G (No 2) (A Child: Return from USA), Re [2025] EWHC 1224 (Fam)

[2025] EWHC 1224 (Fam)

Case No GU24P07346

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY DIVISION

Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date 21 May 2025

Before

MR JUSTICE PEEL

Hearing Hearing date: 15 May 2025

Re G (No 2) (A Child: Return from USA)

The mother appeared in person remotely

The father appeared in person remotely

The child, through her Guardian, appeared represented by Solicitor from Cafcass Legal, Christopher Osborne

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 21 May 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

.............................

MR JUSTICE PEEL

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.

Mr Justice Peel :

[1]I shall refer to the parties as the mother and father. They have two children, L who was born in June 2007 and is just shy of 18, and G who was born in June 2010 and is just shy of 15.

[2]This is the hearing of an application by the mother dated 6 October 2024 for G, who has been living in the United States with F since August 2024, to be returned to England. A circuit judge determined on 6 March 2025 that the application should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction on the basis that G was not habitually resident in England and Wales. The mother successfully appealed that decision, which was reversed by Harrison J on 9 April 2025. He concluded that this court does have jurisdiction. Among other directions, he joined G to the proceedings via a Guardian, and directed a wishes and feelings report.

[3]The father opposes the application, certainly at this stage. He says that there should be a more extensive welfare enquiry before the court considers whether or not to make a return order.

[4]The Guardian states that “A return order would be in line with G’s ascertainable wishes and feelings” but does not give a wider welfare view, given the limited scope of her wishes and feelings report and the short time since her appointment pursuant to the order of Harrison J. She has significant concerns about delaying the resolution of this case by commissioning further assessments before determining the application.

[5]It was necessary for me to determine the scope of the inquiry at this hearing, and the extent to which oral evidence was required. I had in mind: i) Re NY (A Child)

[2019] UKSC 49

;

[2020] AC 665

where at paras 56-63 Lord Wilson suggested consideration should be given to eight interlinked factors when deciding how summary, or circumscribed, the application for a return order needs to be. Ultimately, the court must, as stated in the third factor, when considering the child’s welfare, make a decision “on the individual facts as to how extensive that enquiry should be”. ii) Re A and B (Children: Summary Return: Non-Convention State)

[2022] EWCA Civ 1664

, where Moylan LJ said at para 72: “As in all welfare decisions, the extent of the court's inquiry and the court's determination of what order to make will depend on the facts of the particular case”.

[6]Both the mother and the father attended remotely. They were courteous and composed, and I express my thanks to both of them. Similarly, I am grateful to the Guardian and solicitor from Cafcass Legal on her behalf.

[7]I decided not to hear oral evidence from the mother or father, but did hear from the Guardian. In part, this because there are allegations of domestic abuse, and on the face of it QLRs should be appointed, but to follow this course would lead to a lengthy delay which is contrary to G’s interests. Further, the written evidence provided, in my judgment, ample material for me to evaluate what order should be made. I have before me a bundle of nearly 600 pages, which incorporates I think all the documents which were before Harrison J. I have the benefit of the Guardian’s report as to wishes and feelings. I have recent statements from the mother, the father and the father’s wife. Moreover, as will become apparent, the issue in this case is not so much the history, but the current views of G, albeit those views must be viewed in the context of all the circumstances. All parties were content with this approach which I canvassed with them at the outset.

[8]The key issues therefore are: i) Whether to make a final determination today or provide for a more wide ranging welfare inquiry to take place at a later date. ii) If I make a final determination today, whether it should be to grant the application for a return order or dismiss it. The background

[9]I take the essential background from a recent judgment given by Harrison J, which he described (and I concur) as a “worrying picture”.

[10]The father is now aged nearly 61 and the mother is aged 54. L and G are the parties’ only two children although the father was previously married and has two adult children by that marriage from whom he is estranged.

