not heard of it.

[223]I accept Ms Houldsworth’s evidence in terms of supervision. She was very clear in her evidence that professional supervision, not family supervision, is required. Her evidence on that issue withstood robust cross-examination. R herself has set out what her fears would be about removing supervision, and I have accepted those views. Q chooses not to attend even supervised contact at present.

[224]I have to apply PD12J. Absent the completion of specific work on domestic abuse and anger management as suggested by Dr Dowd and allowing the requisite time for that work to become embedded, I am not satisfied that the requirement for supervision can safely be removed at this juncture. I am also satisfied that the risk factors remain until Father successfully completes and embeds the work recommended by Dr Dowd and subsequently considered by Ms Houldsworth.

[225]Dr Dowd told the court that the courses should be sequential and followed by a 12-month period to allow for all the seasons to pass. That is likely to mean a timeframe of two years at the very least before this or any court could reassess. That is also against a background of the Father being highly unlikely to ever accept my findings.

[226]If they relocate, the children will suffer harm from the loss of the Father in their daily, or almost daily lives. Q will not have the option of travelling the short distance to meet up with Father, should he decide to do so again. That must be balanced against what the children’s respective relationships with Father look like now, what they could look like (considering all the factors that I have set out in this judgment) and the likelihood of that (again, considering all factors). The capability of the parents, how capable each of them are and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant is of meeting the child’s needs

[227]None of the Cafcass officers have raised concerns about Mother’s parenting. Even with reference to vaccination, Ms Manser thought that Mother had the children’s best interests at heart. Ms Holdsworth said that Mother has “demonstrated good insight into the needs of the children, including varying her insight depending on their age and development”. She did not consider there to be a current safeguarding concern with Mother’s health despite its significant impact on her.

[228]Mother states that she has no support network in England. Father is concerned about the children’s support network in European Country 1. Maternal family members have not visited the children in the UK since these proceedings began. The Maternal Grandmother struck Q and P in the face at a young age, the same age S is now. The Maternal Grandfather called Mother a ‘dickhead’ (in European Country 1’s language).

[229]I accept that neither parent has a family network in the UK. Both sides of the family would have to fly to visit, and the parents to their respective families. I do not entirely accept that Mother has no support network in the UK. She has European Country 1 friends in [Local Area], whatever the size of the WhatsApp group. Some friends are sufficiently close to act as emergency contacts. What they are not is family. Mother was able to ask a friend to collect the children from school during the final hearing. That suggests a supportive friend rather than a network upon which this court could compare favourably to family, even one at some travelling distance in European Country 1.

[230]Regarding Father, Ms Manser wrote in May 2023: “It is my professional opinion that [Father] needs to develop his understanding of the emotional connection between himself and his children as they voice that they often worry about making him cross and worry about his responses. When talking to him he believed that his relationships have a high level of trust and support, but this is not perceived in the same way by Q and R in particular. They report not feeling emotionally safe and loved unconditionally”.

[231]Asked about my findings, Father said that ‘egregious’ isn’t a word he would use very often, and if ‘outstandingly bad’ is its definition, then he agreed with it. He will never understand how I got the findings I made. Father said Mother had lied but did not comment when asked if the court had been taken in by her. It was also submitted that Father would not engage in a risk assessment, but he has since fully engaged with Dr Dowd. That is to his credit.

[232]Ms Houldsworth considered Mother’s motivation to be genuine and justified. Father considers that Mother wishes to reduce or remove him from the children’s lives. I have found Mother to be the victim of abuse. There is little surprise in her wish to return to her native country.

[233]Ms Ancliffe suggests that Father’s motivation is driven by both his wish to have the children nearby and a “hard unwillingness to accept his own fault or role and an urge to control Mother and children”. Ms Houldsworth did not discuss motivation with Father. He told me that he would do anything for his children. As Ms Markham points out, it is not suggested that he is pursuing contact with the aim of controlling Mother. Father’s oral evidence makes plain that he has no willingness to accept fault and that he has controlled the Mother.

[234]I conclude that Father does genuinely want to be involved in the children’s lives. That sits alongside his refusal to accept any real blame and his controlling behaviour. His response to my ordering of supervised contact and the correspondence tells me that he does not like when that involvement is dictated by others, but that does not mean it is not genuine.

