SA v TA (Relocation: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) [2026] EWHC 756 (Fam)

This judgment has been redacted and some details abridged for publication. Any application for further publication may be made orally or in writing, with notice to the parties.”This version of the judgment may be published only on condition that the anonymity of the children and their family is preserved and that there is omitted any detail or information that may lead to their identification, whether on its own or in conjunction with other material in the judgment. This includes, but not exclusively, information of location, details of family members, organisations such as school or hospital, and unusual factual detail. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is complied with. Failure to comply will be a contempt of court[2026] EWHC 756 (Fam)Case No BS25P70596IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, FAMILY DIVISIONSITTING IN THE EXETER FAMILY COURTIN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989Date 8 February 2026
Before
HHJ FLEXMAN sitting as a s9 Judge
Between
S.A.ApplicantT.A.RespondentTHE CHILDREN(THROUGH THEIR r16.4 GUARDIAN)Second - Fourth Respondents
S.A. v T.A. (Relocation: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)
The Applicant appeared in person for in personMaria Scotland appeared for father (instructed by Norman Hartnell of the Family Law Company by Hartnell Chanot)Sarah Phillimore appeared for children (of Cartridges Law)Hearing Hearing dates: 27- 29 January 2026Judgment handed down on 13 February 2026
JUDGMENTHHJ Flexman:
[1]This case concerns three young people, AA, BA and CA. I hope they will forgive me for referring to them collectively as ‘the children’ for the purposes of this judgment. For the purposes of publication I have redacted any reference to their ages, schooling and any other personal information which may lead to their identification. I have received detailed submissions from the parties as to the redactions and most of their proposals have now been incorporated into this final document.[2]This is, sadly, the third set of proceedings that these children have been subjected to. The parties are, as before, their parents SA (‘the mother’) and TA (‘the father’). It is a fact that they have chosen to litigate their differences yet again, despite many warnings over the years as to the impact on their children of doing so. It is with some regret that this matter still had to proceed to a final hearing.[3]As at the commencement of the hearing the live applications before the court were:a. Mother’s application for a s91(14) orderb. Father’s application to remove all of the children to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (‘KSA’) and to reside with him there.[4]Clearly the most significant application is the father’s application to relocate the children. That application is opposed by both the mother and the guardian.[5]In order to resolve these issues, I have heard evidence from the social worker, both parents and the children’s guardian.

Hearing and participation

[6]The hearing has been an attended hearing at Exeter County Court, save for the first day which was fully remote due to flooding in the area which prevented some parties from being able to attend court. Only the social worker’s evidence was taken that day.[7]The mother appeared in person. The father and the children were represented by Counsel. As a result of an earlier finding by the court the provisions of Part 4B of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 were applicable such that the mother could not (and indeed did not wish to) cross examine the father directly. The court made directions at an earlier hearing for the appointment of QLR but unfortunately no QLR was available. As a result all questions that the mother wished to put to the father were put by the court.