[11]The parties began a relationship in or about 2006. They decided to separate in 2020, but it appears that as a result of the Covid pandemic they remained living together in the same household despite their relationship having ended. By 2022 there were serious tensions in the household which had an impact upon the children.

[12]In May 2022 the family were referred to the local authority, Surrey County Council, by the children’s school. L had alleged that the mother shouted at the father every day and that she had been physical to both children. Social services made enquiries and determined that this was ‘inappropriate chastisement’ but did not consider that it met the threshold for intervention. L made a further similar allegation in June 2022 to her Stagecoach teacher. This led to an assessment being undertaken by social services, but no action was taken and the case was closed on 25 August 2022.

[13]At some point in August 2022 the mother moved out of the spacious family home. The children remained living there with the father.

[14]On 26 September 2022, there was a serious incident when G took an overdose of Ibuprofen tablets in an attempt to take her own life. This resulted in her being hospitalised. The mother visited G at the hospital. While she was there she made an allegation that the father had been abusive during their relationship. Soon afterwards the mother moved to a refuge with G.

[15]On 27 September 2022, another referral was made to the local authority. This appears to have been triggered by G’s suicide attempt and also by an allegation from L that the father had assaulted her, leaving marks. A child protection enquiry was initiated pursuant to section 47 of the Children Act 1989.

[16]On 29 September 2022, consequent upon the mother’s move to the refuge with G, the father made an urgent application for a child arrangements order. He alleged that G had been removed from hospital without his knowledge or consent.

[17]On 17 November 2022, G returned to live with the father. The mother remained in the refuge. Eventually she was to move to her own accommodation, a small two-bedroom flat.

[18]On 17 November 2022, the day of G’s move back to her father, the mother obtained an order for a port alert. She alleged that the father intended imminently to remove the children from the jurisdiction.

[19]On 25 November 2022, the local authority completed its section 47 investigation. It concluded that the children were at risk of significant harm in the care of the father. The assessment highlighted a number of concerns about his parenting. These included his consumption of alcohol and the fact that he allowed alcohol and cannabis to be consumed at home by the children.

[20]On 8 December 2022, a Child Protection conference was held at which the children were made the subject of a Child Protection Plan under the category of neglect. The father had refused to engage with Children’s Services during the assessment and refused to acknowledge the plan.

[21]In January 2023 there was a further serious incident when L was admitted to hospital after taking an overdose.

[22]Thereafter, L made an allegation that during a party which took place at the father’s home she had been raped. The father had been at home at the time, but L had to call the police to stop the party. The allegation resulted in a police investigation and L was subject to an ABE interview. L went on to retract her allegation.

[23]On 26 January 2023, the urgent application which the father had issued four months previously came before the court. By this stage the father was seeking orders for the children to live with him and for permission to remove the children permanently to the USA. He had formed a relationship with a woman in the USA, and he wanted to move to be with her. Directions were given, including for Cafcass to undertake the process of safeguarding.

[24]On 22 March 2023, DJ Bishop made various directions. These included orders for the local authority to prepare two reports pursuant to sections 7 and 37 of the Children Act 1989. The section 37 report was ordered as it appeared to the court that it might be appropriate to make care or supervision orders.

[25]On 21 April 2023, Surrey County Council completed its section 37 report. This recorded its involvement with the family and set out the parties’ respective allegations against the other. The report concluded by making clear that the local authority did not support the father’s applications. It was recommended that an order be made providing for the children to live with the mother on the basis that the local authority would provide support under the existing Child Protection Plan. It also recommended a defined contact order in the father’s favour. The section 7 report was filed a month later on 19 June 2023 by the same social worker. It expressed the same conclusions. An addendum report was later prepared on 11 July 2023: the conclusions were the same.

[26]On 20 July 2023, an order was made providing for the parties to share the care of the children. An order was made for the matter to be listed for final hearing on the first available date after 28 August 2023. In fact, it seems that thereafter the children lived with the father, and had limited contact with the mother.

