C (A Child: International Relocation), Re [2025] EWHC 764 (Fam)

[2025] EWHC 764 (Fam)Case No BT24P00134/FD24P00527
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 7 th March 2025
Before
Ms Justice Harris
Between
AApplicantBRespondent
Ms Perrins (instructed by Kesha Pabari of Osbornes LLP) for applicantMr Bennett (instructed by Bindmans LLP) for respondentHearing Hearing dates: 13 th and 14 th February 2025
Judgment.............................
[1]The child who is the subject of these proceedings is C aged 8 years old. His mother is B represented by Mr Bennett. His father is A represented by Ms Perrins.[2]There are three applications before the Court:• Father’s application for summary return of C to England and Wales;• Mother’s application (retrospective) for permission to remove C from this jurisdiction to reside in Dubai;• Father’s application for a child arrangements order to progress his contact to spending direct time with C.

Background:

[3]C resides in the sole care of his mother. He has infrequent indirect contact with his father following two sets of previous Children Act 1989 proceedings (where the father was a litigant in person). Within the first set of proceedings findings of serious domestic abuse were made against A. Following a fact-find hearing, the lay magistrates found: i) that the child has been present and has been exposed to verbal and emotional abuse perpetrated by the father towards the mother and that this would have caused him some stress; ii) the father made threats of violence towards [B] which included threatening to ‘beat her up’, ‘break hernose’, ‘break her face’ and ‘physically hurt her’; iii) on or around May/June 2017, the father used threatening and controlling behaviour in that he made threats, insisted she owed him money, called her a ‘terrible mother’ and threatened only to cease his behaviour if she facilitated contact arrangements between him and the child; iv) in late May/ early January 2017 after she took out a Mercedes car on finance for the father, who she says agreed to cover the finance payments, he abused this position to be financially abusive and controlling towards her, resulting in bailiffs attending the mother’s property. The father threatened to withhold financial payments unless she agreed to his contact proposals.[4]Subsequent welfare assessments concluded that A lacked acceptance, recognition and insight into the impact of his abusive behaviours on B and C, and that he needed to engage in meaningful work to address the abuse before direct contact could be safe. A final order was made in February 2022 for monthly indirect contact. Following conclusion of the first set of proceedings, A paid back the monies owed to B the very next day and immediately issued a second application on the basis he had now addressed the findings of financial abuse. That application was dismissed. The Recorder who dealt with the final hearing in the second set of proceedings in February 2023 recorded within the order that:
“The court found that the father’s conduct in making his applications had been unreasonable and reprehensible and, on considering financial documents provided by the father, the court ordered that he should repay the mother’s total legal costs of £7,097 in payments of £100 per month.”
The Cafcass safeguarding letter dated 19th January 2023 expressed concern that A was using the litigation as a further means of controlling and abusing B. A s 91(14) order was made for two years. The costs have not been repaid.[5]B is a teacher. She has been residing in London with her parents and C. She has a ‘lives with’ order in her favour. In May 2024 she received an offer to teach at an international school in Dubai. The package includes an increased tax free salary, accommodation, health insurance and a free place at the school for C. In August, shortly before she was due to leave, she requested permission from A to remove C from the jurisdiction. He refused his permission the same day. Mother nevertheless left for Dubai with C to commence her employment without first applying to the court for leave to remove. She sought to comply with the terms of the child arrangements order by returning to the UK with C every 28 days.[6]On 30th October 2024, A issued an urgent application for summary return.

Procedural Matters:

[7]As noted above, in the second set of CA 1989 proceedings, a s 91(14) order was made against A for a period of 2 years. It was not due to expire until 22nd February 2025. However, in light of the summary return/relocation proceedings being issued and father’s position being one that he would seek for a progression of his contact with C at the expiry of the s 91(14) order, permission was given for him to pursue that application now to avoid a subsequent application and further proceedings exposing C to more lengthy litigation.

Application to adjourn for further expert evidence:

[8]On day one of this final hearing, A made an application to adjourn in order to obtain further expert evidence on Dubai law either by way of putting further written questions to the court appointed expert or by making arrangements for the expert to come and give oral evidence at the final hearing.[9]Father’s application to adjourn was refused. The Court records for completeness the reasons for that refusal. Whilst the need to deal proportionately with expert evidence in some areas of family justice is now well understood, it would appear the discipline and compliance with the rules now increasingly seen in care proceedings, is not consistently applied elsewhere.[10]The procedural chronology behind father’s application to adjourn is as follows: On 4th November 2024, the Court gave directions to this final hearing; On 19th December 2024, a consent order was filed on mother’s Part 25 application for the instruction of an expert in Dubai law. The application was granted, and Mr Allen KC was instructed; On 14th January 2025, the expert report was received; On 27th January 2025, Mr Allen KC filed an addendum report in answer to questions raised by mother; On 28th January 2025, the matter came before the Court for PTR. At the PTR, father indicated that he may require the expert to attend court to answer questions and as he was not available during the dates of the final hearing (something that the father’s solicitor had not been made aware of at the time of agreeing the consent order) there may be an application to adjourn. The Court reminded father of the rules on expert evidence and that permission was required for an expert to attend to give oral evidence and that any points of clarification should have been put in questions. As Mr Allen KC had indicated he would be able to respond quickly to short questions in advance of the listed hearing, it was agreed and permission from the court was provided for father to put questions to the expert. On 31st January 2025, father’s solicitor sent proposed questions, totalling 23, to Mr Allen KC in order to obtain a costs estimate. The estimate came to £3,500 with responses not able to be filed until March. The questions and cost were not agreed by mother’s solicitor. On 5th February 2025, father filed a C2 application requesting an adjournment of the final hearing to be relisted in accordance with Mr Allen’s availability. The application was opposed and both parties filed written submissions. The Court determined on the papers that the parties should agree focused and proportionate questions to be sent to Mr Allen KC with a request he file his responses, if possible, by the morning of the final hearing. The Court is exceptionally grateful to Mr Allen KC that he did respond and file his answers in accordance with the timetable requested by the Court.[11]In the Court’s judgment it is not without significance by way of context for determining the application to adjourn that mother is privately paying for these proceedings. Whilst the Court acknowledges that it was always incumbent on B to seek the Court’s permission to remove C from the jurisdiction if father did not consent and she should not have relocated without obtaining that permission, it may cause a degree of consternation that in a case where there have been previous findings of financial abuse and controlling behaviours against father, that the entitlements to legal aid in this area of family justice are such that A has the benefit of full entitlement to legal aid, whereas mother has no access to financial support. Furthermore, the legal aid agency has refused to contribute to the expert fees because they exceed legal aid rates. B has therefore agreed to shoulder the entire cost of Mr Allen KC’s fees. To date that amounts to £4,500 + VAT. If the Court were to accede to father’s application for further expert evidence and an adjournment, those costs would further increase by a currently unknown amount.[12]It should furthermore be noted that mother is privately funding counsel to represent her at the final hearing. Mr Bennett tells the court that an adjournment will cost her in the realm of £10,000 - £20,000. B has also incurred the cost of attending the final hearing from Dubai; this hearing having been scheduled to coincide with the half-term holiday.[13]Father’s application for an adjournment must of course be considered within the relevant rules, underpinned at all times by the overriding objective as contained in Part 1 of the FPR 2010. It is sometimes helpful to remind ourselves of that overriding objective: The overriding objective 1.1. (1) These rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly, having regard to any welfare issues involved. (2). Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable— (a). ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; (b) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the nature, importance and complexity of the issues; (c). ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing; (d). saving expense; and (e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases.[14]The rules dealing with the instruction of experts are contained within Part 25 of the FPR 2010. They are also too often forgotten. The pertinent provisions from Part 25 for this application are: 25.5.(1) Expert evidence is to be given in a written report unless the court directs otherwise.(2) The court will not direct an expert to attend a hearing unless it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice. 25.6. (1) A party may put written questions about an expert’s report (which must be proportionate) to— (a). an expert instructed by another party; or (b). a single joint expert appointed under rule25.7. (2). Written questions under paragraph (1)— (a). may be put once only; (b) must be put within 10 days beginning with the date on which the expert’s report was served; and (c). must be for the purpose only of clarification of the report, unless in any case— (i) the court directs otherwise; or (ii) a practice direction provides otherwise.(3) An expert’s answers to questions put in accordance with paragraph (1) are treated as part of the expert’s report.[15]The Court also reminds itself of what was said by Munby P in Re H-L (A child)[2013] EWCA Civ 655on the meaning of the word ‘necessary’. Citing with approval from the earlier judgment of Re P [2008] EWCA Civ 535, he held: The short answer is that ‘necessary’ means necessary. It has a meaning lying somewhere between ‘indispensable’ on the one hand and ‘useful’, ‘reasonable’ or ‘desirable’ on the other hand, having the connotation of the imperative, what is demanded rather than what is merely optional or reasonable or desirable.[16]Within the framework provided by the rules, father’s application to adjourn was refused for the following reasons.[17]The Court was not satisfied further expert evidence was necessary in order to dispose justly of the proceedings. The Court has received three detailed reports (summarised below) from Mr Allen KC, the original report and two detailed addendums to answer questions raised. The expert has given a clear, firm and consistent view as to the ability of A, as an unmarried father, to access the courts in Dubai on the basis of the material available. He recognises there is some inevitable uncertainty about the relevant rules to be applied and how they will be interpreted given the very recent significant changes in the Dubai legal system affecting personal status and family relations, many of which have only recently been enacted or will shortly come into force. Nevertheless, Mr Allen has been clear that in his view A will be able to access the Dubai courts and his application progressed either by way of application of the Muslim Personal Status Code 2025 (as father is a Muslim) or, given the parents are unmarried and B is not a Muslim, by way of application of the 2022 Non-Muslim Personal Status Code. In either case, the expert advice is that there has recently been a significant shift in the treatment of unmarried parents in Dubai and the issues will be consistently determined within a welfare/best interests framework, albeit interpreted within the social and cultural context of Dubai.[18]At the outset of the hearing, Ms Perrins identified the further questions or issues she would seek to raise with the expert. Having considered those questions, the Court is satisfied they had either already been answered by the expert or were matters of detail, the primary resources to answer which may not even be available to the expert. Whilst answers to some of the questions counsel raised may be interesting or helpful, in the Court’s view they fell far short of being necessary to make fair, just and sound welfare decisions. The inherent uncertainties in the current legal framework in Dubai given the recent nature of these changes to both the Muslim and non-Muslim Personal Status Codes, alongside the practical and financial challenges of litigating in Dubai, makes it very clear that accessing the Dubai courts would be far from straightforward for either parent. The Court is able to balance the challenge of accessing the Dubai legal system within its decision-making on mother’s relocation application, without the need for further cost and delay.[19]Turning to issues of cost and delay, the necessity of an adjournment to obtain further expert evidence must also considered within the framework of the overriding objective. In that regard the following matters need to be weighed within the decision-making.[20]The situation in which father finds himself is largely of his own making. The very late receipt of the second addendum from Mr Allen KC is as a result of father’s own failure to comply with the rules. He did not ask questions within the 10 days provided for by Part 25.6 and attended at the PTR with an apparent expectation that the failure to comply would be remedied by adjourning the final hearing and calling the expert to give oral evidence. That is not how litigation should be conducted fairly and proportionately.[21]In this regard, it is important to bear firmly in mind that obtaining further expert evidence and/or the expert attending to give oral evidence, will incur further considerable cost for B in circumstances where she is solely responsible for the expert’s fees. It comes at no expense to A. The adjournment of the final hearing which would also inevitably follow, would further add significantly to mother’s costs, as well as to the public purse. It is relevant to note again, that B, already a victim of financial abuse at the hands of A, is a teacher. She is not an individual of substantial means. That is not in my judgment to place the parties on an equal footing and achieve a fair and just process.[22]An adjournment of the final hearing will also cause further delay for C. The report of the Cafcass officer makes clear that he needs certainty as to where he will be living and attending school. Ongoing uncertainty in these key matters in his life will be inimical to his best interests.[23]Weighing all of those considerations, father’s application to adjourn to obtain further expert evidence was therefore refused.