[235]I also agree with Ms Markham that there is much that the Father can contribute to the children’s lives. The contact notes are very positive, and the normal routine things are of significant importance to a child. The parent they cuddle, read with and throw a ball with is of undoubted emotional benefit to them. Father has many shared interests with the children built around sport. Some of that would undoubtedly be lost if the children move. Even though he speaks European Country 1’s language, it would be more difficult for the Father to involve himself in the children’s lives in European Country 1. I was not left with the impression that he knows City 1 well. There is the potential for shared interests such as [sport] to continue in City 1.

[236]What role the Father plays in the children’s lives is in a large part down to him. It is positive that he has already begun signing up for courses. Even if the courses he mentions in his statement do not address what Dr Dowd says they must, I have little doubt that the Father will source courses that do. The real question is whether he will be willing to engage in the manner required by that course provider, particularly in light of his evidence about only accepting the need for reparative work to address the findings he accepts, i.e., use of sex workers, which itself did not feature in Dr Dowd’s assessment of risk. Father did not link the need for courses to his abuse.

[237]Q has felt under pressure from the messages that he has received, as he told Cafcass. How this relationship might develop has not been the focus of work with Q. He is 15 and his allegations of abuse by Father have been upheld in my findings. Father does not accept those findings. I am not clear on what he meant by “have a conversation” with Q if he was able to. What is clear is that the type of relationship that Father and Q have now can continue if Q is in European Country 1. The time difference would not, for example, prevent them from discussing a particular match.

[238]It is where it goes after that that is the issue. There are no real proposals before the court but again that is hardly surprising given Q’s age and the circumstances in the case. The important point is that Q is ambivalent and equivocal about Father. He is not resolute or absolute. It may be that the best chance that relationship has of restarting is to allow it time to heal. A significant responsibility rests with Father. Q still has some contact with the paternal family through his cousin.

[239]This is not a case where any party suggests there should not be contact. The cases are therefore not in the extreme as was the case before Henke and Judd JJ. I must balance any restriction on the parental relationship alongside the harm I have found.

[240]Father invites me to remove supervision and to direct that the arrangements return to what they were before March 2024. There are some advantages in doing so. The children would return to an arrangement with which they were very familiar. They would see more of P on the occasions she wasn’t busy studying or, if and when the time comes, at university. They are all fond of the dog and no doubt will be equally fond should a second dog join them. It would allow them to rebuild their relationships with the Father and the wider paternal family.

[241]But that would be done very much in the circumstances I have set out above. Father does not accept my findings and by extension what Q and R have said. He does not accept that they, particularly R, have anything to be so worried about. He prays in aid the excellent supervised contact reports that show that the children are safe in his care.

[242]That is a core issue in this case. R and S have been safe in the Father’s care, as Contact Supervisor has observed on many an occasion. The contact is, obviously, much better than being simply described as ‘safe’. Father is shown repeatedly to be warm, comforting, actively engaged with the children and providing a thoroughly enjoyable session. R and S are observed to seek him out for cuddles, R even more so of late. Removing supervision now would have the obvious benefit of convenience and reducing cost (although that is not, quite properly, the basis upon which Father seeks it), whichever country it is in. It would allow greater flexibility for the Father and paternal family as well as open up the possibility of longer and holiday contact at an earlier stage. It would allow the type of movement that the parties discussed in their earlier witness statements.

[243]Father set out proposed courses in his sixth statement.He was interested in Triple P online (for parents of children under the age of 12) and Teen Triple P Online (for parents of children between 10-16 years). Those courses were specifically asked about by Ms Couves in her email of 5 July 2024. Dominic Weston of Triple P responded “They are not suitable in addressing the issues that you mention in your email. Specialist face to face services would be much more appropriate in this case – for both the perpetrator as well as the family members that have been exposed to serious violence and abuse”. Mr Weston then recommends looking for local resources. Mr Weston’s response is consistent with the evidence of Dr Dowd and Ms Houldsworth. It notably states that specialist services would be better for Father as well as family.

[244]Father’s evidence is that he has signed up for Family Transitions Triple P. No evidence is contained within exhibit 7 in support, but I can take notice of publicly available Triple P information. Dr Dowd has identified the type of work needed, method and timing of delivery.