[27]On 28 November 2023 a further updated section 7 report was prepared. Its conclusions were different from those reached before: i) The report recommended that both children should relocate to the USA with the father. ii) Both G and L said clearly that they wanted to live in the USA with the father and his wife. iii) Separating L and G would be contrary to their interests in the light of their strong bond. The author of the report expressed concerns about both parties’ parenting skills, but concluded that the expressed wishes of the children (particularly L, then aged 16) and the importance of not separating the siblings was the prevailing factor.

[28]It appears that the matter next came substantively before the court for a final hearing on 3 June 2024. A consent order was made providing for the children to live with the father and allowing him to remove them to the USA.

[29]It is, in my view, entirely unsurprising that HHJ Raeside approved the consent order in the light of the history, the children’s wishes and the updated s7 report. It is hard to see how she could have reached any other conclusion.

[30]The mother asserts that the father represented to her and to the court on 3 June 2024 that he had already secured visas to facilitate his proposed relocation. The section 7 report records him making clear that he would be able to secure a visa as he was operating a business in the USA and that the children would be issued with the same visas as his dependants. In fact, as at 3 June 2024 no such visas were in place.

[31]On 8 August 2024, the father attended the US embassy to obtain the relevant visas. G and he were granted visas but L was refused. In a message to her mother G has alleged that in order to obtain her visa her father prevailed upon her to lie during a medical to conceal that she had self-harmed.

[32]The US authorities’ decision to refuse L a visa did not cause the father substantively to change his plans. That same day, he booked flights for G and himself to travel to the USA on 27 August 2024. He had decided that L would have to remain in England.

[33]On 27 August 2024 the father and G flew to New York. L remained in England and moved to live with the mother. Since then, G has not had any direct contact with either the mother or her sister L.

[34]Upon arriving in the USA the father and G travelled to Connecticut to start a new life with his partner and her four children. The father and his partner have subsequently married. G started at a school on 28 August 2024, the day after her arrival.

[35]There is an abundance of evidence, catalogued further below, to demonstrate that G has been deeply unhappy about the move to the USA virtually from the moment of her arrival and that she has made efforts to procure her return to this jurisdiction.

[36]On 2 October 2024, the mother signed an application seeking to amend the order of 3 June 2024 so that G should return to this country.

[37]On 22 October 2024 HHJ Raeside made a provisional order recording that it appeared that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application given that G had moved to the USA with the father with the permission of the court. The mother was directed to file evidence addressing the issue of jurisdiction. She duly did so, but there was then a lengthy delay in the court system before the application was referred back to the Judge.

[38]On 6 March 2025 HHJ Raeside dismissed the mother’s application on the basis that she did not have jurisdiction. She held that it was almost certain that G’s habitual residence was now in the USA.

[39]The mother filed an appeal against this decision. Harrison J allowed the appeal after a hearing on 9 April 2025, and gave a written judgment reported as Re G

[2025] EWHC 911 (Fam)

. The father appealed to the Court of Appeal but permission to appeal was refused on 12 May 2025. Harrison J made G a ward of court, joined her as a party to the proceedings and appointed a Guardian. He gave directions for hearing, including for a wishes and feelings report. The evidence about D’s experiences in the USA

[40]I record in its entirety the passage in Harrison J’s judgment recording G’s experiences in the USA. In so doing, I should make clear that I have read the papers and agree with what is said in this passage. “37. It is plain from the evidence I have seen that within days of her arrival in the USA, G was sending messages to her mother making clear that she was very unhappy and that she wanted to return to England. It is not clear to me when the first such message was sent. An exchange by WhatsApp on 4 September 2024 demonstrates that by this date G had already made known that she wanted to return to England and that the father and his wife were preventing this from happening. That day, G wrote to her mother:

‘can u tell [the father’s wife] to send me back she just tried to start an entire state police search now she’s tryna send me to a boarding school it’s her that won’t let me leave not daddy he doesn’t rlly care’. 38. On 5 September 2024 G reported to her mother that she had called the police who said that ‘it didn’t sound right what daddy was saying to me’ and that they would send an officer round. That same day, the mother was herself in communication with the Westport police about her daughter’s situation. 39. In an exchange of messages between G and the father on or around 12 September 2024 he wrote ‘if Mummy says you are to return to the UK, it is she that has to make the application. I can’t fly to the UK to make the application (or for any other reason). She needs to attend court, which I cannot do’. 40. Throughout September 2024 G continued to make it clear to her mother that she wanted to return to England. For example, on 20 September 2024 she wrote: ‘tbf what else could go wrong there’s literally nothing.. cos when I get back ill have my [best friend] my [other best friend] theres literally nothing that can go wrong’

. On 23 September 2024 she wrote about how she had spoken to her counsellor about ‘what daddy’s doing’. 41. It also appears that G was seeking to enlist the help of the US police to facilitate her return. In one message to her mother sent around this time, she wrote:

‘he’s so mad… he knows there’s nothing he can do about it n he actually shit himself when I said police r gunna help me get to the airport n stuff I was just like u can either support me or I’ll do it alone..’

She later wrote to her mother that the police would require sight of a court order to enable her to leave. 42. From the evidence I have seen, it appears that the father had represented to G that he did not have her passport as it had been provided to the immigration authorities. G, however, came across the passport and challenged her father about what he had told her. In his skeleton argument prepared for this appeal, the father says that on 7 October 2024 he reported to the Passport Office that G’s passport had been destroyed by him and notified them that no further passport should be issued to her. 43. The statement filed by the mother pursuant to the order made on 22 October 2024 exhibits some hand written letters from G. These are largely illegible in the PDF bundle I have. In one letter, however, I can see that G described herself as being ‘physically and mentally alone’. It is apparent from that letter that her relationship with her father had broken down and that she has lost all trust in him. She refers to returning from school ‘to find my passport ripped up and ruined’. 44. I have also seen a typed undated ‘statement’ from G in which she paints a very bleak picture of life in the USA (I am unclear whether this is a typed version of one of her letters or some other document). She makes clear her wish to leave the USA and to return to England and refers to ‘misleading information’ given by her father. She also provides a worrying account of being cared for by her father in England prior to the move to the USA. She refers to an occasion when she took cocaine at home with his knowledge. 45. In this undated statement, G says:

‘Before my current move to the United States I was led to believe that I would be living in an apartment with just the three of us (my sister, my father, and I). I was aware we would be living with [the father’s wife] eventually once we got to know her and where (sic) more comfortable around her.’

She then proceeds to describe how the reality of what occurred was wholly different from that which she had been led to believe. From the outset she found herself living at the father’s wife’s home occupying her step-sister’s room and, in her view, being poorly treated. She says:

‘[the father’s wife] and her family made no effort to welcome me, instead made it clear I was not welcome. Throughout that time I was experiencing intense withdrawal symptoms such as migraines, depression, paranoia, anxiety and throwing up blood…’

. Later in the statement says:

‘I have previously attempted to run away since being in the United States due to neglect I was previously and currently experiencing. I rarely get fed, and I only eat when I cook for myself which I have to do at night so no one sees me (fear of getting into trouble) I get so scared to the point I have started experiencing hearing voices/noises and seeing things that aren’t there like shadows, just scared that I will be stuck here alone for the rest of my life’

. Thereafter, the statement continues in the same vein. 46. I have also been provided with a further more recent statement from G which is to the same effect. The statement appears to post-date the decision of HHJ Raeside below, but it seems to me that in circumstances where the appeal concerns the position of a child and this piece of evidence was not available at the time of the decision, I am entitled to take it into account (the same applies to other recent evidence to which I refer below). The statement concludes as follows:

“I have felt many emotions these past months they have only gotten worse When I first arrived I felt betrayed guilty hopeless and insane Those feelings have never left me except sometimes I just feel numb now I get headaches/migraines stomach ache achy muscles from stress and paranoia that something will happen to me every day Those feelings get deeper and deeper. I have written so many statements these past months putting my entire heart on the table just to have it crushed every single time So please if you took the time to read this I am forever thankful to you for giving me one last hope Please help me reunite with my family my home my education my country and the people I love and care deeply about thank you for your time.” 47. It is clear from the evidence I have seen that G’s unhappiness about being in the USA was not a passing phase. The mother asserts that in January 2025 G made a further suicide attempt although I have not seen evidence to corroborate this. There is, however, evidence that G has set up a ‘Gofundme’ page seeking to raise funds to assist her return to the UK. Since September 2024, she has also sent further worrying texts to her mother about her situation. In one message she said that she would kill herself if not back by Christmas. 48. I have also been provided with a record of a meeting convened on 28 February 2025 by the Westport School District Planning and Placement Team. I do not think that this was provided to HHJ Raeside, but I consider that I should take it into account. This document records the father telling the meeting that ‘the first 2-3 months were challenging for G to integrate at home and school’. He had, however, seen marked improvement and ‘overall she seems happier’. One of the teachers present at the meeting, Mrs F, noted that ‘G always knows what she wants to work on but is not working on [school] assignments. She is trying to do work she thinks will transfer to the UK. She is following online guide for UK curriculum so looks engaged but is not on task with her current work.’ The father stated that ‘G is focused on returning to the UK but she does not know there are barriers to her returning. Her mother in the UK is giving her the message that she can return’. The school counsellor reported to the meeting that G attends weekly counselling but also ‘stops in at least two other times’. During those sessions, G ‘is preoccupied with wanting to return to the UK. She can be emotional about it. She talks quickly and her speech is pressured’. 49. I have also seen a report from the Westport Police Department dated 30 March 2025 in relation to a call out they received to the father’s home on that date. This was not available to HHJ Raeside, but again I consider that I am entitled to take it into account. It appears that G had become upset after being told by the father that she would not be able to travel to England for some considerable time due to an issue with her passport. G responded by damaging the father’s laptop with a knife. She yelled at her father and step-mother before running to her room. The police officer observed G to be crying hysterically. She said to the officer that her father had told her that she would have to wait until she was an adult before applying for a passport. The officer calmed G down and gave her advice about managing her anger. The officer then spoke again to the father and his wife who stated that their preference was for G to be sent to hospital for an evaluation. When asked for their reason they stated ‘to get a break from her’. When the officer informed them that committal was a serious process to be used only for individuals requiring immediate medical assistance due to safety concerns, the father and his wife asserted that they did not feel safe with G and wished for her to be transported to hospital. The report states that the officers assessed the situation and ‘determined that G’s parents’ (sic) request for a hospital transport was not based on a genuine desire for safety but rather a desire for a temporary separation from G’.”

[41]To this narrative I add a suggestion by the father’s wife that G is deliberately misbehaving at the prompting of the mother, and making false accusations against the father. Factual history caution

[42]I am conscious that having not heard oral evidence about the history outlined above, and the various allegations and counter allegations, I must be cautious not to accept without reservation the unfiltered/unchallenged written evidence. However, it seems to me that for the most part the history speaks for itself, even if specific allegations have not been the subject of formal findings. As for G’s views, these are substantiated by direct evidence (messages, letters and the like) of what G has been saying, coupled with reports from her US school and the US police. It is clear she said these things even if, for example, the allegations she makes against her father have not been subject to close scrutiny. The Guardian has assessed her views independently, and neither parent disputes the essence of what G wishes. The Guardian’s report