Law:

[24]Turning to the substantive applications before the Court, they all fall to be determined in accordance with C’s welfare as the paramount consideration.

Summary return:

[25]Dubai is a non-Hague Convention state. C has been made a Ward of Court invoking the High Court’s inherent welfare jurisdiction. The approach of the Court to determining an application for return is helpfully set out by Cobb J in J v J (Return to Non-Hague Convention Country) [2021] EWHC 2412 (Fam), drawing from the lead judgment of Baroness Hale in Re J (A Child) (Child Returned Abroad: Convention Rights) [2005] UKHL 40: i) "… any court which is determining any question with respect to the upbringing of a child has had a statutory duty to regard the welfare of the child as its paramount consideration"; ii) "There is no warrant, either in statute or authority, for the principles of The Hague Convention to be extended to countries which are not parties to it"; iii) "…in all non-Convention cases, the courts have consistently held that they must act in accordance with the welfare of the individual child. If they do decide to return the child, that is because it is in his best interests to do so, not because the welfare principle has been superseded by some other consideration"; iv) "… the court does have power, in accordance with the welfare principle, to order the immediate return of a child to a foreign jurisdiction without conducting a full investigation of the merits. In a series of cases during the 1960s, these came to be known as 'kidnapping' cases"; v) "Summary return should not be the automatic reaction to any and every unauthorised taking or keeping a child from his home country. On the other hand, summary return may very well be in the best interests of the individual child"; vi) "… focus has to be on the individual child in the particular circumstances of the case"; vii) "… the judge may find it convenient to start from the proposition that it is likely to be better for a child to return to his home country for any disputes about his future to be decided there. A case against his doing so has to be made. But the weight to be given to that proposition will vary enormously from case to case. What may be best for him in the long run may be different from what will be best for him in the short run. It should not be assumed, in this or any other case, that allowing a child to remain here while his future is decided here inevitably means that he will remain here for ever"; viii) "One important variable … is the degree of connection of the child with each country. This is not to apply what has become the technical concept of habitual residence, but to ask in a common sense way with which country the child has the closer connection. What is his 'home' country? Factors such as his nationality, where he has lived for most of his life, his first language, his race or ethnicity, his religion, his culture, and his education so far will all come into this"; ix) "Another closely related factor will be the length of time he has spent in each country. Uprooting a child from one environment and bringing him to a completely unfamiliar one, especially if this has been done clandestinely, may well not be in his best interests"; x) "In a case where the choice lies between deciding the question here or deciding it in a foreign country, differences between the legal systems cannot be irrelevant. But their relevance will depend upon the facts of the individual case. If there is a genuine issue between the parents as to whether it is in the best interests of the child to live in this country or elsewhere, it must be relevant whether that issue is capable of being tried in the courts of the country to which he is to be returned"; xi) "The effect of the decision upon the child's primary carer must also be relevant, although again not decisive."[26]The Court notes the principles set out by Cobb J, some of which remain relevant to this case. However, matters before this Court have now moved beyond the question of summary return. This Court granted interim permission for B to remain in Dubai with C (by agreement) in November of last year. There is now an extant application before it made by mother for permission to permanently relocate to Dubai. The Court has the benefit of the evidence required to determine that application. This is not therefore a case in which the court is being asked to return a child to his habitual residence to enable longer-term welfare decisions to be made. The court is already seized of those matters and the relevant evidence to dispose of them. The more pertinent authorities to guide the Court in its long-term welfare decision-making are thus those that are applicable to relocation applications.

