Re K and P (children - child arrangements order and specific issue order no 2) [2025] EWFC 111 (B)

This approved judgment was handed down remotely on 6 February 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail. The date and time of hand-down is deemed to be 10.00 a.m. on 7 February 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.

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT READING

[2025] EWFC 111 (B)

Date 6 February 2025

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989

Before: HHJ Vincent

Applicant father

Respondent mother

K and P

(through their children’s guardian, ad litem)

Second and third respondents

Between

AApplicant

Applicant fatherApplicant

BApplicant

Respondent motherApplicant

K and PApplicant

(through their children’s guardian, ad litem)Applicant

Second and thirdApplicant

Joanne Ecob, instructed by the applicant father on a direct access basis

Rosanne Godfrey-Lockwood, instructed by Hughes Fowler Caruthers, solicitors for respondent mother

Anne Spratling, instructed by NYAS for children, through their NYAS caseworker

Hearing Hearing dates: 2 and 3 December 2024

Approved Judgment

Introduction

‘It’s just hell and I want it to stop. I really want to go to school but I just can’t make myself do it. I just want a fresh start and for mum and dad to stop fighting and to be able to go to Country A to get away from it all, like K.’

[1]This was said by P, who is twelve, to her NYAS caseworker in November 2024. Her older brother K, fifteen, had recently gone to live in Country A with their older halfsibling. K and P’s mother is a national of Country A, their father is English. K started school in Country A in September. He had not gone to school for two years before that. He speaks the language of Country A, but does not write it. Despite the considerable challenges that K has faced as a result of the move, P perceives that his life, away from the country he has lived in for his whole life, away from both his parents, and from her, is ‘better’ and ‘easier’ than hers, because he has achieved for himself, ‘a new start, none of the mum and dad stress.’

[2]P is not currently going to school. Her NYAS caseworker described P as withdrawn, increasingly isolated from her peers, increasingly reserved and, ‘at times [she] presents as being shut down. She presents as struggling with the ongoing court process and carries a sadness around this.’

[3]The parents were in a relationship between 2007 and 2015. When they separated, K was five and P was two.

[4]Since separation the parents have remained in a chronic state of high-conflict. These proceedings arise from the father’s applications made on 3 January 2023, for the children to live with him, and for prohibited steps orders preventing the mother from changing K’s school, or taking him to Country A. This set of proceedings has taken two years to conclude, and is the fourth set of Family Court proceedings between the parents since 2015.

[5]Both parents dearly love their children. Their actions have been motivated by their wish for their children to be happy. They both want what they think is best for their children. However, most regrettably in this case, the parents have different views about almost every step to be taken. They have not been able to resolve their conflicts and the children have suffered the consequences.

Sequence of events

[6]The mother moved to England in 2000 with her oldest daughter C, and C’s father. Their daughter D was born in 2003. They separated in 2006 and the father of C and D moved to Country A.

[7]K and P’s father met the mother in 2007. They moved in together the following year. They have never married, but the father has parental responsibility for K, born 2009, and P, born 2012.

[8]In 2015 the parents separated, and the mother applied for a child arrangements order. The parents were both still living in the family home. The proceedings concluded in the summer of 2015, with a decision by magistrates that the children would live with their mother and spend time with their father every other weekend, one night in the week, and for longer times during the holidays. The father was to move out the following month. At the time those proceedings concluded, K had just turned six and P was close to her third birthday.

[9]There was a second set of proceedings in 2017, before District Judge Harrison. The mother applied to relocate to Country A with the children. The father cross-applied for orders that the children could spend more time with him. District Judge Harrison refused the mother’s application to relocate, and made orders increasing the children’s time with their father to five nights in each fortnight and half the school holidays;

[10]The mother sought to appeal the decision, but the decision was upheld. A difficulty arose about telling the children of the decision; District Judge Harrison had directed the parents tell the children jointly, in the event the father told them on his own. In the summer of 2017, D, aged thirteen, moved to Country A to live with her father and to start school. In October 2017, C, who had just graduated from university in London, also moved to Country A.

[11]As later described by District Judge Harrison, the situation did not improve following the 2017 Court proceedings. The children’s behaviour became increasingly unsettled, particularly K’s, and his school became increasingly concerned about him.

[12]The parents were trying to seek help for their children and to improve the family dynamic. They took K for sessions with a child and adolescent analyst, and themselves attended mediation between December 2017 and October 2018, at which point the mediator advised there was no further benefit in it.

[13]In 2018 K’s school reported that their concerns had escalated. It was recommended he start therapy again. K had threatened to harm himself with a knife. A referral was made to CAMHS and then to children’s social services.

[14]The children often travelled to Country A with their mother. In 2018 the mother started a psychotherapy course in Country A, while continuing to run a business in England. In 2018 she met her current partner, who lives in Country A, but regularly spends time in England.

[15]K stopped staying overnight with his father in May 2019, and didn’t see him at all for three months during that summer. Thereafter he only saw his father if his mother or another adult was present. Even if a contact supervisor was there, his mother would wait outside in the car nearby.

[16]In August 2019 the mother renewed her application to the court for permission to relocate with the children to Country A.

[17]The father cross-applied in September 2019 for orders providing that the children should live with him, that their time in Country A should be limited, and for orders in respect of schooling.

[18]District Judge Harrison gave a full and carefully considered judgment on the mother’s application in June 2020, having been assisted by evidence from an independent social worker and a consultant psychiatrist. District Judge Harrison described her decision as finely balanced, but ultimately concluded that she should not give permission to the mother to relocate to Country A. Her main reasons were the likely toll of frequent trips back to England upon the children, and the likelihood that their relationship with their father would suffer as a result of their separation. The order refusing permission was made on 22 July 2020.

[19]There was a further hearing in February 2021, in respect of the father’s crossapplications. District Judge Harrison refused the father’s applications either for a transfer of the children’s residence or an equal shared care arrangement. She confirmed that the child arrangements order made by her on 11 July 2017 should remain in force.

[20]The parents agreed not to apply to the court in respect of child arrangements orders for at least a year, and the mother agreed not to renew her application for relocation for at least three years. The parents agreed to explore therapy or alternative dispute resolution should disputes over the children arise.