[43]The Guardian, Ms Magson, has prepared a wishes and feelings report dated 30 April 2025. She met G remotely. In her report she says: i) At times G was upset during their meeting, but did not present as emotionally dysregulated. ii) She originally wanted to move to the USA on the basis that it would be with L, and she would maintain regular contact with the mother. iii) When she travelled to the USA, she was assured by the father that L would join them, but this has not in fact happened. It has been suggested that L may attend university in the USA (although the mother told me that is not now likely to happen) but even if that were to take place, G nevertheless wants to return to the UK. iv) She had expected on moving to the USA that she would see her mother regularly but in fact she has not seen her at all, “becoming tearful and visibly distressed as she spoke of it being nine months since she had seen either her sister or her mother”. She was particularly sad at not having seen them over Christmas. v) The reality of her situation is so different from what she had been led to believe that she has lost all faith and trust in the father, and no longer believes him. Her father destroyed her passport, and she does not believe he has applied for another one. She does not believe her relationship with the father can be improved so long as she remains in the USA. vi) She spoke of her stepmother without affection and in derogatory terms. She says she gets on “OK” with her stepsiblings but they are not friends. She keeps her interactions with the family in the USA to a minimum and does not have meals with them, even expressing fear that they might “gaslight” her and put something in her food. vii) She did not speak positively of school in the USA and was trying to follow the UK curriculum as well as the US curriculum. Her closest friends are all in the UK. viii) She acknowledged that on returning to the UK, it may take some time to reconnect with the mother and L and there may be challenges. She hoped to spend time with her maternal grandmother who is nearby. She recognises that she may not be able to return to her previous school, but nevertheless wants to come back to the UK. She is receptive to accessing support services in the UK. ix) She said that the strength of her wish to return to the UK is “10/10”. She could not contemplate her reaction of she does not return.

[44]Orally, she told me that she had been messaged by G the day before the hearing, who was heavily critical of the father and his wife and clearly expected a final decision to be made at this hearing. If the matter is not decided today, Ms Magson said G would be very distressed. She reiterated that G’s views are very firm. She did not recommend a fuller welfare analysis because of the delay. She thought that a full welfare analysis by her would ordinarily take 12 weeks, but because G is in the USA could take up to six months. She acknowledged that there are unanswered questions about how life would look here in the event of a return order, and how life is taking place in the USA, but was very concerned about the impact on G of delay to investigate such matters. The law

[45]The law can be simply stated. The court must have regard to the circumstances set pout at s1(3) of the Children Act 1989, within the overarching framework that under s1(1) of the Act the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration. The decisions in In Re J (A Child) (Child Returned Abroad: Convention Rights)

;

and Re NY (A Child)

;

are on point. Although both concerned abduction of a child, as opposed to consensual relocation, it seems to me that the general principles are similar, save that the fact of agreement to move abroad is likely to be a factor of considerable weight..

[46]The wishes and feelings of a child must be considered (per s1(3)(a) of the Act “in the light of his age and understanding”. Every case is fact specific, and the weight to be attached to a child’s wishes will vary. However, it seems to me that the clear views of a mature teenage child nearly 15 years old, freely expressed and genuinely held, are likely to attach considerable weight absent good reason to the contrary. Conclusions

[47]Clearly, there have been professional concerns raised in the past about the quality of parental care given by each parent to the children. The background recited by Harrison J sets out a somewhat chaotic trajectory for the children, certainly from 2022 onwards, as they moved between their parents. Their lives have been characterised by allegations made by them against both parents, referrals to social services, self-harming, disruption, prolonged litigation and exposure to parental conflict. Both children are likely to have considerable vulnerabilities as a result of their childhood experiences. However, at all times the children remained in the care of one or other parent and have not been subject to public law proceedings.

[48]I take into account that the move to the USA in June 2024 was consensual; it was not an abduction. However, prior thereto G had lived all her life in the UK. Her time in the USA has been disrupted, unhappy, and isolated. She has remained there contrary to her expressed views. It was a move which was intended to include L, but did not, and was intended to enable G to spend substantial time with the mother, but did not. It seems to me that any roots laid down in the USA are very shallow indeed. Her connections with the UK are by a very significant degree more substantial.

