‘My family’s home has 8 bedrooms. My mother, aunt, grandmother, 6 siblings and my aunt’s 4 children live in the home. We were 6 of us in one bedroom. My mother, my one sister and myself had one bedroom with the children. There were 3 beds in the room.’
‘It is clear that the children have been exposed to domestic abuse including verbal and physical abuse between their parents. Father has maintained that they did argue but denies ever assaulting [the mother]. He felt that he has been under pressure financially due to him opening a shop, which has caused tension in the home.’
‘I believe that there has been on going domestic abuse in the home and I believe that as the family are not willing to access support services to address the issues within their relationship, this is something that may continue, thus placing the children at risk of emotional harm. However it is my view that at this stage there is no threshold for progressing the case to initial child protection conference however the family are not willing to work with care under a child in need plan. However mother has agreed to work with the local children's centre, who will be able to support her regarding social isolation, finances and visa. Additional workers will also be able to provide support regarding domestic abuse.’
‘Domestic abuse seems to be a re-occurring factor in [the] marriage which is likely to have a negative impact on the children and their sense of security. If parents do not change how they manage their differences or disputes then this could result in the situation escalating and the children being exposed to domestic incidents in the future. Subsequently, the children's safety needs will not be met by parents and the children are likely to be at risk of emotional and physical harm. Furthermore, [the father] has not taken any responsibility for the physical violence he has caused to [the mother] and has minimised and deflected this when challenged by CSWS. This raises concern around [the father’s] ability to work openly with professionals. Observations of [the father] during the assessment are positive. He has spoken about how he tried to take steps towards managing difficult situations around the house when verbal arguments ensued between him and [the mother].’
‘[The mother] needs to be able to manage her anger around the children as this is likely to result in unpredictable parenting responses which could impact on the children emotionally. [The father] has voiced concerns around [the mother] presenting as angry and observations made of [the mother] during visits do reflect her frustration. [The mother's] anger and frustration may be further exacerbated because she has limited access to support networks and family and not much independency. A positive of the assessment is that [the father] has been supportive of [the mother] accessing external agencies and has spoken about how he has encouraged [the mother] to attend the doctors about her anger himself which [the mother] has confirmed. [The mother] has agreed to accessing external services would like to attend the ESOL course. She reports that her husband is supportive of this which doesn’t suggest that he isn't (sic) [this should read ‘is’] controlling towards her or restricting her from accessing support social networks.’
‘We came back here because we could not do anything, you used to jump back then. You were destroying everything, that’s why I took you back, your father also said that do not take her back, and I made you live here, I did not leave you, used to send you money as well. I was serving you, used to come home, and everything.’
‘I made you live here so that your health could improve, you could understand about the family and everything. You were demanding for divorce there and freedom. When I used to ask about the reason, you replied that you do not want to live with me.’
‘Lord Wilson’s analogy and his other observations were directed simply to the expectation that the acquisition of a new habitual residence would be likely to coincide with the loss of the previous habitual residence. He did not intend to alter the key question which, in every case, is: where is the child habitually resident? Even though the acquisition of a new habitual residence can be expected to coincide with the loss of the previous one, hence the see-saw analogy, this issue is not determined by asking simply the question whether a child has lost their habitual residence. In addition to the passages I have quoted above, this is clear from his observation, at [46], that “the identification of a child’s habitual residence is overarchingly a question of fact” and from the balancing exercise he undertook, at [49] and [50].’
‘while Lord Wilson’s see-saw analogy can assist the court when deciding the question of habitual residence, it does not replace the core guidance given in A v A and other cases to the approach which should be taken to the determination of the habitual residence. This requires an analysis of the child’s situation in and connections with the state or states in which he or she is said to be habitually resident for the purpose of determining in which state he or she has the requisite degree of integration to mean that their residence there is habitual. Further, the analogy needs to be used with caution because if it is applied as though it is the test for habitual residence it can, as in my view is demonstrated by the present case, result in the court’s focus being disproportionately on the extent of a child’s continuing roots or connections with and/or on an historical analysis of their previous roots or connections rather than focusing, as is required, on the child’s current situation (at the relevant date). This is not to say continuing or historical connections are not relevant but they are part of, not the primary focus of, the court’s analysis when deciding the critical question which is where is the child habitually resident and not, simply, when was a previous habitual residence lost.’