[245]In England, supervision is a significant cost to him but seemingly easily and flexibly arranged and a cost which the Father has been able to meet for several months. Subject no doubt to availability, that could continue in England should the children remain here or visit from European Country 1. The position is more difficult in European Country 1. Mother and Ms Houldsworth gave their oral evidence upon the principle of supervisors being available.

The range of powers available to the court under this Act

[246]I have the full range of orders at the court’s disposal. If I refuse relocation and the case stays within this jurisdiction, no matters of international law or enforcement arise. The orders would be treated as any other.

[247]If I allow relocation, the question of recognition and enforcement in European Country 1 would arise. Father unilaterally instructed Professor D. Single joint expert evidence is preferable, but I am assisted by the report. In summary, the position is:• European Country 1 is likely to recognise my orders unless they are considered to be contrary to public policy. Mirror orders are not required.

• The concept of PR in European Country 1 is divided into custody and parental authority. Father has parental authority and is likely to retain it. European Country 1 law has a mechanism for the removal of parental authority. It is an exceptional measure with extremely restricted application.

• It is possible to find out whether there are criminal proceedings in European Country 1 against Father.

• If Mother does pursue criminal charges against Father in European Country 1, it could impact contact. A European Country 1 judge is like to have regard to my judgment and the fact that Father still has contact following my findings.

Decision - Child Arrangements

[248]I have previously found P to be competent. I have also found (in this judgment) that she has given her views freely and clearly to Ms Houldsworth. Ms Markham submits that P needs certainty and that I should make a ‘lives with’ order to aid her transition into adulthood. She prays in aid Mother’s exercise of her PR to prevent P from travelling to Rome with Father. Although there are disputes about her vulnerability and independence, P has managed her own arrangements with the parents. Father asserts her independence and at her age, she is likely to be able travel with Father, on her own or remain at home when he goes to European Country 1.

[249]To make an order in respect of P, I would have to be satisfied that this case is exceptional. I would also have to be satisfied that it is in P’s best interests to live with Father, as distinct from her having the choice where she lives and her choosing to live with Father. P has not indicated that she wishes to be subject to an order. Cafcass do not recommend one. The ‘no order’ principle applies. This case is not exceptional so as to justify the making of an order in respect of P’s residence. Father acknowledged that through his solicitors very recently although he is not held by that view.

[250]I am not satisfied that it is in P’s best interests for a ‘lives with’ order to be made for her. If I was to impose an order, it could restrict P’s ability to travel independently, which both parents tell me she should be able to do. As Peter Jackson J (as he then was) said in Re C (Older Children: Relocation)

[2015] EWCA Civ 1298

, “with an older child, the court’s grasp cannot exceed its reach, any more than a parent’s can, and attempts to regulate something that is beyond effective regulation can only create a forum for disagreement”.

[251]P shall have her passports returned to her. She shall be free to travel with either parent in accordance with her wishes.

[252]Despite his oral evidence, Father does not pursue a case for sole residence of Q, R and S in submissions. Ms Markham has carefully set out the orders that he seeks in her submissions. He offers undertakings in respect of chastisement, denigrating comments and questioning. His primary position is that supervision is not required, or in the alternative, it could be carried out by his family.

[253]I am satisfied that Q, R and S should live with the Mother. That is Q and R’s ascertainable wish, and in each case is supported by Cafcass. It is consistent with my findings and the impact of them.

[254]Mother accepted in evidence that she has not provided evidence about some aspects of her plan to relocate. Her first statement written in January 2023 remains relevant although must be read in context of the stage of the case at the time. She has added detail in her eighth statement, having had the FFH and Cafcass input. Ms Houldsworth said that Mother is managing in this country, and she had no concerns that Mother would not do the same in European Country 1. She had not developed a concern that Mother would not support European Country 2’s culture.

[255]There is no doubt that each of the children has the right under Article 8 to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents, unless that is contrary to their interests. Although a child’s Article 8 rights will often take priority over those of the parents, the parents should not be overlooked, and all Article 8 rights need to be balanced. Any infringement with these rights must be proportionate. Williams J set out how to approach the rights of wider family.