[49]The factor of primary importance since the relocation to the USA in my judgment is the views of G. I am satisfied that those views are sincerely and very strongly held; “10/10” as G herself put it, which does not seem to me to be an exaggerated self-assessment. They are powerfully expressed. It seems likely to me that they are the product of(i) being separated from her sister, L, who was expected to relocate with them but was prevented from doing so because of visa difficulties,

(ii) contrary to her expectations, she did not see her mother after moving to the USA and

(iii) extreme unhappiness in the domestic household in the USA. I am confident that she is of an age, maturity and understanding to have come to those views rationally, independently and with an appreciation of her situation.

[50]Her views have been repeatedly made clear to the father and the mother from the time she arrived in the USA and consistently thereafter. These were not the transient irritations of a child trying to settle down. These are clear thinking, robust views from G who is determined to return to the UK. The fact that she is being told she cannot, because she does not have a passport (in circumstances outlined above but which is on any view through no fault of her own) adds fuel to the fire. She is frustrated and thwarted. The Local Authority report dated 7 December 2023, as I have noted, states that separating G and L would not be in their best interests because of the strong bond between them and recommended that on moving to the USA the children should spend all school holidays with the mother. In the event, G was separated from L and has not spent time with M. It is hardly surprising that she feels let down.

[51]Further, her wishes have been noted by independent third parties, namely her school in the USA and the police in the USA, and confirmed by the Guardian. G has been consistent and implacable throughout. And there is no dispute on this: both parents agree that G is expressing a strong view to return to England.

[52]Not only should G’s autonomy, in principle, be respected, unless there is good reason to the contrary, I am satisfied that for her to be prevented from returning to the UK would be contrary to her interests. Her anger at not being able to return is damaging for her, and will only increase should the current state of affairs continue. It is illogical, and harmful, for her to be detained against her wishes in a country and household where she does not want to be. She has a very close bond with her sister. That bond was broken when her sister was prevented from travelling to the USA. Perhaps the father should not have taken G, leaving L behind. Be that as it may, this separation from L has been, and continues to be, inimical to her wellbeing, as has being deprived of the society of her mother. Moreover, she is clearly (as the Cafcass Officer recorded) very unhappy at home where her relationship with F and her stepmother is distant and fraught. As the Cafcass officer said, “There was a degree of desperation” in her account. She feels isolated. She has not seen her mother for nine months, despite expecting that she would see her regularly. Her closest friends are in England. The Cafcass Officer reported she was tearful and visibly distressed at the length of separation from her sister and mother. I do not think this toxic state of affairs can continue and I agree with the Cafcass Officer who suggests that there is a diminishing window for G to be provided with stability before she reaches adulthood.

[53]The father sent a statement to the court, and the parties, the day before the hearing, raising a number of matters. No direction was made for it to be prepared. I read it de bene esse (as I did the statement of his wife which similarly was sent the day before the hearing without permission). Similarly, I read a statement in response from the mother who denies allegations against her and makes counter allegations against the father.

[54]The father, in his statement, submits that G would be at risk of harm in respect of education and health were she to return to the UK. He says the mother would fail to encourage her to attend school, although from everything I have read G is currently well motivated and accessing education. He says that the mother smokes which would badly affect G’s health, but I have no material medical evidence to this effect and the mother says she is no more than an occasional smoker. He says G is at risk of physical violence, although allegations of physical violence by the mother have been towards L rather than G, are somewhat historical, and such risk is offset by G’s maturity and, the fact that she wishes to return to the mother’s care. The suggestion made by the father that G would be under clothed and underfed in England is not well evidenced. Similarly, the risk of G accessing drugs in the UK is somewhat speculative given that she has been away from the UK for nearly a year and if and insofar as G took drugs in the UK in the year before relocation (as the father suggests), she was, it should be recalled, in the care of the father for that time.