Children Act 1989 applications:

[27]An application by one parent to relocate outside the jurisdiction of England and Wales falls to be determined applying s 1 of the Children Act 1989 and the welfare checklist under s 1(3). In Re C (A child) [2019] EWHC 131 (Fam), Williams J provided a helpful summary of the key principles on international relocation applications:(a) The only authentic principle is the paramount welfare of the child.(b) The implementation of section 1(2A) Children Act 1989 makes clear the heightened scrutiny required of proposals which interfere with the relationship between child and parent.(c) The welfare checklist is relevant whether the case is brought under s 8 or s 13 Children Act 1989.(d) The effect of previous guidance in cases such as Payne may be misleading unless viewed in its proper context which is no more than that it may assist the judge to identify potentially relevant issues.(e) In assessing paramount welfare in international relocation cases, the court must carry out a holistic and non-linear comparative evaluation of the plans proposed by each parent. In complex international relocation cases this may need to be of some sophistication and complexity.(f) In addition to Article 8 rights – indeed probably as a component of the Art 8 ECHR rights and s 1(2A), one must factor in the rights of the child to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis (unless that is contrary to her interests) in accordance with Article 9 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (“UNCRC”).(g) Furthermore, the court must also take into account the Article 8 rights of the parents. In the usual case the child’s Art 8 rights will take priority over the parents but that should not cause the court to overlook the Art 8 rights of others affected and the court should balance the competing Article 8 rights.(h) The effect of an international relocation is such that the Article 8 rights of a child are likely to be infringed and the court must consider the issue of proportionality of the interference. There remains some degree of uncertainty as to how the proportionality evaluation is to be applied in relocation cases…. I consider that in most cases in practice, the proportionality issue will be subsumed within the overall holistic evaluation in particular when considering effect of change and risk of harm. In reality in the judicial consideration of the welfare checklist it simply is likely to mean the judge will be that much more alert to the importance and thus weight to be afforded to the child’s right to maintain contact with the left behind parent and their rights to a stable and secure family life with their primary carer, if there is one.[28]A also brings his own separate application for a child arrangements order which falls to be determined under s 1 of the CA 1989 applying the welfare checklist under s 1(3). In accordance with s 1(2A), the court must presume that the involvement of both parents in C’s life is in his best interests, unless the contrary is shown.[29]The Court has previously made findings of domestic abuse against A. Those findings remain relevant to all the extant applications now before the Court. PD12J is engaged. It is important to remind ourselves in accordance with s 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 that C is also a victim of domestic abuse.[30]PD 12J at paragraphs 35-37 provides that when considering whether to make an order for contact where domestic abuse has occurred the court must:
“ensure that any order for contact will not expose the child to an unmanageable risk of harm and will be in the best interests of the child.”
The Court should consider “any harm which the child and the parent with whom the child is living has suffered as a consequence of the domestic abuse, and any harm which the child and the parent with whom the child is living is at risk of suffering if a child arrangements order is made.” The court should only make an order if satisfied that “the physical and emotional safety of the child and the parent with whom the child is living can, as far as possible, be secured before, during and after contact, and that the parent with whom the child is living will not be subjected to further domestic abuse by the other parent.”[31]In every case where domestic abuse has occurred, the court should consider: “…the conduct of both parents towards each other and towards the child and the impact of the same. In particular, the court should consider –(a) the effect of the domestic abuse on the child and on the arrangements for where the child is living;(b) the effect of the domestic abuse on the child and its effect on the child’s relationship with the parents;(c) whether the parent is motivated by a desire to promote the best interests of the child or is using the process to continue a form of domestic abuse against the other parent;(d) the likely behaviour during contact of the parent against whom findings are made and its effect on the child; and(e) the capacity of the parents to appreciate the effects of past domestic abuse and the potential for future domestic abuse.[32]The article 8 rights of both parents and C are all of course engaged by the applications before the Court. Any orders made which constitute a prima facie interference with the Article 8 rights of either parent or C must be necessary and proportionate to the protection of the rights and interests of others, with the best interests of C prevailing.[33]Ms Perrins on behalf of A argues that the authorities on applications for temporary relocation to non-Hague Convention states should also be applied in these circumstances. In particular, she argues that consideration should be given to the three elements identified in Re R (A Child) [2014] 1 FLR 643: a). The magnitude of the risk of breach of the order if permission is given; b) The magnitude of the consequence of breach if it occurs; and c) The level of security that may be achieved by building into the arrangements all of the available safeguards.[34]The Court agrees that the three elements identified in Re R [2014] will be relevant to any consideration of whether permission to permanently relocate to a non-Hague Convention state should be given, in circumstances where there is a live question as to how the child’s relationship with the left behind parent will be impacted if any court ordered arrangements are breached. To that extent it is a useful aide memoire. However, in practice all of those elements will already fall for consideration when considering the impact of any proposed relocation on the child’s relationship with the left behind parent.[35]Finally on the law, the Court notes that any issues of factual dispute must be determined in accordance with the civil standard of proof, the balance of probabilities. The burden rests on the party making the allegation to prove it.

Evidence:

[36]The Court has considered the full court bundle including papers from the previous proceedings. Within the current proceedings, the Court has had the benefit of a s 7 report prepared by Daisy Veitch and an expert report on Dubai law by Andrew Allen KC. The Court has also had the benefit of hair strand testing of A. Exhibited to father’s statement are reports of work and courses he has undertaken since the last set of proceedings.[37]The Court heard oral evidence from:• Ms Veitch• B• A Summary of evidence: B

Summary of evidence:

[38]B has filed one detailed statement within these proceedings dated 22nd November 2024.[39]Relocation: B sets out that life in Dubai has many benefits and advantages for herself and C. She is a secondary school science teacher and states that whilst her salary in England was good enough to live on and she could comfortably afford day to day living, she did not have a great deal of disposable income. She would have to save for holidays, new clothes etc. Her parents provided support to enable her to afford private school fees. She was trying to save so she could eventually buy a house for herself and C and achieve some independence for them. Renting or buying in London was prohibitively expensive.[40]B says that Dubai was a fantastic opportunity for her and C to experience something new and improve their lives. The package she was offered included C attending the school free of charge. They live in luxury staff accommodation free of charge. The apartment is situated close to local amenities, including a park and play area, convenience store, various supermarkets and a shopping centre. Dubai is very safe. They are walking distance from school. The building has a rooftop swimming pool. The package also includes access to free private medical care and flights home once a year. Her salary has increased by around £1000 per annum and is tax free.[41]B says the school offers C a fantastic education. It is rated outstanding by Ofsted and follows the British curriculum. There is an extensive range of extra-curricular opportunities. It also gives her the opportunity to live independently from her parents. She says that moving to a country with a warm climate, new culture and opportunities to meet people from all over the world was an exciting and unique opportunity for C. She has a disposable income that they can use for travel. She is able to afford flights to and from England so that they can see family and friends regularly.[42]B states that she did not consider C’s relationship with his father would be affected given only indirect contact was in place and she was unaware of any change in circumstances. Indirect contact could be maintained with C in Dubai. She observes that she is a single mother and has always tried to do her very best for C. She believes Dubai offers him a better life, where he can benefit from an excellent education, better access to healthcare, a wealth of friends and a good quality of life.[43]B believes that C has adjusted very well to life in Dubai and is thoroughly enjoying living there. They can spend more time together due to her work hours and being at the same school. The pressures of being a teacher are not the same as in London, where she was heavily reliant on her parents given the long hours she was required to work. In Dubai they spend a lot of time outside, playing in parks or using the rooftop swimming pool. She says C is content and relaxed and growing in social confidence. He is mixing with more people and being pushed academically. He is excelling at school, happy and thriving. She is less stressed and therefore better able to meet C’s physical and emotional needs.[44]Since moving to Dubai, B says that she has developed a strong support network of new friends from the school who can assist with C if needed. She also has friends and family from England who now live in Dubai.[45]It is accepted that C is very close to his maternal family and misses them, but he has frequent contact with his grandparents via video calls and they can visit regularly. If permission to relocate is granted, they will continue to travel back to London at holiday times, such as for Christmas and in the summer holidays. School holidays in Dubai are longer. Whilst she accepts C would not be opposed to returning given his love for his family in London, she believes that at the moment C has “the best of both worlds”.[46]If they are refused permission to relocate, B says she will be devastated. They have been in Dubai since August 2024 and have settled very well. If they have to come back to England, C would have to leave the school he has now settled into extremely well and all the new friends he has made. She says it would be hugely disruptive for C academically, socially and emotionally.[47]If forced to return, C does not now have a school place in the UK and B believes it would not be easy to get him into a good school of their choosing. She says given the VAT increase on private school fees she could not afford to send him back to his old school even if she had a job. Socially it is very difficult for children to join a year group halfway through the term.[48]B would also be without employment. As a teacher, it would be very difficult for her to quickly find an appropriate job mid academic year. If she was out of work, it would have a great financial impact on her and C. She would not be able to provide for him financially and would need her parents’ support. To adjust to moving back in with her parents, having established some independence in Dubai could be difficult. B points out that she gets very limited financial support from A to meet C’s basic needs.[49]A move back to London would diminish their quality of life. In addition to the financial strain, her work-life balance would be worse again once she found employment, and she would have far less time with C.[50]B says that the only significant advantage she can identify from living in London, is that C would be living with his maternal grandparents, who love and care for him deeply. However, that relationship will be maintained wherever they live.[51]It is noted by B that it doesn’t feel right to be forced back to London by A when his relationship with C will not be impacted. She observes that it feels as though his refusal to give consent is another means of controlling her. She says she does not believe that A has C’s best interests at heart. She frankly accepted in her oral evidence that Dubai was such a fantastic opportunity for herself and C that she was not prepared to turn it down whilst she waited to obtain consent.[52]Contact between C and Mr A: B does not believe contact can currently progress between C and A because he has not completed the necessary work around domestic abuse and has not demonstrated his commitment to indirect contact. She explains that she has set up a specific email address for A to send contact to C but he has not written to him consistently. At the date of her statement, A had only emailed the contact email address four times since 2022. He wrote twice in 2024 and sent him a birthday card in April. He has subsequently written three more times. She says she has shown C all of the contact that A has sent to him, but he has not expressed a wish to respond. She would welcome a more creative approach and has agreed to send more regular updates to A through her sister to assist with the indirect contact.[53]In terms of providing financial support for C, B records that A did not pay anything in November 2023, February or March 2024, or June 2024 and at the date of the statement had not paid anything since 5 August 2024. He subsequently paid a lump sum in December.[54]In her oral evidence, B was clear that one of her biggest concerns is the ability of A to be committed to and consistent with the contact arrangements so C is not let down and disappointed.[55]B also notes that A has not completed a suitable perpetrators’ programme. She believes he should complete a programme that is equivalent to Cafcass’ previous DAPP and is accredited by RESPECT. Such a course would cover all the same elements as the previous court approved DAPP and provide a report evidencing his improved insight, acceptance of his behaviours and change. She believes a change in contact arrangements is premature only 18 months on since the last set of proceedings and when A has not addressed his behaviour. She believes A continues to pose a risk to herself and C. She does not believe he is genuine when saying he is remorseful for what he put her through.[56]Allegation that A followed her in his car and verbally abused her: B states that in December 2023, A followed her in his car whilst she was driving. She says he drove on the wrong side of the road and pulled up next to her. He became very aggressive, tooting his horn and screaming at her to wind down her window to speak to him. She says she was terrified. She managed to drive away but got a photo of A’s car. In March 2024 she informed the police.[57]In her oral evidence B gave a more detailed account of this incident, describing how following the first time he drove up next to her car, she moved off when it became apparent he wasn’t going to move and he followed her flashing his lights and beeping his horn. She says she slowed at traffic and he drove up next to her a second time on the wrong side of the road. She says his window was down and he was aggressively shouting her name. She says she could see him clearly in the street lights and there is no doubt it was him.[58]Assessment: B is clearly a very bright and articulate woman. She gave her evidence with clarity and confidence. She is very obviously entirely child-focused in her decision-making and spoke with complete commitment and determination to do her very best for C. The only time she faltered was when speaking about the domestic abuse she experienced from A, at which point she was visibly distressed and struggled to maintain her composure. It clearly still has a significant impact upon her.[59]On the disputed incident in December 2023, B gave very detailed and precise evidence. It was clear, coherent and free-flowing. She did not waiver at all under cross examination, remaining firm that it was A in the other car.[60]The Court found B to be an entirely honest, reliable and persuasive witness. A:[61]A has filed three statements within these proceedings dated 29th October 2024, 12th December 2024 and 12th February 2025.[62]Relocation: In his first statement, A confirms that he received a letter from B’s solicitors on 8th August 2024 requesting permission to take C to Dubai, which he refused. He exhibits a copy of his email reply which provides:
“B has purposely neglected to allow any form of direct or indirect contact with my son. I have never received any pictures, updates or reports about the health or wellbeing of my son. Today, is the first time that I have learned about the receipt of the birthday card that I have posted. No acknowledgement has ever been sent with regards to money deposits, cards and other communications from me or C's paternal family members who are also educational professionals. All my emails have been ignored and never acknowledged or responded to. I am therefore concerned that the removal of C to the UAE to a country in Asia which is more than 8 hours flight time from the UK will have a grave impact on his current and future development and wellbeing. In my opinion, it further serves as a means to alienate him from his paternal family who love him and care for him very much. I am concerned that this relocation is just the start of his permanent removal from the UK and the denial of him ever getting to know his paternal family and his identity.”
The Court notes the reasons cited within that email for his refusal to give his permission, including an allegation of parental alienation.[63]A acknowledges that B is an exceptional mother who is raising a secure, intelligent, thriving young boy. He accepts that life in Dubai has its advantages, particularly with the weather and the increased salary B receives. However, he does not think C’s education is benefiting from attending an international private school in Dubai, given he attended an excellent school in England. He observes that if B wanted C to benefit from a larger classes and facilities, she could enrol him in a different private school in England.[64]A notes that he is concerned about the lack of diversity, in particular in respect of the black community, in Dubai, noting that London is extremely multicultural and has a large black population; something which is important in promoting C’s culture and identity. C also has the benefit of having his extended family around him in London. He believes that C prefers life in England and misses the maternal family.[65]His main concern about the relocation to Dubai is that C will miss out on having a relationship with him and his paternal family, including his half-siblings. Although he accepts that C is not currently having any direct contact with him, he says he is hopeful that will now change. He notes that B has not set out how she will facilitate direct contact between him and C if living in Dubai. He does not believe she regards him as an important person in C’s life.[66]Furthermore, A notes that he is concerned about C’s habitual residence changing to Dubai, necessitating making an application to the Dubai courts if contact does not progress. He notes that the official language is Arabic, which he does not speak, and he is very concerned about how the Dubai court would treat him as an unmarried parent.[67]A acknowledges that if B and C were ordered to return to England that would initially be disruptive, but as they have only been in Dubai for a short time he believes C would quickly adapt back to life in England. He says he has made enquiries with C’s old school, and they have confirmed that there is a space available for him. In his oral evidence he noted that if B could not afford private school fees because she was temporarily unemployed, C could attend a state school. He observed that if they returned, mother would need to find a new job and a new school for C. He didn’t see it as a benefit that C could attend the same school where B was employed. He noted that in his view it was manageable for B to manage her teaching job in London whilst caring for C.[68]Contact with C: A says he does not seek to re-open the findings made against him in the previous proceedings. He says he has done a lot of work since those proceedings and recognises that his behaviour was unacceptable. He acknowledges that it had a profound effect on B and says he is genuinely sorry and regretful for his behaviour.[69]Following the conclusion of the second set of proceedings, he enquired about a number of RESPECT accredited DAPPs but was refused a place. He explains he was rejected for different reasons including that they were unable to accept referrals from individuals who were in private law proceedings or had been within the last 12 months, that any referral had to be made directly by a court, cafcass or social worker and that they were not being funded in his area. He therefore undertook a domestic abuse course in April/May 2023 run by Temper! for which he could self-refer. Whilst noting the concerns of Cafcass and the Court about the unprofessional tone of their final report, he says it was helpful. He says he was required to reflect upon his actions and how his childhood may have influenced how he reacts to certain situations. There was a lot of work done on the impact of abuse on victims and their families. He says he was shown techniques of how to deal with anger without getting out of control, in a nonreactive way. He says he therefore has much more insight into the effects of his conduct towards B. He is now a different person.[70]Following the hearing in November 2024 and the concerns raised about Temper!, he made further enquiries about enrolling on a DAPP. He found and has now commenced a course with Red Snapper Managed Services. He has just a couple more sessions to complete. He says the course was recommended by The Chrysalis Centre, a Home Office sponsored project supported by Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire council. It is a 10-week programme. He has also attended two counselling sessions with Menscape, a counselling service which focuses on fostering accountability, promoting personal transformation and addressing harmful behaviours. He has also completed the dedicated dads programme, a parenting programme developed by HACRO.[71]The report from HACRO is very positive. Sessions were one-to-one and covered relationship conflict and domestic abuse. It records that A now has a much better, comprehensive understanding on managing conflict in a child-focussed way. It reports that he was very motivated, keen, open and engaged throughout the programme. It notes A had a good understanding of the impact of the abuse he perpetrated on B and appeared to take accountability having reflected on his behaviour. It says that A holds a lot of regret around how he treated B and has been able to see the situation from different perspectives. It records that A feels that he has been on an emotional journey where he has worked on himself a lot and is forming new thinking patterns and behaviours. He presented as being reflective and able to think of strategies to manage difficult situations rather than being impulsive. It concludes that A was a pleasure to work with. He was open to being challenged on certain issues and always attended the session with a positive approach.[72]A denies that he is continuing to control B through litigation. He notes he had no option but to issue his application given B relocated to Dubai without consent. He says he does not know what more he can do to show that he is genuinely sorry and regretful for his behaviour. He believes he has undertaken the work on domestic abuse required by the Court before his contact could progress.[73]As regards his contact with C, A notes that B has not complied with the court order to send him updates on C’s progress every 6 months. She has only sent 3 updates since October 2022, meaning she has missed at least one. He explains that he has not written to C more regularly because he finds it very difficult getting no response. He struggles to find something different to say, not knowing what C is up to and or what he enjoys. He does not believe C is aware of his emails, but accepted in his oral evidence that there is no evidence C holds any negative views about him.[74]A apologises for the four random missed maintenance payments. He says he is unable to afford to pay B the costs order at the moment.[75]Incident in December 2023 involving a car: A says he has no idea what B is referring to. He denies that the car in the picture is his.[76]A disputes that it is necessary to limit his parental responsibility. He believes it is important to have the address where C and B are living and the details of the school that C is attending.[77]Assessment: A was a much less impressive witness than B. He was hesitant and disingenuous on matters such as how often he was writing to C and the consistency with which he met his financial obligations. In the Court’s judgment, he really struggled to see things from any perspective other than his own and was not child-focused in the way he approached and thought through the various issues.