[256]I accept Mother’s evidence about the impact of refusal. She would have to remain in or around [Local Area] and in the vicinity of her proven abuser. The Mother would have to continue to liaise with him about all manner of matters in respect of the children. That difficulty is mitigated by the positive nature of OFW communications which will be the method of communication going forward. Refusal would also be contrary to the wishes and feelings of Q and R, the former having considerable weight in light of his age and understanding. It would also leave Q in his existing school; one he would like a fresh start away from.

[257]There are benefits to the children of refusal, as I have identified. They live in [Local Area] and would have all the familiarities that entails. It would be much easier for them to further their relationship with their father and with P.

[258]The other significant point prayed in aid by Ms Markham is the possibility of review. PD12J specifically caters for one, if necessary, in the child’s best interests and where one can be set so as consistent with the timetable for the child. The difficulty with that argument is the timescale set out by Dr Dowd and Ms Houldsworth. The argument does not end there. Even if I was to conclude that a review within proceedings is well outside timescales, the principle that Ms Markham advances applies equally to the possibility of Father being able to make a fresh application to this court. Reviewing contact after the completion of work is part of the Family Court’s workload.

[259]The position in European Country 1 is less clear. I do not have evidence, for example, of what the European Country 1 equivalent of Cafcass is or how the family courts work. The fact is that European Country 1 is part of the Hague Convention 1996. Professor D sets out how another competent authority (European Country 1) would approach my orders and judgment. Her report does not suggest any basis for me to conclude that the European Country 1 courts are not able to assess domestic abuse or family relationships. European Country 1 has gender violence courts.

[260]I am satisfied that it is in Q, R and S’s best interests if they relocate to European Country 1. The ‘peaks’, particularly my findings, and Q and R’s wishes, outweigh the ‘valleys’ of the logistical difficulties with supervised contact in European Country 1 and the court no longer having jurisdiction. The likely negative impact upon the children’s relationships with the Father can be mitigated by ongoing and regular contact.

[261]I shall therefore grant permission to the Mother to relocate permanently to European Country 1 with Q, R and S. I am satisfied that it is in their best interests to do so. I cannot reach the conclusion that the Father’s relationship with the children, now and future, and in light of the type and duration of work required, outweighs the ‘pros’ of a move supported by Cafcass and wished for by Q and R.

[262]Mother suggests a greater level of contact in European Country 1 than Ms Houldsworth. I am satisfied that it is in the children’s best interests for Father to have the contact recommended by Ms Houldsworth, essentially as a minimum, with Q being free to choose. That level of contact is likely to be sustainable for Father although not as easy as Mother may think it is. I accept Father’s point that contact will be better in City 1. It will be where the children live and allow them to bring a great degree of relevance to their time with Father. Some sessions can take place in City 2 on an ad hoc basis.

[263]During the European Country 1 school holidays, the Mother shall facilitate R and S’s return to this jurisdiction for contact. That contact will take place in the [Local Area] area, or such other location as may be agreed in advance. The frequency and duration will be as recommended by Ms Houldsworth, again as a minimum, effectively once at Christmas and Easter and twice during the summer. The paternal family may join these sessions.

[264]Face-to-face contact is to be supervised in European Country 1. I am content with AC supervising and do not accept that she will not act independently. Video contact can be supervised in England and shall take place once per week for up to an hour.

[265]Q shall be invited to attend each session and join each video call. He may attend as and when he wishes.

[266]Should relocation be delayed for any reason, the existing term-time arrangements shall continue.

Parental Responsibility

[267]These are married parents. Section 3 of the Children Act 1989 defines PR with reference to all the rights and duties. A specific issue order (“SIO”) is permissible in respect of a specific question that has arisen or may arise in connection with any aspect of PR. Prohibited steps orders (“PSO”) are also available under the same section. Section 1 is engaged, as is the ‘no order’ principle.

[268]In her oral evidence, Mother said that she wants to have a day-to-day life without having to argue about everything. She wants Father to be involved in the children’s lives and wants him to be part of the big decisions. She described S’s health as a big decision, such as endocrinology. She finds day to day matters with Father very difficult. They go back and forth for months. If Mother doesn’t agree with what Father proposes, he will take her to court. A school decision would be allocated by the state. Father can be consulted. Mother does not disregard what Father says. In principle, Mother will respect Father’s suggestions.