Background

[8](Details about both parents have been redacted to protect the children’s identities).[9]The parents married in 2009 and lived in country X together. AA was born in country X as was BA. In 2015 the mother wished to move back to the UK. The father stayed in country X but visited the family, initially monthly, but then less frequently. CA was born in the UK. The relationship between the parents broke down in 2018, they formerly separated in 2019 and in September 2019 the father issued an application to spend time with the children. In January 2020 he applied for leave to remove the children from the jurisdiction so that they could live with him in country X.[10]The children are all British citizens although AA and BA also have Y citizenship.[11]Within those proceedings the mother made a number of allegations against the father including marital rape and coercive and controlling behaviour. The father alleged that the mother failed to promote his relationship with the children, made false and exaggerated allegations of abuse and that her comprised mental health impacted in her parenting capacity and her ability to support the children’s relationship with their father. Contact between the father and the children was initially supervised and moved to unsupervised in April 2020. Covid then intervened and contact became indirect again. The allegations were the subject of a fact finding hearing before Recorder Sharpe KC sitting as a s9 Judge from 8 -12 February 2021.[12]In his judgment the learned Recorder did not find the mother’s allegations of coercion and control proved. There was some evidence of controlling behaviour on the part of the mother. He found that the mother had, to some extent, imposed unnecessary restrictions on the father’s contact. He did find that the father had initiated sexual intercourse at times when the mother was asleep and had not consented to the same but also referred to ‘mixed messages’. He concluded ‘The relationship between these parents is complex and the responsibility for the conflict in which they have become enmeshed cannot be placed upon the shoulders solely of one or the other. I am not convinced that any summary of the findings I have made above will represent an accurate picture of those findings and indeed may risk misleading the casual reader.’[13]The final hearing took place in January 2022 with judgment being handed down on 17 January 2022. In his final judgment Recorder Sharpe determined that the children should live with their mother and spend time with their father through three video calls a week and for periods of staying contact in the United Kingdom and in X. The father’s application for relocation to Country X was refused. An order was made that in the event of any time outside of the jurisdiction the father was to lodge the sum of £7500 with his solicitor which was to be made immediately available to the mother if he failed to return the children. In his judgment the learned Recorder notes that neither parent seemed to accept his previous findings or their own responsibility of the situation they were in. He noted ‘[t]hus it is that these parents erode the trust each might have in the other, and this can only have a destabilising effect on the children which is against their welfare interests.’[14]The learned Recorder found that there was a low risk of the father seeking to retain the children in Country X and that the children should be allowed to visit their father there from Summer 2023. The delay was to allow a period of ‘settling in’ with the arrangement and to develop a degree of mutual trust.[15]On 31 August 2022 the father made another application seeking change of residence and relocation to Country X. On 14 October 2022 the mother applied for an order under s91(14) Children Act 1989. The father’s application was made in the context of allegations of parental alienation and emotional harm being perpetrated by the mother. Within those proceedings, an ISW was instructed to assist the court in identifying the children’s wishes and feelings, their physical educational and emotional needs and the likely affect of any change in circumstances on each of them. When describing the ISW’s evidence in is judgment the learned Recorder noted ‘[h]is report further concluded that the mother had been the children’s carer all their lives and that she was the primary attachment figure. To fracture that attachment would be very damaging in the short, medium and long term, and he said in the report and repeated in oral evidence that he would go so far as to say that this would amount to an Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE)….. Addressing the signs of distress already shown by AA he expressed the opinion that once this case is over AA (and possibly the other children) may need counselling and professional support.’ Further, it is respectfully submitted that all three children display worrying signs of emotional distress associated with their exposure to these proceedings and the ongoing acrimony between their parents. This is especially true of AA.’[16]In respect of the father’s allegation that the mother had been unsupportive of his relationship with the children, the learned Recorder noted:
‘ over the last year there has not been a single contact which the court directed which has been missed by the mother (as opposed to not having been taken up by the father) and of the 50 proposals he has advanced for altered or additional dates, some at quite short notice, she has agreed slightly more than half. This is despite the litany of complaints which the father has levelled at her care of the children. As noted above the ISW agreed, and in my judgment correctly agreed, that the good relationship he maintains with the children who want to see more of him, reflects a positivity on the part of this mother and that it evidences the fact that she has given emotional permission for them to maintain and develop that relationship. The fact, therefore, that [the father]sees in everything that [the mother]does, a malicious intent to obstruct that relationship, and that he remains of the view that her conduct evidences attempted parental alienation, is disappointing and largely unjustified.’