Ms Veitch, Family Court Advisor

[78]Ms Veitch has prepared one section 7 report for these proceedings dated 21st January 2025. She also gave oral evidence to the Court.[79]Relocation: Ms Veitch is satisfied that B has properly thought through the move to Dubai. All of C’s physical, psychological and educational needs are met. She considers C to be resilient and able to adapt to the changes. Ms Veitch notes that the move has been a source of upheaval for C but the disruption has been minimised by being with his primary carer and the fact that they have undertaken the move together. She notes it is understandable for B to have sought out opportunities which provide her and C with increased financial stability, security and independence, particularly in light of the burdens placed upon her by the economic abuse which she suffered. She further notes that refusing mother’s application would curtail her right to pursue such opportunities and may prevent her from being able to achieve her ambition to have an independent home with C in the future.[80]Ms Veitch has carried out direct work with C to ascertain his wishes and feelings. He says he is enjoying living with his mother in Dubai but misses everyone else. He has found that the people in Dubai are different and ‘more unique’ which he is still getting used to. He had enjoyed seeing his friends whilst back in the UK to visit. Although he was positive about life in Dubai, it was clear he missed his maternal family.[81]When asked whether he would prefer to live in Dubai or in England, he did not express a strong preference. He was aware that his mother wanted them to have their own apartment.[82]From her direct work with C, Ms Veitch notes that C is generally positive about the move and has found things to enjoy about his life in Dubai. He enjoys travel and new experiences and had good things to say about the food and activities in Dubai, as well as about his new apartment and school, in which he is beginning to settle. He benefits from a diverse group of classmates and teachers and his transition has been supported by the school’s British roots, maintaining a sense of familiarity with the curriculum and culture. He presented as ‘balanced and thoughtful’ about his new life. She considers it unlikely C would object to being ordered to return.[83]Ms Veitch is satisfied that B’s concerns about the impact on her and C if her application is refused are cogent and valid. She would be at risk of being without a job in the middle of the school year and would have to uproot herself and C after they have just made a new start. Socially, Ms Veitch is confident that C would be likely to resettle in London well. However, educationally, leaving his new school in the middle of an academic year, would be disruptive for him. Additionally, B would be disadvantaged financially and emotionally, which would, in turn, impact C and her ability to provide for him.[84]Ms Veitch does, however, observe that these issues have been caused by B moving to Dubai before she had obtained permission.[85]Contact with his father: C presented as curious about his father. He told Ms Veitch that he didn’t remember he had a dad but that his mother recently reminded him about when he used to go and meet him. He thought they didn’t now know where his dad was. He appeared interested that Ms Veitch would speak to him.[86]Ms Veitch asked C how he feels when he thinks about his father and he said, ‘worried and happy, but mostly worried’. He said that his father has been ‘rude’ to his mother and that is why he does not see him. This makes him feel worried. When asked how he feels towards his father, C said that he does want to meet him one day but not yet. He wanted Ms Veitch to find out from his father, why he was rude, and where he is.[87]C had no recollection of having received any letters, emails or messages from his father. When asked how he would feel about receiving things like this from A, he said ‘I would be happy to read his emails. I probably wouldn’t reply straight away. It depends. I might ask someone first.’ Ms Veitch was clear in her oral evidence that C does not have any clear memories of his father. C will need support to rebuild his relationship with A.[88]B explained that when the indirect contact was first ordered, C was not yet reading. She told Ms Veitch that she would tell C that his father had emailed and recount the contents to him. B said he showed varying interest in this. She was not surprised he could not remember as the emails were infrequent and short.[89]B was open to Ms Veitch’s advice that now C is older, it would be more appropriate to encourage him to read the messages himself. Ms Veitch did not consider that B was obstructive in promoting a relationship between C and his father. The move to Dubai was not in her view motivated by an intention to limit his relationship with A.[90]In her interview with A, Ms Veitch felt he demonstrated some improved insight into how his behaviour impacted on B, and on C. He reported feeling regretful and ashamed of much of his behaviour, which he accepted was abusive. Ms Veitch notes it is positive that A has now begun to take personal responsibility for the physical, verbal, emotional, psychological and financial abuse he perpetrated on B. She felt he would now be considered suitable to attend a structured DAPP.[91]Ms Veitch remained firm that the work A has completed to date is not equivalent to a DAPP. It does not have the length or intensity of a RESPECT accredited programme. Whilst she was positive about his motivation and commitment in signing up to additional courses covering abusive behaviours, it was in her view premature to make a conclusive assessment of whether the requisite changes have been achieved. She was equally clear that A needed to achieve these internal changes before contact could be safe. External methods of ensuring safety, such as supervision, would not in her view be sufficient to address the risks to C and B from coercive and controlling behaviours. Ms Veitch expressed some doubt as to whether A’s insight had moved forwards sufficiently, particularly in his understanding of financial abuse and how his abusive behaviours directly impacted C. She noted the difference between saying the right things and putting that into meaningful action, such as settling his debts to B. She was also concerned as to the further allegations of abusive behaviour in December 2023.[92]Ms Veitch observes that in her interview with mother, B was tearful at times and explained that it has taken her time and effort to rebuild herself. B expressed that she has no confidence that A has changed, citing the incident in December 2023 as undermining his assertions that he has changed.[93]In her view, it is premature to make changes to C’s contact arrangements with his father. Ms Veitch refused to be drawn into recommending any progression of contact without a further risk assessment of A.[94]In terms of the impact of the relocation on C’s relationship with his father, Ms Veitch considers that this will be negligible, based on the current arrangements in place. She notes that C’s knowledge of, and relationship with his father has remained very limited because of the domestic abuse and associated risks. It is therefore difficult to assess the proposed removal from the UK as having a significantly limiting or adverse impact on C’s relationship with his father or the family time arrangements. Indirect contact can be facilitated from anywhere in the world. She was not concerned that B would not respect the arrangements as ordered by the Court.[95]Ms Veitch does however recommend improvements to the indirect arrangements. She notes that both parents have a role in supporting C to know who his father is, and to access the indirect contact and engage with it. She recommends that A should write more often, and more comprehensively, offering information about himself and asking questions about C’s likes and interests. B should ensure that C is shown his father’s emails and encouraged to reply.[96]She thus recommends that there is no change to C’s living or spending time arrangements, and that C should be permitted to relocate with B to the UAE. Even if there was scope for A’s contact to progress, it would not change her recommendations on the relocation.[97]Assessment: Ms Veitch’s section 7 report is very thoughtful and comprehensive. Her evidence was very fair, remaining firmly anchored in the findings of domestic abuse against A whilst being open to criticism of B’s actions in going to Dubai without permission and acknowledging the positive steps A had taken to address his behaviours. She did not waiver under cross examination and refused to be drawn into speculation or pre-emptive recommendations based on work and further assessments not yet undertaken. She was a confident, authoritative professional witness.