[21]In July 2022 the father contacted the local authority, raising concerns about the mother’s care of the children.

[22]In October 2022 the children were placed on child in need plans. This was escalated to a child protection plan in January 2023. The social worker who had carried out an assessment said it was difficult to know if the children were expressing their own views or being influenced by the adults involved. Both parents were extremely critical of one another, and had opposing views with regard to the children. The assessing social worker concluded that the children were exposed to the parental conflict, and this was felt to be adversely affecting the children.

[23]On 3 January 2023 the father applied to vary the existing child arrangements order.

[24]It was said in the father’s application notice that K, who was living with his mother, had failed to spend court ordered time with his father since September 2022, and had not been going to school. The father sought an order for K to move to live with him. It was alleged that the mother was alienating K from the father, and that she had caused emotional and psychological harm in relation to both children’s perception of their father, English schools, and living in England. It was alleged that the mother had failed to get the children to attend school, or attend contact time with their father.

[25]The father issued a further application on 14 February 2023, for a psychological assessment of the children, and (it appears) for an agency to be appointed to manage handovers.

[26]In her C1A response, the mother alleged that the father had caused emotional and psychological harm to the children and to her, through aggressiveness, his intensity towards the children, ‘above appropriate discipline’, seeking to control how the children spend their time with their mother, criticising and undermining the mother’s parenting, and verbally abusing her.

[27]I don’t know why the first hearing in the application did not take place until 10 August 2023. On that date the father’s application was allocated to a Circuit Judge and was to be listed for a final hearing on the first available date after 25 September 2023. Unfortunately, the date given to the parties by the Court was six months after that, on 18 March 2024.

[28]On 25 October 2023 the father applied for an urgent hearing. In his application form he said that K had not been in school for over a year, P’s school attendance was at 43%, the local authority had not provided information as directed, and not arranged any meetings, and the children were not receiving any emotional support. The father said the children were, ‘displaying erratic, aggressive and abusive behaviour by phone and text towards their father and are continuously harassing and blaming their father for not living in Country A.’ He said K had not had ‘full contact’ with the father for over a year, and P for 10 months.

[29]On 14 November 2023 a hearing was listed before HHJ Tolson KC. The application for an independent social worker or adolescent psychiatrist or psychologist to report was adjourned to the final hearing. Directions were made to the local authority requiring it to disclose information, to say what steps were being taken in respect of the children’s school attendance, to consider whether or not they should apply for care or supervision orders, and to file a report under section 37 Children Act 1989 setting out their investigation and conclusions.

[30]The children were stepped down from the child protection plan on 7 December 2023. The local authority said the reason for this was the ‘evident negative impact that continued visits from social workers was having on the children and their refusal to engage’. The local authority’s view was that the ongoing court process and involvement of professionals was causing continuing emotional harm to the children and once the case concluded, they would be able to, ‘focus on their future and hopefully recover from the emotional harm they have suffered.’

[31]By 16 February 2024 the local authority had not filed its section 37 report, nor provided the requested disclosure. Directions were made for the filing of further evidence. The final hearing remained listed on 18, 19 and 20 March 2024.

[32]K started at an online school on 26 February 2024, having not been in education since September 2022. He had two sessions with a therapist.

[33]At that time P remained on the roll at her school, but her attendance had dropped to 25%.

[34]On 13 March 2024 the mother made an application to the Court for K to attend school in Country A.

[35]Having heard evidence from both parents, the author of the section 37 report (filed on 6 March 2024), and the NYAS guardian, HHJ Tolson KC handed down a judgment on 3 April 2024 which provided that K would go to school either at a sports academy of his choosing in Country B or in Country A, or at a school chosen by his parents. The order provided that the rest of the time he would share his time equally between his parents, and that P would continue to live with her mother and spend alternate weekends from Thursday to Monday with her father, and from after school on Thursday to Friday morning in the intervening weeks. The order provided that P should spend half the school holidays with her father. P was to continue going to school at her current school.

[36]A review hearing was listed for 12 June 2024.

[37]On 17 May 2024 NYAS applied to the Court for directions. The parties had not agreed an order following the hearing on 3 April 2024, and as a result the children had not been informed of the court’s decision. The guardian describes several weeks of going back and forth:

‘The mother agreeing to the narrative and suggestions of NYAS but the father did not. The NYAS caseworker spoke with [the father] who said he would agree the narrative with some additions but did not feel that the children should be told without the adults present. The father wanted the judge to tell K he was unreliable and untruthful; his behaviour was unacceptable and that no findings were made against the father.’

[38]Directions were made about this by HHJ Tolson KC on the papers on 30 May 2024.

[39]There was a further hearing, it seems on the father’s application, on 12 June 2024, at which the court was invited to reconsider its decision in respect of K’s schooling. K had by then nominated his current school in Country A. The Court endorsed that decision.

[40]K travelled with both his parents to Country A on his birthday in the summer to register at his new school. He stayed there for a few weeks over the summer then came back to England. When he returned to Country A just before the start of the school term, he moved in with his older sister C, her partner and their son. He is signed up to a sports academy of Country A. He started at a local school in August 2024. His spoken language of Country A is good, but his written skills are less good. Nonetheless, his first term appears to have been broadly a success, with good attendance (save for one period of illness and a few ‘lates’ in the register). Considering the length of time that he had been out of formal education, it is a credit to him that he has embraced this new experience of education in Country A.

[41]A further final hearing was listed on 31 July 2024 with a time estimate of three days. With the plan for K settled, the hearing principally concerned P, who was living with her mother, seeing relatively little of her father, and not going to school. The judge heard evidence from the parents and the NYAS caseworker. HHJ Tolson ordered that P should move to live with her father, attend her current school, and spend every other weekend with her mother.

[42]The mother appealed to the High Court. The order for a transfer of residence was stayed on 22 August 2024. On 16 October 2024 the appeal was allowed by Keehan J. HHJ Tolson’s order was set aside. The applications were remitted for a further final hearing, and listed before me for two days on 2 and 3 December 2024, following which I reserved this judgment.

Parties’ positions

[43]Through his counsel, Ms Ecob, the father seeks orders that P live with him and spend every other weekend and half the school holidays with her mother. It is his contention that while she continues to live with her mother, there is no realistic prospect of P returning to school. The father does not say that P should necessarily live with him for the rest of her childhood, but at least for a period of time that will get her established back into a routine of going to school, and so that his relationship with her may be reestablished and repaired.