[17]Recorder Sharpe KC was critical of aspects of both parents’ behaviour noting ‘ Both of the parents are more concerned with their own agendas arising out of the unfinished business of their failed relationship to give to the children the priority their emotional needs demand, damaged as they are by years of conflict. As I have indicated, I do not accept that either of them have accepted the findings of this court.’[18]Having considered each child’s welfare needs the learned Recorder determined that his previous order should remain, save that the deposit should be increased to £10,000. He found that an order under s91(14) was necessary and proportionate and that such an order should be in place for two years.[19]Unfortunately, the parties were still unable to agree the terms of the final order and the learned Recorder prepared three further supplemental judgments dated 31 March, 21 April and 2 May 2023. The latter two dealt with the significant issue of the father having resigned from his job in Country X and moving to KSA. The father sought to amend the orders to allow him to take the children to KSA. Given the paucity of information about those arrangements the learned Recorder reaffirmed his order that the children could only be taken to a Hague Convention country or Country X alone.[20]In September 2024 AA started attending school. His siblings were enrolled at another school. In November 2024 AA started experiencing suicidal ideation and was taken to hospital by a teacher. His presentation was said to be linked to his parent’s separation and fears of having to relocate to KSA with his father.[21]A referral was made by CAMHS to Children’s Services. Children’s Services noted that AA was said to be ‘struggling with his parent’s separation’. A meeting was offered but the mother asked that any meeting be deferred to the New Year as she believed that the father was likely to be issuing proceedings again.[22]In January 2025 there was a further referral after AA alleged that his father had pushed him and hurt him. He was said to present with ‘low mood and overwhelmed.’ In February 2025 AA went into school on the train and then left and got onto another train. He was reported missing and his mother arranged for him to be collected from the station. AA was reported to be worrying about the ‘fallout with dad from speaking to social services’. AA was seen by CAMHS crisis teams and the assessment was ‘AA does not have a mental health illness, but is experiencing extreme pressure with the parents’ relationship and AA worries about the consequences by dad.’ (DCC records). AA was also said to be struggling with long school days.[23]The mother’s view at that time is noted as follows ‘[She]would like the local authority to inform the children’s father that he cannot have contact, however, this remains under assessment and [her] responsibility to exercise her Parental Responsibly if she is concerned for the children’s welfare. AA is sharing he would like to have a relationship with both parents although for parents not to speak to him about each other as finds this difficult. In terms of the incident of AA hurting his back, from his description they have had a conflict and upset yet this does not appear to be risk of continuing significant harm.’ (DCC records)[24]A single assessment was completed in March 2025, the conclusion of that assessment was ‘ongoing parental conflict, allegations of abuse, and professional involvement are having a significant emotional impact on the children, particularly AA. The assessment suggests that if this level of conflict continues, there is a risk of emotional harm to the children. It is crucial for the court order to be adhered to and for the parents to access the recommended support to mitigate these impacts.’[25]On 14 April 2025 the father emailed MASH with a document entitled ‘Safeguarding statement regarding welfare of my children’ in which he set out what he described as ‘serious and ongoing concerns regarding the welfare of my children… while in the care of their mother.’ In that document the father alleges that the children are being subjected to emotional harm, coercive parenting and manipulation, parental alienation and that orders are being breached. The father emailed again on 22 April asking for a response due to the ‘gravity of the emotional and psychological risks involved’.[26]The father sent another email on 5 May 2025 informing MASH that he had now referred the matter to the police, in that email he makes allegations that the mother has ‘perverted the course of justice’ and is guilty of ’wasting police time’[27]On 22 May 2025 the social worker emailed the father informing him that he was now the allocated social worker to the family and would provide an update to him shortly. The mother then refused to allow the social worker to visit.[28]On 24 May the father emailed the social worker again. The email contains information from CHAT GPT as to the contents of books that the mother had at home and whether they were appropriate books to be within reach of a child. They include two novels by Sally Rooney, a number of feminist works and ‘Three Women’ by Lisa Taddeo. The father was aware of the titles as AA had sent him a picture of the bookcase.[29]At about this time the father was also reporting concerns that AA was being bullied at school. There was an investigation by the school that did not find evidence of bullying.[30]On 18 June 2025 the father recorded AA making allegations sexual abuse that had occurred at school. AA was returned to his mother’s home that day and the following morning the mother sent him into school. AA contacted his father and said he did not want to go in. The father contacted social services and an urgent meeting was held, the outcome of which was that AA should not return to his school.[31]On 19 June 2025 the mother issued an application for AA’s immediate return to her care, and orders preventing the father from removing the children from her and a suspension of his contact. The hearing was heard ex parte that day by HHJ Davies. The mother told the court that there was a risk of abduction to KSA, and the orders sought were made.