Expert advice on Dubai family law, Mr Allen KC

[98]Mr Allen KC filed a report dated 14th January 2025 and two addendums dated 27th January 2025 and 13th February 2025.[99]The expert confirms that there is no mechanism by which a Dubai court will simply recognise and enforce a final order of a UK court in relation to a child living in Dubai. There is no formal process by which mirror orders can be obtained. An application could be made to a Dubai court for an order in the same or similar terms as any UK court order. The English order would carry considerable weight.[100]The expert explains that family law in the UAE is in a state of flux. The State is currently engaged in a massive wide-ranging process of law reform. It has recently decriminalised out of wedlock relations and permitted registration of children born out of wedlock. Prior to these changes, the courts in Dubai were limited in their ability to determine the rights and responsibilities of unmarried parents and their children. However, commentary by UAE based lawyers notes that one of the key changes in the new legislation is the recognition of the rights of unmarried fathers. Unmarried fathers can now apply to the court for custody, with new legislation emphasising the importance of co-parenting and cooperation between parents, minimising conflict and working together.[101]Mr Allen KC sets out that the old default family law in the UAE was Federal Law No. 28 of 2005 (UAE Personal Status Code) as amended in 2019, 2020 and 2022. This law applies to UAE citizen Muslims and can apply to UAE citizen non-Muslims and non-UAE citizens in certain circumstances. It is a comprehensive Code but in the absence of a specific provision in the codified law, the Shari’a will apply.[102]Articles 142 to 148 of the 2005 Personal Status Code regulate child custody. Decisions are ultimately made in the best interests of the child but the default position in cases involving Muslims has been that mothers kept custody of girls under thirteen years old and boys under eleven years old. These provisions can be overridden if a court considers it to be in the best interests of the child.[103]With respect to contact, Article 154 of the 2005 Code provides that if the child is in one parent’s custody, the other shall have the right to visit and ask to be visited by the child as determined by the judge.[104]In 2016, Law No 3 on Child Rights, making express reference to the 2005 Personal Status Law, provided for the child to be introduced to his natural family and parents and receive their care and to have personal relations and direct contact with both of them. In the expert’s view compliance with that law would require a UAE court to accept an application for contact by an unmarried father. Mr Allen KC is not aware of any Shari’a principle that prevents a court making a determination about an unmarried father having contact with a child.[105]In 2025 a new Personal Status Code will come into force (Federal Law No. 14 of 2024). This will apply to Muslims (and in many cases to non-Muslims); and it will apply to Emiratis and those resident in the UAE and it will replace the 2005 Personal Status Code.[106]Article 121 on Visitation rights provides: If the child in custody is in the custody of one of the parents, the other parent has the right to visit, host, take them out and stay overnight with them as they agree. In case of disagreement, the court shall decide what it deems appropriate according to the child’s best interest.[107]As regards non-Muslims, a Civil Personal Status Code for Non-Muslims was introduced by Federal Law No. 41 of 2022 with effect from February 2023. Article 10 provides: Custody of children is a joint and equal right of both the father and mother after the occurrence of the divorce. It is also a right for the children not to live under the control of a single parent without the other, for raising and dealing with the child, in order to preserve the psychological health of the child in custody and limit the effects of divorce on the children. Article 14 provides:118. The parentage of the child shall be established by marriage or by the acknowledgment of the father and mother; and the child’s birth certificate shall be issued in accordance with the legislation in force in this regard.119. Cabinet Resolution No. (122) of 2023 provided more detailed rules concerning the application of the Civil Personal Status Code. Many of the Articles relating to custody presume that the parents were married and are now divorced. Mr Allen KC is however confident that the same principles apply to unmarried parents, albeit the fact that the parents are unmarried may be a circumstance to be taken into account.[108]The expert notes that the articles relating to visitation rights do not refer to marriage/divorce. It is thus his view that the courts would not refuse to entertain an application by an unmarried father for contact. Such an application is not precluded by the specific articles. It is his opinion that the same principles will apply to unmarried couples.[109]Non-UAE citizens involved in personal disputes could also agree to choose to adhere to their native laws. The decision as to whether to apply the non-UAE law is for the UAE court. Mr Allen KC observes that in practice, even when ostensibly applying foreign law principles, in determining what is in the best interests of the child, the UAE judiciary will be influenced by the provisions of the Personal Status Codes.[110]The expert’s opinion is that in the absence of any agreement as to the applicable law, on the facts of this case, the UAE courts would be most likely to apply the 2005 (soon to be 2024/25) Personal Status Code because the father is a Muslim. It is however possible that the 2022 Non-Muslim Civil Personal Status Code would be applied given that the parents were not married and that the mother is non-Muslim. The general rule, however, is that questions relating to a child’s personal status are determined according to the religion of the father.[111]Regardless of which Personal Status Code is to be applied, Mr Allen KC does not believe the outcome would be any different. The Judge will determine any question of C’s personal status in line with the court’s assessment of the child’s best interests. A judge in a Dubai personal status court would start from a position that a child has the right to have contact with both parents and the wider family unless there is a good reason to deny contact. The judge would then take all relevant circumstances into account including the wishes of the parents and of the child and the father’s history and any relevant findings of a UK court. The judge would make a decision that was in the best interests of the child in the cultural context of Dubai.[112]Underpinning a best interests approach is the fact that the UAE is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 3 requires decisions made in relation to children to be made in their best interests. Article 9 states that children whose parents do not live together have the right to stay in contact with both parents. International treaties have immediate force of law before the UAE courts.[113]In summary, Mr Allen KC considers that the prospects of the father obtaining an order for contact in the Dubai courts are the same as in the UK courts with the same matters taken into consideration. Decision: Allegation of further incident of domestic abuse in December 2023:

Decision:

[114]The burden rests on B to prove this allegation to the civil standard of proof. It is completely denied by A.[115]B gave very detailed, precise evidence regarding this incident. Her recollection of the event was very clear and firm. She told the Court there was no doubt that it was A in the car. She described him shouting her name, and that when he pulled up alongside her, she could see him clearly in the street lights. She did not waiver under cross examination. She did not accept that she could be mistaken.[116]The Court notes B’s account has remained coherent and consistent, albeit her oral evidence went into considerably more detail than her written statement. The Court also notes there is some corroboration for B’s account, in that she reported the incident to the police just a few weeks later. There is no obvious reason why B would report the incident unless it was true. The parties were not in proceedings. Contact between A and C was static. There is nothing obvious that B would gain from it.[117]A firmly denies the incident and has produced insurance documents demonstrating that he was insured to drive a different vehicle at the time. That is material evidence but not in the Court’s judgment determinative. As B pointed out in her evidence, he could be insured to drive more than one vehicle at the same time.[118]The Court reminds itself that a witness can be absolutely certain in their own mind as to what they have seen or heard, but still be mistaken. However, in the Court’s judgment the evidence of B was compelling. Her account was detailed, credible and entirely persuasive. The Court finds the allegation proved to the civil standard of proof.[119]This incident is of course significant. It is a further incident of domestic abuse post-separation that A continues to deny. It occurred after he had engaged with the Temper! course, throwing further doubt on the effectiveness of that intervention in developing A’s insight, acceptance and understanding of the harm of domestic abuse. The fact he continues to deny the incident also undermines the work he has subsequently done with HACRO and which is ongoing with Red Snapper. If A is still unable to fully acknowledge and accept incidents of serious abusive behaviour, it undermines the genuineness of his commitment to achieving meaningful positive change by engaging in these programmes of work, and significantly compromises the likelihood of a successful outcome.

Welfare issues:

[120]The Court begins its welfare analysis with C, and his particular characteristics and needs. It is clear from the papers that he is a highly intelligent, creative, confident little boy who is happy, settled and secure. His progress is undoubtedly due to the excellent care his mother has always provided for him. She has ensured he benefits from a secure, stable and loving base, from which he can thrive in all areas of his development – physical, social and educational. In the Court’s judgment, of most importance in securing C’s future welfare is protecting the stability and security his mother and the wider maternal family has always guaranteed for him, whether that be in Dubai or London. C has an article 8 right that the stability and security he enjoys in his family relationship with his mother is respected within these proceedings. It is in the Court’s judgment fundamental to his welfare.[121]C is also a little boy who would benefit from a positive and secure relationship with his father, provided it was safe and in his best interests. That relationship is also protected by Article 8. It is recognised that it is generally in the best interests of children to know they have two parents who love them, are committed to them, who want to be an active part of their lives and to play a full role in their upbringing. It promotes in children a secure and confident sense of identity and self, providing a natural bridge to their cultural and familial roots. The inherent advantages of a child spending meaningful time with a non-resident parent are well established. There is however no one paradigm model of how that contact should look. The needs of each individual child are different.