[269]Father takes issue with some of Mother’s unilateral actions in respect of the children. He was not aware that Q has had CBT or EMDR. Q has a bank account in the name “[Father Surname Mother Surname]” and Mother’s own exhibit 8 shows a school document in the name “[Father Surname Mother Surname]”. Father accepted in evidence that it is common in European Country 1 to have two family names. Father did not accept that having PR had meant that he could get information. In essence, Father feels that the Mother is trying to remove him from the children’s lives or reduce his involvement. He fears that granting restrictions as to PR would further this.

[270]Unlike Re T-D, I am considering the operation of PR where the parent with care is in another country. Mother is not seeking to ‘remove’ Father’s PR. I am being asked to make a ‘conventional’ order which, as long as in clear terms, is likely to be effective and is both necessary and proportionate, it would not fall foul of the principles in Re T-D.

[271]The justification for such an order is found in several ways. I, and the High Court, have described this litigation in detail. What Mother seeks to be able to do are the practical steps that a parent ‘on the ground’ would do, even more so when in a different jurisdiction. To not make an order would compel her to contact Father in the circumstances of this case and where very little has ever been agreed, and that is with very senior legal teams involved. I remind myself of my findings at FFH. I am satisfied that a specific issue order is necessary to prevent such a situation in the ongoing exercise of PR. It is proportionate, and in the children’s best interests.

[272]I shall direct that until further order and whilst Q, R and S are not in the Father’s care, it is for the Mother to make day-to-day parenting decisions about health, accommodation, education and activities. She shall keep the Father updated using OFW and will need to consult him on any major health decisions for all the children. Father will continue to have parental authority in European Country 1. Should he be unable to obtain any information, such as health and education, Mother should provide it.

Section 91(14)

[273]Both parties gave evidence about the impact of the litigation on them. I have read about what P said about it. Q asked me when there would be a decision. Father described the litigation as “toxic and damaging” and the effect on the children as “catastrophic”.

[274]Mother is plainly concerned that Father will not accept any outcome that is not favourable to him. Despite my findings and the dismissal of his appeal, Father continued to put his case on much the same basis as before. His oral evidence made that abundantly clear. At present, he does not see the need to change and the basis of his case, if supervision is deemed to be necessary, is one of future review. Father was found to be controlling in my FFH judgment and there is a risk of further litigation. Father has the means to do so. Neither of themselves justify an s91(14) order, even under the ‘new’ legislation and practice direction, but they are factors when I consider the wider picture under PD12 J para 4A.1. It is difficult to see how or why there would need to be further litigation without material change. This is a case that fits well within the ‘amongst others’ provision.

[275]Without meaningful change, there should be no further s8 litigation in respect of Q, R and S in England without the leave of this court. It is in the children’s best interests that there be a time-limited order to protect them from further litigation without leave. I am satisfied that the proportionate period is three years. It will run for the remainder of Q’s minority, R into her teenage years and S to nearing the end of the equivalent of primary school. The likely duration of work and meaningful chance is also relevant. An order will act as a filter and not a bar. Any application in England shall be reserved to me. The purpose would remain should any dispute arise as to jurisdiction.

Vaccination

[276]Mother said that this has been an issue since proceedings started. The records Father wants are at [previous address]. Mother said she is not “anti-vax”. Mother accepted that she had said that she would look into the MMR for S as soon as she could. She has been busy with proceedings. She still intends to fulfil her commitment to talk to the GP about it. Mother did ask Father to look at government leaflets about the MMR where it says not to give it to children with neurodevelopmental issues. She has discussed herd immunity with the doctor. Mother said she needs to have a logical argument and reasons, specific to the family members and not ‘bland’. The leaflet Father had was for the public at large. He failed to consider S and contra-indications about vaccines. Mother did not know Father’s opposition or reasons regarding vaccines.

[277]Father’s evidence is set out.He criticises the court for not dealing with the issue until final hearing. His core point is that the children should be vaccinated in line with the NHS schedule. He relies upon the case law.

[278]Ms Manser’s paragraph 128 needs to be read in full: “It is my professional judgement that [Mother] has the children’s best interests at heart when thinking about immunisations and I do not feel that a Specific Issue Order, making [Father] the primary contact regarding dental and vaccinations appointments necessary. Evidence confirms dental appointments are up to date and the parents have always communicated about vaccinations. There does need to be some clarity in respect of the current status of the children’s immunisation in relation to the UK vaccination schedule and the parents should have communication regarding their view on any gaps or upcoming vaccinations and their thoughts on a plan regarding whether to vaccinate or not. It would be helpful if this could occur before the hearing”.