[32]On 20 June 2025 the father made an application to discharge the order and for an ‘urgent assessment of the safety of the children in their mother’s care’. The case was heard by the court that day. Recorder Bradberry made orders reinstating indirect contact between the children and their father, directing disclosure from Children’s Services and from the children’s schools and for a s7 report to be filed by the social worker by 18 July 2025.[33]A strategy meeting was held on 23 June 2025 attended the Children’s services team manager), the schoolteacher and the designated safeguarding leads from AA’s school and a Police Officer. The outcome was that there would be an investigation and a wider CIN assessment in respect of AA’s siblings.[34]The matter came back before the court on 23 July. At that stage the s7 report had not yet been completed but the social worker attended court. Direct contact between the children and their father was reinstated and the father was given permission to take the children on holiday to X. The issue of future schooling was noted and listed for a hearing on 21 August 2025 when the court would also have the benefit of the children’s views through the social worker.[35]The social worker’s initial report was filed on 2 August 2025 documenting the direct work he had undertaken with the children. In it he records the following:
‘AA has been clear and consistent in expressing that he does not wish to return to …school. He described experiencing an incident that he perceived as a sexual assault and shared that the experience significantly affected his sense of safety, trust, and well-being within the school environment AA feel due to his report of alleged sexual assault his sense of belong among his friends and classmate has been eroded and his feelings of emotional and social safety within school is no longer available…. He expressed a desire to feel safe, respected, and emotionally supported in his educational setting. AA has made it clear that, while he wants to continue with his education and values learning, he cannot return to an environment that he associates with trauma and distress. In terms of broader emotional wellbeing, AA is notably impacted by parental conflict and described feeling caught between opposing adult perspectives. He expressed a clear wish for both parents to step back from conflict and to avoid involving him in matters relating to their ongoing disputes.’
[36]In respect of BA:
‘BA also spoke positively about his father and shared that he is looking forward to an upcoming trip to the X. He expressed a wish to have more extended holiday contact with his father. He appears emotionally attached to both parents and, while aware of conflict, has not reported feeling directly caught in the middle. His maturity and ability to navigate these dynamics with relative ease are notable. My professional view is that BA should remain at …school. His educational, emotional and social needs are being met, and he is thriving in the current setting. …. Consideration should, however, be given to his clearly expressed wish for increased time with his father during school holidays.’
[37]For CA the social worker noted:
‘Like her brothers, CA is aware of ongoing tensions between her parents. She expressed a desire for them to get along and spoke of feeling caught in the middle of disputes, particularly when conversations about her future are framed in conflictual terms. It is my view that her distress is less about school and more about the emotional atmosphere within her family. CA should remain at her school, where she appears to be well supported academically and socially. However, her emotional needs should be carefully monitored, and it may be appropriate to consider additional support through school counselling or an early referral to CAMHS if signs of emotional dysregulation continue.’
[38]At the hearing on 21 August 2025 the court ordered that AA was not to return to his previous school and that the parties must jointly apply for a school place for him for September 2025. The father confirmed that he was applying for the children to move with him to KSA. The case was reallocated to a s9 Judge and the children were joined as parties.[39]It is recorded that the mother was deemed to make the following applications:a. No direct or indirect contact between the father and the childrenb. No contact with the motherc. A prohibition on his attendance at her homed. Discharge of his parental responsibilitye. S91(14) orderf. Costsg. That the father should have no contact with [redacted].h. That the Father be ordered to write to [redacted]and state that he lied about the fact that the Mother has pornographic books in her house and that she watches pornography with the children.i. That the Father be ordered to change his phone number and not tell the children what it is.j. For permission for the Mother and the children to change their phone numbers and for Father to not know what they are.k. For the Father’s family to only contact the children via letters which are vetted by a responsible adult.[40]The order for a s7 report remained with a filing date of 30 September 2025 and the need for a fact finding hearing was to be determined at the next hearing.[41]The matter came before me for the first time on 21 October 2025. By that time the social worker’s full s7 report was available. The social worker’s recommendation was that the children remain living with their mother and be able to spend half the holidays with their father which reflected both their wishes and feelings and his professional assessment as to welfare. His report highlighted the significant detrimental effect that the proceedings were having on each child.[42]At the hearing on 21 October 2025, I invited the parties to reflect on the need for litigation. I asked them to try and put their own agendas to one side and re read the s7 report with a focus on their children’s welfare and the harm that they were clearly suffering. I re read to them the concerns about the impact conflict had on their children that had existed since 2022. I refused to make any substantive orders until they had done so and relisted the matter on 14 November 2025.