B’s application to relocate:

[122]There is an abundance of evidence before the Court that B meets all of C’s needs – holistically understood – to an exceptionally high standard. It was clear from her oral evidence that her life is centred around C. In everything she does she strives to give him the very best opportunities in life and to be a good role model for him. She works hard to financially support him, A making very little contribution. She has always prioritised C’s education and has ensured he has the best education she can provide. Whilst living in London that meant sacrificing having her own home to pay private school fees.[123]The Court is satisfied on the evidence before it that B’s reasons for wishing to move to Dubai were entirely child-focused. She was motivated only by a desire to give C different and improved opportunities and to enhance their general quality of life. She is not seeking to exclude A or to place obstacles in the way of their relationship progressing.[124]B has provided clear and coherent evidence of the improved quality of life Dubai offers, which is very much to the benefit of C. Her salary in Dubai is much improved, most notably by the fact it is tax free. Her financial position is also greatly enhanced by the overall package her employment brings including free accommodation, health-care and a school place at a private international school for C. The financial package provided by her new employment enables her to begin saving towards a home for herself and C, making achieving independence from her own parents a realistic goal.[125]The Court has no reason to doubt the evidence of B regarding the quality of the education being offered to C and as to the wider benefits of the new school in terms of extra-curricular and social opportunities. She also described in clear terms the general benefits of teaching in Dubai, as well as the specific advantages of teaching in the same school that C attends. She explained how they are now able to spend much more time together, walking to school and having more time in the evenings and weekends. She described an environment in which she can be a much more present and available parent.[126]Dubai itself is safe, friendly and offers excellent facilities. It provides many opportunities for C to travel and experience new things. Whilst a move to Dubai will have been disruptive and somewhat unsettling for C given the very significant changes involved in his day-to-day life, it will also have been exciting. Undertaking the move with B will have been an important protective factor.[127]It is clear on the evidence before the Court that a move to Dubai offers much that enhances C’s welfare.[128]Undoubtedly, to be weighed against that, one of the most significant disadvantages of a move to Dubai is the impact on C’s other important family relationships. The maternal family who C lived with in London are clearly very important to him. Relocation to Dubai means a significant change in how C experiences those close, loving and supportive relationships. It is accepted he misses them. However, C is in very regular contact with his grandparents, and they are able to visit and see each other in school holidays. These are not relationships which will be lost by the move to Dubai. As B put it very persuasively in her oral evidence, C is able to have the best of both worlds.[129]The potential impact on C’s relationship with his father and paternal family is more difficult. At a basic level, C currently has only court ordered indirect contact with his father by email. It makes no practical difference as to how that contact is facilitated whether C is in London or Dubai. He could be anywhere in the world. Relocation to Dubai therefore has minimal if any impact on C’s relationship with his father. The interference with A’s article 8 right to respect for his family life is negligible.[130]The question of how relocation will impact on C’s relationship with his father is however much more complicated given A seeks, as set out in his Children Act application, for matters to progress to direct unsupervised contact. He accepts that there will need to be a gradual process of re-building his relationship with C and developing the contact arrangements, but he seeks for that process to commence straightaway.[131]Father’s desire to progress his contact arrangements with C raises a number of significant welfare issues within the relocation application:• Whether it is in C’s best interests now or in the immediate future for the contact to progress to direct contact?• If it is in C’s best interests for contact to progress, is that undermined by a relocation to Dubai?• Would C becoming habitually resident in Dubai, render any court ordered contact arrangements incapable of effective enforcement or mean any future applications would need to be litigated within that jurisdiction?[132]The Court acknowledges again that it is generally understood to be in the best interests of a child to spend meaningful time with a non-resident parent, provided it is safe. Where there have been findings of domestic abuse, PD12J provides the essential framework within which the court is to determine if the contact arrangements are safe for both the child and the primary carer. The position of Ms Veitch is that any application by father to progress his contact arrangements at the current time is premature. She does not consider contact would currently be safe and that both B and C would be exposed to the risk of further harm from abusive behaviours. B supports that position.[133]A’s position is that he is genuinely remorseful regarding his previous harmful behaviours and that he has done all that he can to address them. The Court gives him significant credit for the efforts he has made to access an appropriate domestic abuse perpetrator’s programme (DAPP) and for his commitment in engaging in a range of parenting work. He has persevered in his efforts despite the very challenging situation a parent in his position faces, being told by Cafcass and the Court that successful completion of an accredited DAPP is essential to contact progressing, but being unable to access an appropriate course due to current referral and funding practices. Having considered the work A has undertaken, it is clear that he has completed a number of relevant sessions on unhealthy relationships and domestic abuse, and has received counselling and support aimed at assisting him to develop more positive coping mechanisms and to adjust his behaviours accordingly. The Red Snapper course he is soon to complete is a DAPP, albeit not RESPECT accredited. The report from HACRO is an entirely positive account of the way in which A engaged with the work. To A’ credit, it is an impressive report.[134]The concern of Ms Veitch, echoed by B, is that the work undertaken by A to date is not of the length, depth and intensity that an accredited DAPP would provide. Whilst Ms Veitch therefore acknowledges A has moved forwards since the previous proceedings and is in a good place to engage meaningfully with further work, she remains of the view that completion of an accredited DAPP remains necessary to effect meaningful change.[135]The Court is anxious that successful completion of an accredited DAPP does not become an essential and non-negotiable pre-condition to contact progressing following findings of abuse. The DAPP is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. The important question must always be whether the parent has achieved meaningful and sustained change, such that any residual risk of harm to the child and primary carer can be safely managed. Whilst that required change might most usually be achieved and evidenced by completion of an accredited DAPP, it cannot be the only way such progress can be demonstrated, particularly given the current difficulties parents may experience in accessing such a course. In this case, the range of work A has engaged in over a fairly significant period of time may have been sufficient to produce the degree of acceptance, insight, understanding and shift in mindset and behaviours required for contact to move forwards. However, in the Court’s judgment, there is a clear gap in the evidence before the Court, to enable it to determine that question. There is no detailed assessment as to whether the work undertaken by A has reduced the risks posed by A to a safe and manageable level. Without such an assessment contact cannot safely progress.[136]This is not to suggest the Court is confident that the required change has been achieved. In that regard, the Court notes its concerns and reasons for caution:• A continues to deny the incident in December 2023 which undermines his expressions of genuine acceptance and regret and means subsequent work has not been carried out on the basis of openness and honesty as to the extent and nature of his abusive behaviours.• The Court discerns in the evidence problematic patterns in the behaviour of A. Despite the findings of financial abuse and the costs order made against him in the last set of proceedings, he has made no attempt to pay back any of that debt. The court also notes with concern the inconsistency in discharging his maintenance obligations to C. No payments were made between August 2024 and December 2024. There is no explanation for that failure to meet his parental responsibilities to his son. The payment of a lump sum in December 2024 - in the middle of these proceedings and when the eyes of the Court are on him - does not excuse that lack of consistent financial support. A does not demonstrate any insight into the impact on C of his failure to meet these financial obligations.• The Court also notes with concern A’ response to B’s request for permission to relocate to Dubai. Whilst of course A would have legitimate questions to raise, his emailed response simply makes unfounded and false allegations against B, including of parental alienation in a context where there have been findings of domestic abuse. That was inappropriate (Family Justice Council Guidance, December 2024). It is not in the Court’s view a child-focused email seeking to understand the implications of such a move for C. Its tone and content raise concern that A continues to use his parental responsibility to exert power and control over B where he is able to do so. His approach is not one focused on C’s welfare. That concern was also evident in his oral evidence where, in the Court’s judgment, he continued to struggle to see the issue from any perspective other than his own. There has been no genuine attempt to think about and engage in what benefits relocation to Dubai may offer to C and his mother.[137]Ms Veitch was clear and unwavering in her evidence that before contact can move forwards there would need to be a detailed and robust assessment of whether the risk from domestic abuse has been effectively addressed. The Court agrees. Furthermore, the question of whether contact should progress does not turn solely on the question of risks arising from domestic abuse. A needs to demonstrate his ability to be consistent and committed in his relationship with his son. The indirect contact to date, whilst difficult for A to manage given the lack of response from C, does not demonstrate the commitment and consistency C would need before embarking upon a process of rebuilding his relationship with his father if he is to be protected against a risk of being left feeling rejected and disappointed. C’s own wishes and feelings reflect the insecure nature of his relationship with his father. His expressed feelings of being happy, curious and worried when he thinks about his father reflect an uncertainty that will need to be addressed through life story work and a positive sustained period of meaningful indirect contact.[138]Before contact could move forwards the Court would thus need to see a robust assessment that the risks of harm from domestic abuse have been addressed in accordance with PD 12J and that there had been a sustained period of positive meaningful indirect contact.[139]Having weighed these factors, the Court is satisfied it is in the best interests of C for the contact to remain, for now, as previously ordered. C being permitted to relocate to Dubai will not impact on the indirect contact which can continue to be facilitated as before. It will have a negligible impact on his relationship with his father. For completeness, the Court also notes that if and when A is in a position to progress his contact with C, a move to Dubai would not prevent that. Given mother’s strong family connections in London, she is clear that they will be making frequent visits back to London in the school holidays when C would be able to spend time with his father.[140]The Court does however recognise and needs to weigh within the balance the increased vulnerability of father’s relationship with C if B is permitted to reside with him in Dubai. That vulnerability is twofold: i) the difficulty of enforcing the current court ordered contact against B; ii) the difficulties of being able to progress contact arrangements in the future if the courts of England and Wales have lost jurisdiction.[141]On the first point, the Court notes B’s purported commitment to facilitating the indirect contact. As the Court has observed, B provides exceptional care to C and meets all of his needs to an excellent standard. The Court is, however, satisfied on the evidence, that B has struggled to support and promote C’s relationship with his father. She has not complied consistently with the requirement to send six monthly updates about C to A. Furthermore, the fact that C has no recollection at all of receiving any correspondence from his father, even given its limited nature, strongly suggests B has not been proactively promoting the indirect contact with C to ensure it is meaningful for him. A therefore has an understandable reason to fear that the indirect contact if not properly supported will just dwindle away if B is in Dubai and he will have no effective means to enforce it. That would not be in C’s best interests.[142]Similarly, whilst the Court is satisfied on the expert evidence detailed above, that A would be able to make application to the courts in Dubai for orders relating to contact with C, that would be an exceptionally challenging process given the current changes and resulting uncertainties in Dubai’s personal status law, and the logistical difficulties for A of trying to navigate an unfamiliar court system in a different jurisdiction. Moreover, the prospect of the parents being able to agree any progression in C’s contact with A is very small given the issues of domestic abuse and the need for B to have the reassurance of a professional risk assessment that genuine meaningful change has been achieved. This is a case in which the oversight of the Court is likely to be appropriately required.[143]The limitations in the mechanisms available to safeguard C’s future relationship with his father – even if it is to remain limited to indirect contact – is an important factor to place within the welfare balance. It is a significant disadvantage of relocation to Dubai and raises prima facie issues impacting on both A’ and C’s article 8 rights to respect for their family life together. There is however in the Court’s view a way to address those concerns in a fair and proportionate way (see further discussion below).[144]Turning to other matters bearing on the relocation application, the Court also has to weigh within the balance the impact on C if forced now to return to London. The Court has no doubt that B would continue to ensure all of C’s needs were met to a very good standard and that she would do the very best she could for him. She would also have the support of her parents in trying to ensure the impact on C was minimised. The reality however is that a forced return to London would cause significant disruption for C. The stability and security B has worked hard to provide him with would be seriously undermined. Whilst it is correct to observe that B must take responsibility for that destabilisation having left for Dubai without permission, the impact on C remains the same.[145]A’s position is that B can return to London, live with her parents again, and find a new job. He says C could return to his old school, which he has confirmed has a place for him, and mother resume paying the fees. If she cannot afford it C could attend a local State school. He acknowledges it will take some time for matters to settle but believes this is in C’s best interests.[146]The Court considers a forced return to London would be exceptionally disruptive for C, who has now settled into his new home and school. It would in the Court’s judgment be contrary to his core need for stability and consistency. B would be without employment and would have no means to financially support C. Obtaining a new teaching position in the middle of the academic year would be challenging. She would have no means to fund C’s private school fees so he would need to commence another new school in the middle of an academic year. There is no information available to the Court about availability of school places to determine whether that is even possible. Furthermore, even if she were to obtain a new teaching position, the rise in private school fees is likely to make it unaffordable. Whilst they could return to reside with B’s parents, having had their own accommodation and space in Dubai, a return to living with the grandparents would not necessarily be straightforward.[147]A forced return to London would also have a significant impact on B. She would be devastated. As C’s sole carer, the financial and emotional impact on her is a relevant consideration for the Court. In the Court’s judgment, to be prevented from pursuing this opportunity for herself and C would constitute a very significant interference with her Article 8 right to autonomy, privacy and respect for her private life.[148]Finally, the Court turns to C’s wishes and feelings. The evidence suggests he has settled well in Dubai and is happy and thriving at school. He does however miss his family and would therefore also be happy if he returned to London to live with them again. He is best described as somewhat ambivalent about remaining in Dubai. It is to B’s credit that he is a confident and secure child who is likely to be happy wherever he lives.