[44]In the alternative, the father seeks an order that P splits her time between him and her mother fifty-fifty, on a weekly pattern.

[45]The father applies for an independent social worker to be appointed to help P with the transition to her father’s care. He asks that the court does not make final orders, but lists a review hearing in due course.

[46]On behalf of the mother, Ms Godfrey-Lockwood asks that the current order providing for P to live with her mother remains. If she is permitted to enrol P at school in Country A, the mother suggests that P could return to England to see her father twice a term, and he could travel to Country A to see her (and K) up to once a fortnight. If P is to attend school in England, the mother suggests either that there is no order for contact, and it proceeds at P’s own pace, alternatively, that the terms of the existing order should remain in place.

[47]Ms Spratling represents the NYAS guardian. It is submitted that P’s anxiety that she may have to go and live with her father has been a feature of her life since January 2023 when he made his application. The guardian considers the father’s application and the continuation of these proceedings to have been detrimental to the father’s relationship with both his children.

[48]Her recommendation is that the proceedings come to an end, and that an order should be made that P lives with her mother and spends time with her father, as per the existing order. The guardian does not have a strong view as to whether P should go to school in England or Country A, but does consider P should be given agency in the decision. If P were to go to school in Country A, the guardian broadly agrees with the mother’s proposals for P to spend time with her father.

The law

[49]The law is set out at section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The children’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration. The court’s welfare assessment must be informed by an analysis of all the circumstances, with particular reference to the factors in the welfare checklist under s.1(3).

[50]Section 1(2) provides that any delay in determining a question with respect to the upbringing of a child is likely to prejudice the welfare of that child.

[51]Section 1(2A) provides a presumption in favour of both parents being involved in a child’s life unless that is proved to be contrary to the child’s welfare. That involvement need not be equal and may be direct or indirect (s.1(2B)).

The evidence

[52]Over two days I heard evidence from the mother, the father, and the NYAS caseworker.

[53]The court bundle for the final hearing before me was 449 pages, and included six witness statements (three each) from the mother and father, all of which had been filed during the ten week period before the final hearing. These statements are lengthy, and go into detail about specific incidents and interactions that have arisen in that ten week period. Within the bundle for these proceedings are four reports from NYAS and the section 37 report from the local authority.

[54]In addition, I have been provided with the 571 page bundle that was before HHJ Tolson KC on 31 July 2024, and a 2,143 page ‘supplemental bundle’, containing documents from the 2015 proceedings before magistrates, the 2017 proceedings before District Judge Harrison, and the 2021 proceedings before District Judge Harrison.

[55]The impression is that the litigation has become all-consuming for the parents, and that we are now at a stage where almost every interaction P has had with her father or with her school, or with professionals, is liable to be questioned, analysed, turned into a reason for one or the other parent to be criticised, and then written about and fed into the volume of documents that has now amassed in these proceedings.

[56]In one of her reports, the guardian described the parents as being ‘stuck in the fight’. Having read a wealth of statements, reports, the previous judgments, and other miscellaneous documents, and having heard the evidence of mother, father, and the guardian, it does appear that the same issues have arisen again and again over the past ten years since the parents separated. The dynamic between the parents has remained the same, the children have continued to feel under enormous pressure, and increasingly and adversely affected by the ‘mum and dad stress’, and the ongoing court process, but the parents have not been able to find a way out of it. Nor have any social work or other professionals found a way to help them. They are entrenched.

[57]The father gave his evidence determinedly and with confidence. His oral evidence was consistent with his written statements. He had a good recollection for the details of events. I found him to be a reliable witness in respect of those events where he had been present, he answered questions in a straightforward way and was not seeking to get his explanation in first, or second guess the question. There were few disputes over the facts, the issues were around the interpretation of events. When the father described incidents involving the mother or the children, he almost invariably interpreted them in a way that was critical of the mother. When hers or the children’s different perspective of an event were put to him, he seemed quick to reject them.

[58]I found the mother to be a reliable witness. Her oral evidence was consistent with what was contained in her written evidence, and reflected in the notes of conversations she has had with professionals over the years.

[59]The mother continues to be pulled in different directions. Her older daughter and grandchild, her partner, brother, and other members of her support network are in Country A. Her two younger daughters are in England (D is at university), and the mother’s business is here, as well as her home and friends made over twenty-five years of living here. After years of being miserable, K seems to have found a new freedom and happiness in Country A, albeit at the cost of not living in the same country as either of his parents or P. Further, his relationship with his father and wider paternal family is worse than it has ever been and much harder to repair now he is abroad. The mother has tried twice before to seek the Court’s permission to relocate to Country A. This time there is no formal application, but it seems that if P were to go to school in Country A, then her mother would move to Country A too, at least in term times. I have to ask myself whether this is in effect an application to relocate by the back door. The mother assures me that her intention would be for the children to return to England in the holidays, and that she would maintain her business and a home here.

[60]The father argues that the mother has never given up on the idea of moving to Country A, and that she has essentially engineered a situation for her children which has turned them against him, against their schools, and life in England, with a view to ultimately getting her wish to move there with them.

[61]I found the father to be focused on blaming the mother and the children for all the difficulties that have occurred, and unable to focus or reflect on the impact of his own actions upon the children, or even to consider the possibility that the children’s wishes and feelings stemmed from their own experiences of their relationships with him.

[62]The guardian has prepared four reports over the course of the proceedings, has spent time with both children and parents, attended professionals’ meetings, and reviewed a wealth of material. I was impressed by her work, and by the evidence she gave to the Court. I found her reports and the oral evidence she gave to be thorough, founded on a sound evidence base, drawn from a wide range of sources, clear, insightful and wellreasoned. She has established trusting relationships with the children, and I am satisfied that they have both felt able to express their true feelings and opinions to her. I reject the father’s assertion that P does not trust the guardian. More recently, the father has chosen not to engage with the guardian because he does not have trust or confidence in her. In contrast, I have relied on the guardian’s evidence and professional opinion, based as I have found it to be, on a thorough knowledge of the family and its dynamics, drawn from her participation in these proceedings, the child protection conferences and other social work involvement and her professional expertise.