[43]Following that hearing both parties did reflect, albeit they were not able to reach any agreement. The father instructed his solicitors to write to the mother with a proposal that would see the children remaining at school in the United Kingdom and spending time in the holidays with him. That proposal invited the mother to agree to the following:a. To withdraw all current complaints made to the police and other professionals made by both parties against the other.b. To pursue mediationc. To permit all international travel without the need for any security/bondd. To use Our Family Wizard againe. For the children to have a dedicated phone for talking to their fatherf. To work openly togetherg. To permit the children to attend a once a week bible study and allow visits from faith leaders from time to timeh. Flexibility of arrangementsi. To keep adult books away from the children and to respect the faith teaching.j. To be open about contact with mother’s brother and previous partner, noting that undertakings were given the previous proceedingsk. To discuss schooling optionsl. To inform the wider family that they are working togetherm. To support each other and work together in disciplining the children.[44]In a position statement dated 14 November 2025, the mother confirmed that she was no longer pursuing the suite of orders that she had been deemed to make on 21 August and that she sought a return to the status quo and a s91(14).[45]At that hearing, in the absence of any agreement, the father still pursued his application for relocation. The guardian informed the court that in her view it would be emotionally harmful for her to carry out any further direct work with the children. I declined to make orders allowing father to take the children to KSA in the absence of any further information and approved the instruction of an expert in regards to the enforcement of orders made by this court in that jurisdiction. The matter was set down for PTR and final hearing.[46]Social worker has continued to visit the children under the CIN plan. On 29 October 2025 he met them at a hotel where they were staying for the purposes of spending time with their father. At that meeting the children expressed a wish to live with their father and spend time with their mother. On the same day AA sent an email to Social worker describing an incident with his mother and his feelings that he would prefer to live with his dad.[47]A further visit was undertaken on 27 November when AA was informed that his email was to be disclosed into proceedings. He was said to be distressed at that information. At that visit it was also noted that therapy for AA had been arranged and was due to start imminently.[48]The PTR was held on 20 January 2026 and the final hearing commenced on 27 January 2026 at A County Court.

The Law

[49]The applications for child arrangements are governed by s1 Children Act. Each child’s welfare is my paramount consideration and I must have reference to the checklist factors at s1(3).[50]In respect of the application to relocate the children to Saudi Arabia,In Re C (A Child) [2019] EWHC 131 (Fam) Williams J provided a useful summary of the approach to be taken in considering an application for international relocation, at paragraph 15: The most recent and authoritative appellate decision on the approach to permanent overseas relocation cases is Re F (A Child) (International Relocation Case) [2015] EWCA Civ 882 [2017] 1 FLR 979. The material paragraphs of the judgment are 3, 4, 30-35 (Ryder LJ) and 45-52 (McFarlane LJ). Re F together with the earlier authorities of 'Payne, Re F, K-v-K and Re C (Internal Relocation) makes clear that that whether the applications are configured under s.8 or s.13 Children Act 1989 the following framework applies.(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 right 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. In Re F it was said one should be undertaken, In Re Y [2015] 1 FLR 1350 it was said in private law cases it doesn't need to be, The Court of Appeal in Re C (Internal Relocation) expressed doubts about how it was to be undertaken. 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.[51]Considering the issue of spending time abroad with the father if the children remain living with their mother, I refer myself to Re A (Prohibited Steps Order) [2014] 1 FLR 643 where Patten LJ said: The overriding consideration for the court in deciding whether to allow a parent to take a child to a non-Hague Convention country is whether the making of that order would be in the best interests of the child. Where (as in most cases) there is some risk of abduction and an obvious detriment to the child if that risk were to materialise, the court has to be positively satisfied that the advantages to the child of her visiting that country outweigh the risks to her welfare which the visit will entail. This will therefore routinely involve the court in investigating what safeguards can be put in place to minimise the risk of retention and to secure the child's return if that transpires. Those safeguards should be capable of having a real and tangible effect in the jurisdiction in which they are to operate and be capable of being easily accessed by the UK-based parent. … Applications for temporary removal to a non-Convention country will inevitably involve consideration of three related elements: (a). the magnitude of the risk of breach of the order if permission is given; (b). the magnitude of the consequences 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. It is necessary for the judge considering such an application to ensure that all three elements are in focus at all times when making the ultimate welfare determination of whether or not to grant leave[52]The application for an order under s91(14) CA 1989 is an application for an order that ‘no application for an order under this Act of any specified kind may be made with respect to the child concerned by any person named in the order without leave of the court.’[53]The provision is further governed by PD12Q of the Family Procedure Rules, which make clear that the use of s91(14) is not restricted to preventing vexatious litigation or repeated applications but is a filter to be applied as determined by the interests of the children.