[279]Her views are linked to Father seeking to become the ‘primary contact’ regarding dental and vaccination appointments. That is not now what Father is seeking.

[280]I dismissed the Father’s case about Mother’s views at FFH.

[281]Ms Houldsworth says: “[Mother] demonstrated a good insight into the needs of the children, including varying her insight depending on their age and development. [Mother] is able to meet their basic care needs. [Father] has raised concerns about the children not being vaccinated according to the UK vaccination schedule, and that [Mother] would not agree to the Covid-19 vaccination. Whilst I understand his concerns about this in respect of a differential personal view to [Mother], the vaccinations are not mandatory and therefore parental choice is allowed. I do not consider this to be a safeguarding concern in respect of [Mother]’s parenting capacity. There remains outstanding information from the GP, which would provide further clarity about how the children’s physical needs are met. However, I have not been made aware of any significant concerns about the children’s current health or physical needs not being met, nor that either party is not able to access help or advice for this, as and when required”.

[282]The case law is indeed clear. It recognises that vaccinations are not compulsory and that whether or not children have them is a matter for the exercise of PR. As King LJ held it is generally in the best interests of otherwise healthy children to be vaccinated, the current established medical view being that the routine vaccination of infants is in the best interests of those children and for the public good (my emphasis added).

[283]Her ladyship also held that the basis of obtaining FPR 25 expert reports should end save where a child has an unusual medical history and consideration is required as to whether the child’s own circumstances throw up any contra-indications. The proper approach to be taken by a court where there is a disagreement as to whether the child should be vaccinated is that the benefit in vaccinating a child in accordance with Public Health England guidance can be taken to outweigh the long-recognised and identified side effects.

[284]In principle the case law is clear, as are the benefits of vaccination. This is not a Covid-19 case.

[285]Mother has not looked into this issue, contrary to what she said she would do. I understand her reasons, but I am left without evidence. Likewise, for all he says about the court not dealing with the issue, Father has not produced any evidence and has read only generic leaflets. Ms Houldsworth’s report anticipates outstanding information from the GP and it not being the end of the matter. It is not a safeguarding issue but that is different to being in best interests.

[286]There is no suggestion that R has specific health needs. Whether she is at risk of allergic reactions is a matter for medical advice. Otherwise, she should be vaccinated in line with NHS guidelines, and if possible, before relocating to European Country 1. The timeframe remains a matter for her GP. I am satisfied that is in her best interests.

[287]The real difficulty with the vaccination issue is S’s health. His best interests are paramount in my decision. There may well be good medical reason why he should not be vaccinated, there may be none. S’s position is such that he may fall into one of the exceptions anticipated in Re H. I have no difficulty in endorsing the principle of best interests in having childhood vaccinations, but S’s needs are such that a medical assessment of those needs (by a suitably qualified medical professional with direct knowledge of S) should take place first. I would then expect the parents to exercise their PR in accordance with the advice given.

[288]Although the case law is clear and there is an obvious benefit to ruling that S should be vaccinated unless a medical professional (likely his consultant) says otherwise, I am not satisfied that I should make a formal order at this stage. S’s health needs mean that the situation is not as clear cut as with R. His needs are such that a court would need to consider informed medical views before making an order rather than making one that was to take effect unless a doctor says otherwise. I am not able to say that making an order is better than not making one.

[289]For the avoidance of doubt, vaccination is not a day-to-day medical issue. Father is to be consulted in line with my ruling above.

Non-Molestation Order

[290]Mother told the court that she has not thought about applying for an NMO in European Country 1. She needs one here because she feels threatened on a daily basis by Father, in the way that he speaks, conducts, parks and stares at her at school. Ms Ancliffe submits that there should be an order in standard terms to protect Mother in England whether or not there is relocation and when she returns to see P.

[291]Father said he does not understand the reason for Mother applying for NMO. He thought potentially that Mother’s team were litigating in bad faith and doubling down on my judgment. If he and Mother were in the same country, there would need to be messaging about dropping off critical items. He has no idea how that would happen in the UK and even less in European Country 1.