[63]The guardian said in her report that the conflict between the parents affected the children but also the professionals working with the family:

‘The child protection meeting was a very long and difficult meeting with the conflict between the parents being evident. There is also a history of involving professionals in overwhelming correspondence and copying in of professionals in to emails between the parents in which criticism is aimed at the other and seeking of clarification from professionals to get involved in the conflict.’

[64]The guardian identified that this has been ‘mainly from the father’, ‘who has continued to email and message me with his concerns in regards to the children and his understanding on how the mother contributes to these concerns. He has made statements about professionals supporting his viewpoint in meetings that I would dispute as I was at the meeting, and it was not my interpretation of what was said. All this makes it very difficult for the parents to move on as they become so embroiled in their standpoints. It is not the job of the LA or the family courts to micromanage parenting.’

[65]The guardian’s descriptions of the interactions she had with the father chimes with the experience of other professionals, including the children’s teachers, social workers, therapists, the mother, and the children. The children’s teachers have reported that daily missives from the father are exhausting to deal with, and the section 37 reporter had a similar experience.

[66]This is the overwhelming weight of the evidence. It was mirrored in the father’s evidence to the court, in which he presented in the ways they described. He had an intense focus on details of his interactions with their children and their mother. He did not accept their explanations at face value, or even that recollections may differ, and their perception of an event may differ from his, but repeatedly accused them of speaking untruths. He was not able to countenance the idea of bearing some responsibility for the difficulties that have arisen, but only blamed the mother, who he says has continually acted against him.

Welfare checklist

[67]I have had regard to all the circumstances and to each of the welfare checklist factors set out at section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989. (a). the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the children concerned (considered in the light of their age and understanding);

[68]In her report, the guardian said, both children have become more reticent and despondent when they talk to her, they say they have said the same thing over and over again and not been listened to.

[69]K has consistently voiced frustration about his relationship with his father. He has presented as conflicted. The guardian reports, ‘K can be seen to get angry, rude and disparaging about his father, yet will also show a desire to have a closer, more loving relationship with him. He talks frequently about wishing his dad could understand him more and see things from his perspective and it not just being about winning court’.

[70]F told the guardian that his father had told him the judge thought he was a liar and he was extremely angry about this. The guardian reported that K said his father ‘always goes after his mum’ and this upsets him. The guardian reports:

‘[H]e still to this day sees his dad constantly blaming his mother for things and is extremely resentful for in his eyes the fact that the court case is continuing and causing him to have the life of stress that he does have. He wishes that it could all go away and for him to have a normal childhood without court and social workers. K remains cross about his perceived view of the court process and professionals who he was told would help him. He says he does not feel listened to and that the court case is just all about what dad wants. He said that he has had numerous people tell him that they are here to help him but in fact at times they have made it worse. He talks about [contact supervisor] and how his experiences of him being physically manhandled [to go to contact with his father] made him scared and feel worthless.’

[71]Much of what K reported now seems to chime with P’s experiences. She too describes feeling under pressure from her father all the time.

[72]I accept the guardian’s account of P’s wishes and feelings. There is no other evidence to suggest that P does not trust her, or is not being truthful with her. Again, what P has consistently said to the guardian, she has also said to her mother, and to social work professionals and her teachers, and can be seen enacted in many of the conversations through text messages with her father.

[73]I accept the guardian’s analysis, shared by the local authority social worker, that her school refusal stems from her anxieties around her father, and has grown into something bigger. It is the same pattern as with K, that an anxiety about the father coming to school to collect her became an anxiety about going to school at all, and the amount of time she has missed has now compounded that anxiety and made it difficult to get herself over the threshold. Her knowledge that her father will make her go to school even if she feels that she cannot manage it, or that he does not accept that she wants to go but cannot make herself go, rather than that she is being difficult, has made it too hard for her.

[74]I do not accept the father’s case that P tells lies. I do not find that she is wilful or manipulative. I was taken to an example of P asking her mum if she could have a sleepover, and when her mother said no, then asking her father. In that instance she does appear to have played one parent off against another. However, I have not seen evidence to suggest this is a pattern of behaviour. P does not seem to me to be manipulating either of her parents, but rather, seems to be at the mercy of their conflict.

(b) their physical, emotional and educational needs;

[75]Overwhelmingly, P has a need for the emotional pressure she feels from the parental conflict to stop, and she needs certainty about where she is going to live and go to school.

[76]She needs respite from the conflict between her parents, from the court proceedings, and from the intervention of social work professionals.

[77]P is isolated from peers at school, and she misses her brother.

[78]She is developing an increasing sense of injustice that K has managed to escape the situation, that he was given a choice about going to Country A, and that he is now in school and apparently thriving. By contrast, she feels stuck and left behind, dealing with the whole mum and dad stress at home on her own.

[79]It is imperative that she gets back to school. She has missed a huge amount of academic learning and social development. In September 2025 she will be due to start year 9. She has missed a huge amount of the foundations of secondary school. Wherever she goes, she will find herself behind in everything. It will be a challenge to get up to speed and reintegrate herself into school life.

[80]Both children are likely to need counselling and support to help them process their experiences and to recover from them. It is of concern that a repeated theme of conflict has been difficulties in arranging this for the children. The guardian described a frustrating discussion at a child in need meeting in February 2024, when therapy for K was raised: ‘[The mother] said she had found a local therapist, but [the father] would not agree it starting as he said he wanted to speak to the therapist first, and then also said that he had identified possible therapists as well, but they were further away from K’s home. The conversation became increasingly frustrating and eventually I resorted to telling the parents that whoever booked the first appointment for K and got him there, would be the ‘winner’’.

[81]The children need to feel that they are listened to. In my judgement, the father does need to do some work to enable him to at the least contemplate the idea that the children have been trying to express to him their true feelings and to describe the impact of their experiences upon him. The social worker had a conversation with the father in March 2024 in which she described him being ‘dismissive’ of K’s consistently expressed feelings about being physically forced by the contact facilitator to get him to contact:

‘[The father] said that K’s account differed significantly from the facilitator’s but as I pointed out, this was K’s perception of events and perception can seem like reality. [The father] repeatedly said ‘K’s lies’, when I asked if this was true what would be the utility in the psychological/psychiatric assessment that he is so keen to have, he replied that they are trained to know that the truth is. [The father] made clear that social workers and allied professionals do not have the expertise to understand ‘what is really going on for K’, only a psychiatrist/psychologist could do this.’

