B v C [2016] EWHC 1462 (Fam)

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, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.Case No LS13P08829[2016] EWHC 1462 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 20/06/2016
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KEEHAN
Between
BApplicantCRespondent
Ms Markham QC for ApplicantC appearing in person for in person
JudgmentMr Justice Keehan :
[1]This supplemental judgment should be read with my judgment of 18 March 2016 and the order I made on 20 April 2016.[2]This supplemental judgment is given at the request of the mother in light of the father’s recently made application in Israel for custody of A. I note the father(i) does not accept the assertion of the mother and(ii) objects to my handing down a supplementary judgment. The mother asserts that in his application the father has submitted that this court failed to address the issue of his contact with A at the hearing on 20 April 2016.[3]Notwithstanding the father’s objection, I consider it would be helpful for me to provide this short judgment clarifying my earlier judgment and the court order of 20 April 2016. By giving this supplemental judgment to clarify my earlier judgment and order I recognise the Israeli courts are now seized of this matter and I do not seek to trespass on their jurisdiction over the same.[4]Having heard evidence and submissions over the course of two days I decided that: i) A should live with his mother; ii) the mother was permitted to relocate with A to live in Israel; and iii) the issue of the father’s contact was adjourned to allow the parties time to agree the issue of contact, failing which the issue was to be determined by me at a later hearing.[5]In the course of the judgment I contemplated that the father might decide to move to live in Israel. At paragraph 32 I said:
“For those reasons I propose to grant the mother permission to make an application to relocate. Pending a finalised order, I grant permission to the mother to take A to Israel so that she may assist her mother caring for and nursing her father. Once the issue of contact has been agreed or ordered and a final order drawn, I will grant permission to the mother to relocate permanently to Israel with A. ”
[6]The parties could not agree on the nature or frequency of the father’s contact and the matter was restored to be heard by me on 20 April 2016. At that hearing I heard oral submissions by Ms Markham QC, appearing on behalf of the mother, and by the father, now appearing in person. I was told that the father was going to move to live in Israel. He proposed to live, at least initially, at his parents’ home which is, I was told, some 100 km from where the mother lived.[7]Accordingly when coming to a decision on the issue of the father’s contact with A I had very well in mind and took account of the fact the father would be living in Israel and contact would take place in Israel. The previous orders for A to spend time with his father were superseded by the order for contact I made on 20 April 2016. The provisions for the father to spend time with A were detailed and comprehensive as set out in paragraph 3 of the order, with detailed consequential or ancillary provisions set out in paragraphs 4 to 11 of the order.[8]I came to the conclusion that A living with his mother in Israel and spending time with his father as provided for in the order of 20 April was in the welfare best interests of A.