Conclusion:

[149]Having weighed the various factors, the Court is satisfied that it is clearly and firmly in C’s best interests that B be permitted to relocate with him to Dubai. B bears almost sole responsibility for ensuring all of C’s needs are met – physical, social, emotional, educational and financial - and she does so to an exceptionally high standard. Dubai offers a clear opportunity for her to enhance and improve C’s quality of life, securing him an excellent education, comfortable home and new social experiences. To force a return back to London would undermine the security and stability B has worked hard to achieve for him. It would be inimical to his interests and constitute a significant interference with both B’s and C’s article 8 rights.[150]A move to Dubai is not without consequence for A’s relationship with C. The current impact on that relationship is however minimal given the court ordered indirect contact can be facilitated from Dubai in exactly the same way as it can from London. Any infringement of A’s Article 8 rights is therefore limited and, in the Court’s judgment, clearly justified by the weighty welfare considerations in favour of permission being granted.[151]Permanent relocation to Dubai does however create a vulnerability in A’s relationship with C given the potential loss of court oversight within this jurisdiction for enforcement and future contact arrangements and the clear challenges of litigating in Dubai. The Court is satisfied B would comply with any court order, if not enthusiastically. The question of future progress is, however, an important issue for C that again engages father’s article 8 rights and one to which the Court has given anxious consideration. In the Court’s judgment the potential future impact on father’s relationship with C progressing is not such that it outweighs the current overwhelming welfare factors in favour of relocation. However, the loss of jurisdiction to safeguard C’s welfare in any future issues over contact with his father is troubling.[152]Potential solutions to this issue are not straightforward. The Court mooted with the parties the possibility of adjourning father’s Children Act 1989 application rather than concluding proceedings, thereby maintaining this Court’s jurisdiction. The Court readily accepts that this is not an attractive proposition given the lengthy litigation to which C has already been subjected and the significant emotional toll it has taken on B in particular. Furthermore, the delay would not be insubstantial. An assessment is needed to ascertain whether A has in fact moved forwards sufficiently that safe contact could progress. There is also a need for A to demonstrate commitment and consistency with the indirect contact over a sustained period. Further delay of at least 5-6 months is not something this Court would usually countenance as in the interests of children. However, on the facts of this particular case, and having balanced the commitment A has shown in trying to address the domestic abuse, the positive reports on his engagement with the work and the clear need for ongoing court oversight to ensure any progression of contact is safe and in C’s best interests, the Court is satisfied it should adjourn the CA 1989 application to allow for a further period of assessment under the oversight of this Court. If jurisdiction is lost, the Court is concerned both parents and most importantly C will be left in a state of limbo with no clear pathway to resolving matters. The purpose of that process will be to determine if contact can move forwards or should remain as it is for the foreseeable future. Neither of those outcomes is incompatible with C residing in Dubai.[153]B’s application for permission to relocate with C to Dubai is therefore granted. Father’s application for a variation to the child arrangements order is adjourned. Directions to progress that application will follow.[154]Finally, mother seeks protective orders to prevent father knowing C’s school or their home address in Dubai. Such orders have not been in place before. Mother is particularly concerned given C’s school is also her place of work. There is, however, no evidence before the Court that A has deliberately sought to seek out C at school or at home to harass B or cause problems. If A is to build a meaningful relationship with C he needs to be able to exercise his parental responsibility in relation to matters such as education. Any risk is diminished by the fact of geographical distance. The Court is not therefore satisfied the intervention of the Court is required to protect the health, safety and well-being of B and C in relation to the identity of the school. This is important information A should know unless there is a good clear reason to withhold it. Any abuse of that information can immediately be addressed by the Court given we will remain within proceedings. This is an opportunity for trust to begin to be rebuilt. The name of the school can therefore be disclosed but the home address of B, given the findings of domestic abuse, will remain confidential.[155]That is the Court’s judgment. Ms Justice Harris 27th February 2025

Cited in 1 later judgment