[82]The social worker considered the father to be preoccupied with the need for the children to be assessed, as if a diagnosis (if there is one) in itself will bring about the positive changes the children need. The father’s application within these proceedings is for an independent social worker to support the transitioning of P into his care, not for an expert to assess or diagnose either of the children. However, this exchange reflects a theme of the father not being willing or able to see things from the children’s perspectives, and of blaming them or calling them liars when the accounts they give differ from his own. (c). the likely effect on them of any change in their circumstances;

[83]Neither of the parties are seeking any further orders in respect of K. It is now settled that he will continue his education in Country A. The current order in force provides for him to spend half his holidays with his father and to see him twice during term time remains in force, but at present the father and K are not spending any time together.

[84]What is the best way to help P out of the miserable situation she is currently in?

[85]On behalf of the father it is said that there must be a change to her current situation. While she has lived with her mother, she has not gone to school. He says this is a consequence of the mother’s style of parenting, and what he says is her agenda to present Country A as the only realistic option for P. The father says that his firmer, more disciplinarian and consistent parenting style is what is needed to support P back into school, and that if P is living with him, without interference from her mother, they will be able to restore and repair their relationship.

[86]Having regard to all the evidence I have heard and read, I do not accept this analysis.

[87]Firstly, the evidence I have seen is that the father is not always consistent with his children, but has been inconsistent, and occasionally capricious.

[88]Secondly, I am not persuaded that the children are not going to school as a result of the mother being too ‘soft’ as a parent, or having any particular agenda. Her two older children have successfully finished their education. The children do not describe her parenting style in this way. They are not saying that she lets them do what they want, rather if they have complaints about her, it is that she has pushed them to going to school or to spend time with their father when they did not want to.

[89]There is more compelling evidence that the children’s difficulties with going to school started as a result of anxieties about spending time with their father, or anxieties around the parental conflict. I accept the guardian’s analysis that P’s current and overbearing worry arises from the father’s application to this Court in January 2023 for orders that she should move to live with him. She does not want to do this, and it is a constant source of worry for her that she may be made to. When she was told in the summer that the Court had ordered a transfer of residence, her distress was immediate. Her mother and the NYAS caseworker have reported that P’s emotional well-being has deteriorated.

[90]The application for P to go to Country A has come in at the last minute. There is not a huge amount of information before the Court about the mother’s plans. P speaks the language of Country A but does not read and write it well. She has not been in school for two years at a crucial stage of her social and academic development, and her attendance at school was poor even before then.

[91]P says she would like to go to school in Country A. Her main motivation seems to be that it will be an escape from her current situation. She sees that it has been beneficial for K. She feels resentful that he has been given a choice to go to Country A, whereas she has been left on her own dealing with the same pressures she has felt for a long time. She does not herself have a clear idea of what life might be like for her at her new school. She is perhaps in an ‘anything is better than this’ state of mind, rather than positively identifying the specific things about Country A that would be good for her, or seeing challenges she might have to overcome.

[92]Having said that, she has spent a lot of time in Country A with her mother, has family and friends there, importantly K, who has provided a template for what her life might be like if she were to move there too. Her older sister D moved to Country A and started school aged thirteen, potentially offering another template for her to follow.

[93]P would be living in a different country from her father. She would be aware that this is not what he wanted for her. She may feel responsible for the impact that may have on their relationship. On any view, if she is not seeing her father regularly, the nature of their relationship will change.

[94]There is a risk that the father will find it difficult to manage this change well for P. She has felt acutely conscious of his wish for her to move to live with him, or at least to spend more time with him, and has said to him many times that she feels she is letting him down by not seeing him or not going to school. She has also reported that her father has let her know of his disappointment by ‘blanking her’.

[95]K has reported to the guardian that he has felt his father has, ‘not been bothered about him since he went to Country A. K reported that his father had not contacted him or visited him or asked him about how he was doing. The father accepted in evidence that he had not got in touch with K after he started at school in Country A to offer any words of encouragement or enquiry. The guardian’s note of what K said is as follows:

‘He said that he had been really upset when his parent had both come with him to Country A, he said that his father had not been positive at all and kept asking K how he was going to financially support himself whilst he was in Country A, which K said he felt was strange. He said it was my birthday and it could have been a good day but dad did not acknowledge it was my birthday at all. He said he did not [wish him happy birthday] and that he hadn’t even brought him a card let alone a present. … he said that he did speak to him about this on the phone later and they had ended up arguing. He said that his dad had said he would send him some money for his birthday but that he had then refused to put it in his bank account and said I will give it you when I see you. He said his dad had said that K only ever spoke to him when he wanted something, which K said was hurtful as he believed that it was him that tried to keep contact with his dad and his dad had not contacted him re how he was getting on, or his sport or how he had settled.’

[96]There is a risk that if P went to school in Country A, the father may find it difficult to support her and show enthusiasm and interest in her new school.

[97]If the Court did not permit P to go to school in Country A, then the situation would revert to what it has been. She would remain in England, with an order in place that she should spend a certain amount of time with her father. The decision about her schooling would still be fraught and up in the air, left to her parents to resolve.

[98]There have been numerous attempts to agree a way forward which have hit the buffers. For example: - It took some time for the parents to agree on a ‘high conflict therapist’. In the end they attended a couple of sessions, but the father ended the sessions as he was not happy with the therapist’s approach; - The local authority suggested a written parental agreement with clear expectations in relation to the parents’ behaviour and conduct, but the father did not feel able to sign up to it; - It was suggested to the father that P’s anxiety about going to school was connected to a worry that the father would collect her from school and then try to persuade her to stay with him or live with him. The mother proposed that she collect P every day and drop her round at her father’s for contact on his days. The father did not agree, because he felt this would be giving control to P. He felt this was not the best way to ensure she went to school.