Expert evidence on enforcement of orders in KSA

[54]KSA in not a signatory to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and there is no bilateral treaty in force between UK and KSA providing for mutual recognition and enforcement of Family Court orders.[55]Byron James, an expert in expatriate law, was instructed to assist the court with the recognition and enforceability of any orders made by this court in KSA. His report is dated 18 December 2025.[56]Mr James’ summary states as follows (I have extracted what I find to be the most pertinent parts): Issues concerning children are dealt with in the Personal Status Courts, applying the Saudi Personal Status Law and associated regulations. Matters of custody, guardianship, residence, travel and return of children are determined in accordance with Saudi law, rather than by direct application of foreign law or foreign court orders. While a foreign order may be placed before the Saudi court as background or evidential material, it does not bind the court or dictate the outcome. Saudi courts generally do not apply foreign substantive law in litigation before them. Where a parent seeks to secure arrangements in Saudi Arabia that reflect or mirror an English child arrangements order, this would ordinarily require the making of a Saudi court order or the approval by a Saudi court of a consent arrangement between the parents. Any such order would be subject to the Saudi court’s assessment of the child’s welfare as understood within the Saudi legal framework, and to considerations of guardianship, public order and the child’s residence and status. …..enforcement powers are available only in respect of orders made or recognised by the Saudi courts. A breach of an English court order alone does not, of itself, give rise to sanctions under Saudi law. If a child were retained in Saudi Arabia contrary to the terms of an English court order, the primary legal recourse available to the other parent would be to initiate proceedings in the Saudi courts, either to seek recognition of the foreign order under the Saudi Enforcement Law or to obtain fresh orders under Saudi law. Such proceedings involve time, cost and uncertainty, and outcomes are determined by Saudi law and judicial discretion. There is no system of public funding or legal aid in Saudi Arabia equivalent to that available in England and Wales for private family law proceedings. A foreign parent seeking to obtain or enforce orders in Saudi Arabia would ordinarily be required to fund legal representation and associated costs privately.[57]He further explains that under KSA law there is a distinction between custody and guardianship. Custody involves day to day care and guardianship concerns legal authority over the child including matters such as international travel. The father is generally regarded as the child’s legal guardian whilst custody rights may be exercised by either parent. The law provides that children stay under custodial arrangement until the age of 15, following which they are given a choice between their parents. ‘The practical significance of the custody/guardianship distinction is that a parent who has custody may not necessarily have unilateral authority to make decisions relating to international travel or relocation unless authorised by a Saudi court order or by the guardian, or unless administrative rules permit the custodial parent to act in specific circumstances. This distinction is of particular relevance in cases involving foreign expatriate families and international relocation, where travel and exit permissions interact with guardianship concepts and immigration status.’[58]In response to questions put Mr James prepared an addendum report dated 21 January 2026 in which he states:a. Where a parent is seeking an order for enforcement of a foreign judgment in relation to children, it is not uncommon for the Enforcement Court to decline enforcement and redirect the parties to pursue substantive proceedings in the Personal Status Court.b. Contested proceedings in the PSC are likely to take months. It is possible to gain interim measures such as travel restrictions more quickly if the court considers it necessary to protect a child’s best interests.c. The likely costs of enforcement proceedings is several thousands of pounds.d. A financial bond in the region of £7500-10,000 would provide some assistance in meeting initial legal and administrative costs but would be unlikely to cover the full costs of any substantive proceedings.[59]In summary, there is little that the mother could do to enforce an order of this court if the father chose to retain the children in KSA. It is likely to require further litigation in KSA if contested. It is possible for the parents to lodge an agreed order and ask the KSA court to approve it but the approval is not guaranteed and would be subject to the application of the law of KSA. Of note, AA’s age means that he is likely to be afforded a choice as to where to live if matters were contested at any time.