[292]I do not find that Mother’s team are litigating in bad faith and doubling down on my judgment. A party is entitled to rely upon findings of fact made in their favour, especially where those findings are of serious domestic abuse and the relief sought is under the Family Law Act 1996. It remains incumbent upon the Mother to justify the making of such an order. I must consider all the circumstances of the case including the need to secure the health, safety and well-being of Mother, Q, R and S.

[293]In addition to the behaviour that led to my findings, the litigation itself forms a central part of the reason why Mother feels as she does. Many of her recent complaints relate to the litigation, whether directly or indirectly. The ending of litigation, relocation and the imposing of an s91(14) could mitigate behaviour and therefore reduce the need for an additional order.

[294]There is undoubtedly evidence of molestation in my FFH judgment and, as victims of abuse, Mother and children require protection. The question is whether I am persuaded that court intervention is required to control the behaviour complained of.

[295]Father has not been abusive on OFW. As with Mother, his correspondence otherwise has gone through solicitors. I have made limited findings of ongoing behaviour. On balance, I am satisfied that an order is required. With the ending of proceedings, the case goes away but so do the lawyers. It is plain that Mother sees them as her filter and protection. Ms Houldsworth considered Father’s responses and attacks upon Mother to amount to DARVO. When added to my findings, the need to grant an order arises.

[296]The basis for an order in respect of the children is linked to that of the Mother as well as individually. I accepted Q’s account of abuse to Cafcass at FFH and pressure since. I also found R to have been a victim of abuse at FFH and accepted her account to Cafcass since then. S has not suffered in the same way as his siblings, but he will be attending contact with a sibling who has so suffered.

[297]Ending the litigation is not the only protection needed. I will impose an order for two years in standard terms in respect of Mother, Q, R and S. There is no unfairness to Father. He has been on notice since DRA and the standard terms are well known to lawyers. This will not prevent use of OFW, video contact or contact in line with Q’s wishes.

[298]I expect jurisdiction to pass to European Country 1 in due course. Nothing I say in this judgment suggests otherwise.

[299]That concludes my judgment.

Postscript

[300]The High Court refused Father’s application for permission to appeal on 3 September 2024.

Order

International Relocation)

[2020] EWHC 488

, Williams J considered the legal principles in Re F, developed the “FKC Payne Composite” and set out how the essential principle of proportionality should be considered. Paragraphs 44 to 50 should be read in full. 44. In relocation cases there is no priority afforded to the application to relocate as opposed to the application for a child arrangements order; there is thus no ‘lead’ application. To approach relocation cases in such a way is to fall into the ‘linear’ approach trap which the authorities now clearly disapprove. The essential task is to weigh up two (or conceivably more) competing options as to the country in which the child should reside and the parental care framework in which the child will live. That requires a comparative evaluation of the options available. Such evaluation may be assisted by a ‘balance sheet’ but of course one has to be wary of then following a map without contours which of course can result in a misleading picture and the arrival at an unexpected and probably wrong end point. 45. The most recent in authoritative appellate decision on the approach to permanent overseas relocation is Re F (A Child) (International Relocation Case)

[2017] 1 FLR 979

. That, together with the earlier authorities, makes clear that the approach whether under section 8 or section 13 of the Children Act should be as follows: i. The only authentic principle is the paramount welfare of the child. ii. The implementation of section 1(2A) Children Act 1989 makes clear the heightened scrutiny required of proposals which interfere with the relationship between a child and his parents. iii. The welfare checklist is relevant whether the case is brought under s.8 or s.13 Children Act 1989. iv. The effect of previous guidance in cases such as Payne may be misleading unless viewed in its proper context which is no more than that it may assist the judge to identify potentially relevant issues. v. In assessing paramount welfare in international relocation cases, the court must carry out a holistic and non-linear comparative evaluation of the plans proposed by each parent. In complex international relocation cases this may need to be of some sophistication and complexity. vi. In addition to Article 8 rights, indeed probably as a component of the Article 8 rights, I must factor in the right of the child to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, unless that is contrary to his interests. That is in accordance with Article 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. vii. Furthermore, the court must also take into account the Article 8 rights of the parents. In the usual case the child’s rights will take priority over the parents but that should not cause the court to overlook the Article 8 rights of others affected and the court should balance the competing rights. viii. It is likely that the other family members’ rights will be affected by a decision, of course the further removed from the parents and the child the individuals affected the less their rights are likely to be infringed and thus the less weight they are likely to carry in comparison to the parents and of course, at the top of the list, the child. 46. The question of proportionality has caused some confusion in the authorities and there are somewhat contradictory authorities. In Re F the Court of Appeal said that where the court is taking a decision of relocation and where the effect of that relocation is such as to potentially seriously infringe the child’s rights to a relationship with the left behind parent the court should carry out a proportionality evaluation. In the subsequent case of Re C the Court of Appeal questioned how that dovetailed with the paramount welfare evaluation the court is mandated to undertake and in Re Y an earlier decision of Lord Justice Ryder in the Court of Appeal he also in that case doubted that a proportionality evaluation was appropriate in a private law case. In Re C (Internal Relocation)