[99]Having heard evidence from both parents and the guardian, and having reviewed the long history in this case, it is difficult to see things improving in the future if P remains enrolled at school in this country, without a clear and agreed plan of support around her. (d). their age, sex, background and any characteristics which the court considers relevant;

[100]P is twelve. The parental dispute has defined and has overshadowed her whole childhood, as it has K’s. There is a pressing need for change. (e). any harm which they have suffered or are at risk of suffering;

[101]I find that both K and P have suffered, and are at continuing risk of suffering, significant emotional harm as a consequence of the ongoing parental conflict and the impact it has had on both of their lives. (f). how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;

[102]Each of the parents is well capable of managing the day-to-day needs of their children.

[103]The continuation of the parental conflict has wreaked havoc on their children’s emotional well-being.

[104]Throughout this judgment I have levelled more criticism in the direction of the father than mother. That is not to say that the mother is without fault, nor that all responsibility for the present situation lies with the father. It is not my intention to identify all their respective strengths and weaknesses, nor to compare, or rate them as parents. The children are currently more aligned to their mother and their relationship with their father is difficult, but it is clear that in the past he has been fully involved in their lives. They have shared in many happy memories together, he has taken an interest in what they are interested in, and he is invested in wanting the best for them.

[105]My focus is on P’s current needs and the capacity of each of the parents to meet those needs.

[106]With all due respect to HHJ Tolson, I have come to a different view than he did about the reasons behind P’s (and K’s) school refusal, and the approach that should now be taken.

[107]I do not consider that P is being wilful and needs a firmer hand. I do not consider that P’s non-attendance at school arises out of the mother’s approach to parenting or that it is the result of an agenda she has been pursuing with a view to directing the children’s attention towards school in Country A. I have had regard to the evidence of the parents, and the guardian.

[108]School refusal is complex. Once a child has missed a significant time off school it becomes harder and harder to go back, because they are confronted with all that they have missed and will need to catch up on, both academically and socially. Every day that task in itself becomes more overwhelming, and the anxiety supersedes, or compounds, whatever the original reason for struggling to go to school was in the first place. Supporting a child in this situation is difficult because the anxiety is a moving target. It is a dynamic situation. Neither K or P’s schools in England, nor social services have found a way to support the children back to school.

[109]In my judgment the mother has shown herself to be sympathetic and supportive of P. I find that she has done all she reasonably can to support P to go to school. I do find that the mother finds herself now somewhat at a loss. I do not accept that P, and K before her, did not go to school because their mother’s parenting style was too permissive or soft. The mother can do little without attracting the criticism of the father. His witness statements are relentlessly negative about her. The guardian reports, and I accept, that he ‘makes frequent negative comments about [the mother] in a way that she does not do about him, at least in conversation with me and meetings.’

[110]I find that the overwhelming majority of the father’s criticisms raised at the hearing were not warranted. I do not find that buying new bedroom furniture for P was an attempt to bribe her. It was not unreasonable of the mother to refuse to send the family dog to the father’s house so that P could be persuaded to stay overnight. I was told of a number of occasions when P had been spending time with her father in an unplanned way, and the father had then criticised the mother for trying to draw contact to a close. On one occasion P was sitting with her father in his car on the driveway of her mother’s house until past eleven o’clock at night. He expressed resentment that she had sent her older daughter out to call P in. The guardian gave an example of him being invited to the mother’s home to come and spend time with P in her room and in the garden, but he complained that the mother had told him it was time to leave in front of P. The guardian commented that as there was no previously agreed time to the visit or way of drawing it to a close, it was unfair to criticise the mother for this. I agree.

[111]Having had regard to all the evidence I have heard and read, I do not find that the mother has been actively working to influence the children against their father. I have had regard to the Family Justice Council’s guidance on responding to a child’s unexplained reluctance or refusal to spend time with a parent, and allegations of alienating behaviour.

[112]In order to conclude that alienating behaviours had occurred, the court would need to be satisfied that the following three elements are established: 1) The child is reluctant, resisting or refusing to engage in, a relationship with a parent or carer; and 2) The reluctance, resistance or refusal is not consequent on the actions of that parent towards the child or the other parent, which may therefore be an appropriate justified rejection by the child, or is not caused by any other factor such as the child’s alignment, affinity or attachment; and 3) the other parent has engaged in behaviours that have directly or indirectly impacted on the child, leading to the child’s reluctance, resistance or refusal to engage in a relationship with that parent.

[113]P is not refusing to engage in a relationship with her father, but the overwhelming evidence is that she is conflicted. She loves him, wants his praise and approval, and cares deeply about him, but she experiences the relationship as pressurising and stressful. This has led to reluctance on her part to spend time with him on her own, or to stay the night with him. So there is reluctance and resistance to engage in the relationship with her father, but not refusal.

[114]I find that P’s reluctance and resistance is a direct consequence of the ways in which her father engages with her. There is a likely alignment, affinity and attachment to her mother, however, I do not find that the mother has engaged in behaviours that have directly or indirectly impacted on P so as to lead to her reluctance or resistance in engaging in a relationship with her father.

[115]The mother has presented as more reflective, more flexible, more proactive, more creative, and more responsive to her children. Her assessment of the children’s relationship with their father essentially mirrors what the children say about it, not because they are taking their lead from her, but, as I find, because she has listened to the children, and understood what they are saying, and her experience of the father has been similar to the children. They speak with one voice, not because she is directing them, but because they have shared the same experience of him. Nonetheless, the guardian described the mother a number of times as ‘at a loss’, and that did indeed seem to be the case. I find that the mother has tried very hard to promote contact between the children and their father, to facilitate them spending time together, and to get them to school. But nothing has worked and she has run out of ideas.

[116]The information that we have from P is that she wants to go to school. She is bored and fed up at home. Her mother says she gets her uniform out every night, that she has every intention of going, but when it comes to it, she has not been able to follow through and go. I have seen text messages in which her father has been encouraging and tells her that he is proud of her when she tells him that she is planning to go to school the following day. I appreciate that it is very difficult to continue to encourage a child to school when you are not living with them, and that daily messages can over time appear to be pressurising. However, I do find that the father has not been consistent in his approach to P, and that this has impacted on her emotionally. When she has felt that his support and love for her is waning, it has been hard for her to go to school.