Impression of witnesses

[60]The allocated social worker for the children and author of the two section 7 reports. It was clear from both his written and oral evidence that the social worker has a very solid grasp of the issues facing these children. His report is well analysed, empathetic and balanced. The social worker identifies real strengths within both parents offer to their children but was keen to highlight the impact their continued conflict was having on each child. In his report the social worker recommended that the children remain in their mother’s care and enjoy ‘structured, consistent and meaningful contact with their father.’ The social worker makes recommendations for both parents to undertake co parenting work and to seek therapeutic support whilst the Child in Need (‘CIN’) plan is in place.[61]In his oral evidence the social worker was clear that the children want to spend more time with their father, directly and indirectly. He agreed that there were some concerns about the mother’s emotional parenting, but in his view the answer lie in support and therapy under the auspices of a CIN plan rather than a change of residence and a move abroad. He acknowledged that more recently the children had changed their views from wanting to live with their mother to wanting to move to their father’s care but believed that this was partly due to them staying with him at that time. In the social worker’s view if the children move to live with their father the conflict will simply continue. The social worker was taken through the father’s position as set out in his letter of 23 October 2025. He agreed that many of the proposals within that were child centred and appropriate and he would support them. It was the social worker’s initial view that the court should review the arrangements in six months’ time to see if there had been change. When I asked him what his proposals would be if there was no court review he said that they would remain the same and that the LA would be monitoring the children’s welfare under the CIN plan. The social worker told the court that if there was no improvement within six months then the LA would consider issuing proceedings themselves.[62]The father spoke of his frustration and sadness at not being able to achieve workable contact arrangements. He said that there continued to be missed contacts with the children and that indirect contact often started late. The last time he saw the children was at Christmas for a week and they had a lovely time together.[63]The father was passionate in his views about listening to the children, accepting what they say and advocating for them. He was emotional in talking about his children and clearly loves them very much.[64]There were times when the father demonstrated real insight into his own behaviours when they had not been helpful or constructive. For example:a. He accepted that he had acted too quickly in moving AA out of school when he had thought that AA had been subject to inappropriate touching. He has subsequently learned that what was happening was a game in which people had tried to hit each other in the genitals. That was clearly inappropriate but it was different from what he had understood at the time. In hindsight, he said that would have handled it differently.b. The father had reflected on his presentation at the time of Recorder Sharpe KC’s judgment when he had been assessed as looking for issues to raise. He said that he had evolved in his thinking and accepted he had seen things that weren’t there.c. I asked him, as I asked the mother as well, to tell me about a time when he recognised he had behaved in a way that added to the conflict between them. He told me that he recognised that his tone in communications was often unhelpful and that he needed to try and take a step back.[65]There was also evidence of a lack of insight into the children’ needs:a. The father is unable to hold in his mind any concerns or anxiety that the children have expressed about a move to his care.b. He does not believe that moving the children to KSA would have a detrimental impact on their relationship with their mother. He said that this ‘was not a separation’.c. The father did not believe that there would be a significant change in culture for the children moving from his home in the UK to a gated community in KSA as ‘most of the people there were British.’[66]Overall my impression was of a loving father, but with a singular focus on what he believed was the best outcome for the children. In the event that any evidence did not sit within that outcome, he struggled to consider it. He also did not appear to appreciate the significant impact that constantly raising concerns about the mother’s care has on her and her ability to then move on and communicate with him.[67]The mother was far less emotional than the father, her presentation was calm and restrained. The mother was keen to highlight the impact of continued professional involvement with the family be it through litigation or referrals being made to MASH, the police and others. Her narrative is that the father has tried to control the family through allegations and complaints and that he has acted in pursuit of his ultimate desire to move the children to KSA with him. The mother confirmed her view that the father was a ‘sexual predator’ and that he was ‘dangerous’. She believes that contact between the father and the children could also be dangerous. At one point she described him as ‘my rapist’ which was indicative of the strength of her feelings about him. The mother also denied ever discussing matters in front of the children or making them aware of her feelings about their father. Suggesting that the ‘children have no idea’.