[2017] 1 FLR 1052

at [81]-[84] Vos LJ approved the approach that the Article 8 evaluation should “be an essential part of the balancing exercise itself and should not be undertaken separately so as to disrupt a joined up decision-making process. 47. In my view, in reality and when considering the welfare checklist, and in undertaking the holistic evaluation, the court will necessarily have taken into account the potential infringement of the child’s right to a relationship with the left behind parent and indeed other aspects of the child’s Article 8 rights. So necessarily the court will have built into its holistic evaluation a degree of consideration or proportionality and in that way the proportionality issue feeds into the ultimate paramount welfare outcome. 48. Insofar as it may assist in identifying the relevant issues the court may find it helpful to consider what may be described as the ‘FKC Payne composite’. This is no more than an integrated approach to the welfare checklist and the Payne guidance or discipline, which incorporates the Payne criteria and any other particular features of the individual case which appears relevant. Of course in some cases it may be that one or more particular aspects would emerge as carrying significantly more weight than the others, a contour map with high peaks and low valleys, in others the factors may be much more evenly weighed and present a gentle undulating landscape. 49. In the former case the balance may fall more obviously in one direction if it is dominated by a peak with no valleys. In the latter the gentle undulations may make the balance a very fine one, ultimately every case is fact specific. 50. The composite may appear in this form. i. The ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned considered in the light of his age and understanding. ii. Physical, emotional and educational needs. iii. The likely effect on the child of any change in their circumstances. Within this some specific questions might be what changes to housing, schooling and relationships are likely if they remain in England? How realistic is the plan in the sense of how likely is it to be implemented as conceived? Will there be positive effects in respect of the removing parent’s ability to provide care for them if they move abroad? What are the other positives and negatives about country X in terms of environment, education, links with family? What will be the impact on the child of moving permanently to another country in respect of their relationship with the left behind parent and other extended family? To what extent may that be offset by on-going contact and extension to other relationships in the new country? iv. The child’s age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant. v. Any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering. There is obviously a significant overlap here with the effects of change and so within this, what may be the impact on the child of the change of their relationship with the left behind parent? How secure is that relationship now and how likely is it to endure and thrive if the child moves? How realistic are the proposals for maintaining contact? What will be the impact on the removing party of having to remain in England, contrary to their wishes? What will be the consequent impact on the child? What will be the impact on the left behind parent of the child moving? Will the ability of either parent to provide care for the child be adversely affected by the refusal or grant of the application and if so to what extent? To what extent will loss of contact with the left behind family be made up for by extension of contact with the family in the new country. vi. The capability of the parents, how capable each of them are and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant is of meeting the child’s needs. How are the parents currently meeting their needs? Are there any aspects of their ability which may be particularly important in the context of a relocation, for instance their capability of meeting the emotional need of the child for a relationship with the left behind parent? Is the application to relocate wholly or in part motivated by a desire to exclude or limit the left behind parent’s role? Is the left behind parent’s opposition to the move genuine, or is it motivated by some desire to control, or some other malign motive? Will the parent be better able to care for the child in the new country than in England? What role can the left behind parent play in the future? vii. The range of powers available to the court under this Act. Can conditions of contact be imposed in terms of provision of funds, or frequency of visits? Can court orders be made in the other country, either mirror orders or orders which will allow reciprocal enforcement?