[117]P was extremely distressed following the Court’s decision at the end of July 2024 that she should go and live with her father, notwithstanding that she had repeatedly and consistently expressed that she does not want this. She did not see her father over the summer holidays. She told the guardian that she knew he was mad at her for not spending the holidays with him. She has said that the reason she did not go was that she was worried he would take her away. The guardian reports that P said they did video call each other, but her father pressured her on these calls about seeing him, and moving to live with him.

[118]The father described to me in evidence having intense and lengthy calls with P in the small hours of the morning when she could not sleep. While he described them as offering her support, I was concerned that the mother had not been aware of these calls, that they did not seem conducive to setting boundaries and helping her sleep so as to get into a routine of getting up and going to school. The father may not see it that way, but these intense calls are pressurising for P.

[119]I have seen a lot of messages between P and her father where he is loving, affectionate and reassuring, and she reciprocates with loving messages which show closeness and true affection. It might be said that sometimes when she tells him that she has no friends at school or is not popular, he immediately denies it, but one can see his intentions are well-meant; he is trying to buoy her up. It is apparent that she is very clear that he wants to see her more and to go to school and she is often seen to try to reassure him that she will do better.

[120]However, there are also periods of time where there are gaps, or where the messages point to difficulties.

[121]To compound the difficulties of the summer, in late August 2024 the father’s dog was terminally ill. Both children were worried and concerned for the dog, and for their father, who they knew loved the dog dearly, as did they.

[122]P did manage to go to school three days in a row at the start of term in September (Wednesday 4 September). Because of the difficulties arising out of the Court case and P not seeing her father over the summer, the father did not send P messages of support or encouragement in the days leading up to that, nor once she had started, a text message or communicate in any way that she had done well, or say anything else to encourage her. Nor did he send her updates about the dog. P felt he was blanking her because he was not happy with her for not seeing him, and because she had managed to go to school while with her mother rather than him. She told the guardian, that this is what happened when you didn’t do what dad wanted. The guardian reported P as saying, ‘this is why it was so difficult, if you didn’t do things dad’s way he could make things difficult and pressure you. She said it is just too hard and confusing at times’.

[123]P had been trying to contact her father over the weekend before term started but he had not answered the phone.

[124]On Thursday 5 September she sent him messages saying, ‘How [dog], ‘I want to know’, ‘Can you just reply’, and then, ‘Omfg’ (oh my fucking god). Her father responded over an hour later, ‘P I am not responding to your rude texts.’ P replied, I just want to know how she is. The response, ‘she’s the same’. There were no further texts for over a week and it was P who again reached out first, ‘dad’. The impression of the father is that he is somewhat petulant, acting more as a child than a parent, not able to put himself in P’s shoes, think about what is going on for her and what he might to do provide support and reassurance.

[125]On 5 September the father called the school and P was aware there was some discussion taking place over who was picking her up. There was then an issue over whether P was going to stay with her father that first weekend.

[126]In his witness statement the father says that he received five missed calls from P on Sunday 8 September. He says he called her back and spent ten minutes talking. His recollection is as follows:

‘I asked her why she did not go into school for matches on Saturday and P said she just wanted to relax. I told P I was proud of her for going in for 3 days but she needed to be consistent and go in every day as she would miss out on training and matches and P said ok but changed the subject. We then talked about our last conversation 8 days when P was abusive towards me.’

[127]P did not return to school on the Monday morning. I do not underestimate the challenge for both these parents in supporting and encouraging P. However, even on his own account, it was P who called her father five times before he returned her call. While he did say he was proud of her, it appears that was followed up immediately by him setting an expectation for her, and then discussion of a time when he was disappointed in her behaviour towards him. It is not difficult to see that P may have felt a certain amount of pressure from her father as a result.

[128]After the father’s dog died, K posted a message on Instagram some photos of the dog and a message saying, ‘love you [dog] you deserved better.’ This was met with what I can only describe as a vicious response from his grandmother, who sent him a message saying, ‘how dare you post comments like ‘you deserve better’ Your dad has loved and cared for the dog for these past seven years. You have chosen to have nothing to do with the dog for the last two years you knew nothing about her illness. You are without doubt the most selfish, insensitive, stranger to the truth. Your day of reckoning is not far off. Granny and Gramps.’ K bravely tried to defend himself, replying, ‘I’m sorry you feel that way but all I meant is that she deserved to live a longer life. Her death had nothing to do with dad it was the dog sitter and I asked all the time about how she is and all I got was she not going very well no details.’

[129]There was no further message. The father did not take steps to mediate or to check up on K to see if he was ok. When asked about this in evidence, the father defended his mother, and was not able to reflect on what it might have been like for K to receive such a message. Rather, he said K ‘knew exactly what he was doing’. He told me the previous day K had criticised him for not saving the dog’s life and had been ‘incredibly aggressive’ saying words to the effect of how dare he think about putting the dog down. The father said to me in evidence, ‘how dare he write something like that’, and it had been ‘the last straw’ for his mother. Later he said that while he would not have used the language, he thought his mother’s ‘sentiment was probably true’. To me this was an illustration of the father being unable to contemplate things from K’s point of view, and to be unable to manage challenge from K, or to explore the emotions that would likely lie behind any words said in anger, if K had criticised his father.

[130]I highlight these interactions as an illustration that at a difficult time for all, the father does not appear to have been able to prioritise the children’s emotional wellbeing. He was not able to take any steps to shore up P as she started the new term at school, not able to reassure her and comfort her about the dog, nor could he offer emotional support to K around the dog’s death, or help him deal with the message from his grandparents.

[131]On the basis of the evidence I have heard and read, I do not consider that the father has consistently been able to prioritise the children’s emotional welfare before his own needs. While the actions he has taken have been with a view to achieving outcomes that he regards as in the children’s best interests, I find that he has not been able to contemplate different perspectives than his own about what those best interests are. He has shared a goal of promoting the children’s best interests, but he has not been able to work constructively with the mother or with a host of professionals in order to achieve that.

[132]Nothing he said in his written or oral evidence demonstrated to me that he is approaching a point of reflection, of taking responsibility for his role in the difficulties caused, of being willing to listen to the children’s perspective, or taking a more flexible approach to meeting their needs.

[133]He remains hyper-focused on attributing responsibility to the mother.