[55]I recognise that the allegations and counter allegations have not been subject to findings. There are unanswered questions about G’s life in the USA or, here, if a return order is made. A return to the UK is not without risk, but the potential risks asserted by the father seem to me be a little overstated or speculative and I bear in mind that his statement came in very late in the day and is disputed by the mother. Further,(i) the Local Authority has not seen fit to seek to remove the children from the mother when in her care,

(ii) concerns have been expressed by the Local Authority in the past about both parents (and positive aspects of their care have also been identified),

(iii) there seem to be no (or much reduced) concerns about M’s care of L, and

(iv) in my judgment, for G to remain with the father would be a severe risk in terms of emotional and psychological harm. The father focuses mainly on physical aspects of care rather than emotional and psychological aspects which are, in my view, far more significant in this case. Putting it another way, the potential risk inherent in the unanswered questions should there be a return to England are in my judgment outweighed by the undoubted risks inherent in remaining in the USA.

[56]It is positive that G acknowledges the challenges of returning to the UK and is amenable to accessing support services if she does so. To my mind, the very fact of returning, and leaving what for her is a toxic environment, would be likely to improve considerably her psychological and emotional wellbeing. The LA are familiar with this family, which is a protective factor and must be informed of her return. The father’s concerns can be considered by the Local Authority who are well placed to assist and inquire.

[57]The reality of this case is that G does not wish to be with the father, and wishes instead to be with her mother and sister in the UK. She believes she was misled into going to the USA as L did not follow, and she did not spend time with the mother. Moreover, given her strength of feeling about being in the USA, her negative views of the father’s wife, her profound distrust of the father, her distress at being separated from her sister and not having seen her mother since moving to the USA, in my judgment it is hard to see how F can realistically meet her psychological and emotional needs in the USA. Indeed, there is no evidence that he has been successfully able to do so given the consistent strength of feeling for nearly nine months. If the application is refused, there is a risk that she will view herself as effectively imprisoned by her father, with all the emotional consequences flowing therefrom.

[58]I have carefully considered the father’s position that the matter should go off for further investigation, including a welfare analysis by the Guardian and obtaining information such as therapy reports, USA school reports, information from the USA equivalent of social services and the like. The father says that the information is limited at present. In my judgment, it is not necessary to put the matter off, and it would be contrary to G’s wellbeing to do so. I have ample information to make a considered decision. I accept there are unknowns (which applies both in the USA and the UK) but I am satisfied that the information before me is sufficient to make a decision. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make this order on a “summary basis”. That said, it has been far from summary in terms of written evidence including a wealth of information from the proceedings in the past three years, oral submissions and assistance from the Guardian. I am satisfied that to adjourn for further inquiry would simply prolong the litigation and add to the burdens on G, who would be severely distressed. It seems likely to me that to carry out all the inquiries suggested by the father, and have a full hearing, would require a delay of at least 6-9 months which to my mind is unacceptably long for G, and it is hard to see how anything other than a return order could be made if G maintains her current strongly held position.

[59]The landscape of this case has changed out of all recognition since the consent order of 3 June 2024 which provided for relocation of G and L to the USA with the father. L in fact remained here and the anticipated contact with the mother did not take place. G has not settled with her father. Prior to the move, she had lived in the UK all of her life and her roots are clearly far stronger here. In my judgment, having carefully considered all the evidence and submissions, and having balanced the risk arguments and G’s own feelings, an order for G’s return to the UK should be made as being clearly in her best interests.

[60]I therefore make the following

order

i) For the return of G to this country no sooner than the end of the school term in the USA (which I am told is 15 June) and by no later than 30 June. ii) The wardship order shall continue and the matter shall remain at High Court level. If no applications are made within 6 months, the wardship order shall be automatically discharged and thereafter any further applications shall be to the local family court. iii) For the duration of the wardship order G shall be placed in the care of the mother. iv) An application shall be made to the FCO for emergency travel documents. v) The order and this judgment shall be provided to the Local Authority and to any relevant UK or USA court or public agency.