[134]The children could not be saying any more clearly that it is the pressure they have felt from their father that has caused the difficulties they have experienced. (g). the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question.

[135]Having regard to all the circumstances, I have concluded that there needs to be a substantial change to the current situation. The order made in 2017 and reaffirmed in 2021 is not working for P, nor for her brother. P is suffering and she is desperate for a change to her current situation.

[136]Despite the difficulties over the arrangements to spend time with him, and the pressure she has felt from him, P and her father have a loving relationship. But on any view P’s relationship with her father is in peril. It is my view that the relationship can only be nurtured and sustained if P is given some breathing space.

[137]For the reasons explored within this judgment, I do not consider that making an order providing that P should go and live with her father would be workable, or in her best interests. The father is not in a position to meet her needs at this time. I do not consider it likely that he would be better able to ‘get her to school’ than the mother. It is arguable that if P were living with him he would have ‘won’ and the pressure she has felt from him might then go away as he would no longer be pressurising her on the question of where she lives. However, history has shown that conflict has arisen in respect of almost every aspect of co-parenting these children.

[138]Whatever the amount of time she was spending with her father, I find that it is highly likely, almost certain, that P will continue to feel the intense pressure she has been feeling for the past two years. Conflicts will arise over her schooling, over the times she spends with her father, over the activities she does, the messages she sends, what she says to others, will all be liable to be picked up on, picked over and talked about. The situation is stuck in the patterns of the past. There must be a fundamental change in order for things to improve.

[139]A shared care arrangement, with P spending half her time with her mother and half with her father, would in my judgment be likely to increase the level of stress for P. She would become the embodiment of her parents’ conflict, pushed and pulled between them on a weekly basis.

[140]I have some reservations about an order that will give permission to the mother to enrol P at school in Country A. I am not sure how well-prepared P is and have some concern that she has an expectation that it will be ‘easy’ and ‘better’ just by virtue of being a change, without a real understanding of the challenges she will face. She may also feel a pressure to make a success of it, as she perceives K has, and blame herself if things do not go as easily as she hopes they will.

[141]However, having weighed all the factors in the balance, I have come to the view that this would be the order that best meets P’s welfare. I consider that the approach earlier adopted by HHJ Tolson with regard to K, which has led to a reasonably successful outcome for him, is the one most likely to bring about a positive change for P. I agree with the analysis of the guardian, that restoring some agency to P is the best way forward. This option shows P that her wishes and feelings are understood, and heeded.

[142]The mother’s proposals are realistic. She has an established network of family and friends in Country A. P and K would be reunited if P was at school in Country A. P would also have the opportunity to spend time with her older sister and her family. The mother has a home and a business in England, and her daughter D lives and studies here. I accept her evidence that she will maintain a base here for the children even if they are both at school in Country A. For the past twenty-five years she has managed life for her family across the two countries, with some of her children in Country A and some in the UK.

[143]Country A has much to offer. P speaks the language of Country A. She has seen her brother successfully navigate his first term at school in Country A. P has an existing network of family and friends in Country A and this would provide her with the fresh start she has said she desperately needs. Her older sister D followed a similar path and can offer guidance and support. The move would free P from ‘the mum and dad stress’ that has been plaguing her for so long. She would be able to continue to see her father and the wider paternal family in holidays and for weekends during term time, either in England or Country A.

[144]It will be a challenge to integrate into a new school in Country A and to build a new life for herself there. However, the challenge to find a school in England and to establish herself there at this time is no less daunting. In many ways it represents a tougher option for her, because ‘the mum and dad stress’ will still be there.

[145]I am mindful of the risks to her relationship with her father and extended paternal family, but for reasons given, regard that relationship as at significant risk if the plan for P was to find another school for her in England. The parties are all agreed that if P was going to school in Country A she would spend time regularly with her father. In this way their relationship can be sustained and nurtured. I would hope that the father will be able to find a way to accept P going to school in Country A, to support her, show interest and encouragement, and to reassure her that he remains committed to her and does not blame her for it. In those circumstances, there is every chance that their relationship will proceed on a better footing than it is now. I hope that he may also be able to find a way back to a relationship with K.

[146]The father’s proposal requires the Court proceedings to continue for longer, and arrangements be subject to review. There is a pressing need for the children to have certainty around the arrangements and for the proceedings to come to an end as soon as possible, so that the children can have the opportunity to adjust to their new circumstances, and to settle into them.

[147]Having regard to all the circumstances, and weighing the different options for P in the balance, I have concluded that the order that P lives with her mother should remain in place, and that mother should be permitted to facilitate P attending school in Country A.

[148]The parties’ representatives have helpfully prepared a table setting out their positions on the arrangements for P to spend time with each parent depending on the orders made. There is broad agreement that if she is at school in Country A, P could see her father around once or twice a month, and for half the school holidays. The mother suggests that she would return with P to England once per half term, and that the father could visit in Country A up to once a fortnight during term time. I do not know the term dates or timings of school days in Country A to enable me to be specific about this. I would hope the parties will be able to resolve this in discussions, but can revisit when judgment is handed down if need be.

[149]As with K, I understand that the parties are agreed that P’s habitual residence will remain in England even if she goes to school in Country A.

[150]No party has invited me to make a section 91(14) order, and so it is not a sanction I will impose on the parties. I hope however that the parties may agree, as they have done in the past, that they will be slow to bring any future disputes back to Court, and will explore other means of dispute resolution first.

[151]The father does not pursue his application for a psychologist, which will be recorded as withdrawn. The application for an independent social worker stands and falls with his application to spend either half or most of her time living with him. That is not the option I have judged to be in P’s best interests, so the social worker is not necessary. For the avoidance of doubt, a further professional opinion is not needed, nor is it a good idea for the children to have to see another social worker or be asked to repeat what they have said before, and, as already mentioned, an extension to these proceedings is contrary to their welfare.

[152]I will write to K and to P to tell them of my decision and the reasons for it. It should be the guardian who shares the letters with the children and tells them about the outcome of the case.

[153]I wish each of the parents and the children the very best for the future. HHJ Joanna Vincent161. Family Court, Reading

162. Draft judgment sent 27 January 2025 Approved judgment sent 7 February 2025