[68]The mother said that she recognised the love the children had for their father and that they enjoyed their time with him and that she continued to support it. Asked about her position last August when she was seeking to prevent any further contact and remove his parental responsibility she said that she had ‘shifted’ in her views having read the social worker’s s7 report and considered the issues from the children’s point of view.[69]The mother’s answer to my question as to where she had added to conflict was that she recognised that she shut down when she received communications from the father and didn’t respond which meant that matters then escalated.[70]As with the father the mother did display some real insight into her own actions and the impact on the children but there was also a block in recognising how her views about the father are conveyed to the children, consciously or otherwise.[71]The guardian spoke to her detailed position statement and confirmed that having listened to the evidence she remained supportive of the social worker’s recommendations. She accepted that she had limited involvement with the children only meeting them once. That was a professional decision for which she had sought guidance and ratification from her team manager due to the concern that any further involvement was likely to be harmful.[72]Analysis It is not necessary or indeed helpful to descend into the many factual disputes that that the parents have raised against the other during the course of these proceedings. Both parties made a number of allegations against the other and I have confined myself to those matters that in my view require determination in order to reach a welfare decision.[73]Both parents have significant strengths. They both adore their children and seek to promote their welfare.[74]The mother has frequently been described as less emotionally available but I noted in her evidence how she spoke warmly of her cuddles with AA and her connection with BA. She spoke of how she and CA enjoy singing songs and her brushing and plaiting CA’s hair every day. The mother looks after the children every day and ensures that they have everything they need. The mother spoke about AA’s current education provision at home and how he finds structure and respite in his music.[75]The father is a passionate advocate for each child as I have noted. He provides guidance and warmth and an ongoing meaningful connection between himself and his children.[76]It is also true that both parents have acted poorly. I have considered the findings made in respect of both parents by Recorder Sharpe KC. Since that time there are further examples of behaviours that I find to be relevant.[77]In respect of the father:a. He has continued to seek to involve professionals and to pursue a ‘litany of complaints’ (see judgement Recorder Sharpe KC dated 1 March 2023) against the mother when it has not been necessary or proportionate to do so. He has sought to elevate simple matters such as books on the shelves that AA felt uncomfortable with, or the sight of naked bodies on a television program to ‘safeguarding concerns’. He frequently fails to act in a way that could be described as proportionate.b. He has made unsubstantiated allegations against the mother of wasting police time and perverting the course of justice. Again this approach is disproportionate and counter productive to both his position and the children’s welfare.[78]In respect of the mother:a. She sought to stop contact between AA and his father when AA was struggling with his mental health, wrongly attributing that crisis to the fact of contact rather than the fact of conflict.b. It was an overstatement to suggest to the court that the father was about to abduct the children to KSA in June 2025c. The subsequent applications, now abandoned, were an overreaction to the father’s application. I appreciate her experience of the father as a perpetrator of sexual harm against her but by June 2025 the need for the children to have a full relationship with both parents was well established.[79]Both parents have, as identified by the social worker, contributed to an environment of instability which undermines the children’s sense of safety and belonging.[80]The father’s case is that there is no parental conflict. He says that there is a reasonable parent reporting concerns (the father) and an unreasonable parent refusing to act on them (the mother).[81]As part of the bundle I have read the messages sent between the parents on Our Family Wizard. There are over 700 messages but on any reading of them it is clear that the parents cannot communicate with one another without descending into an argument. By way of example, below is an extract from a series of messages sent in 2023 when BA had a minor accident at a skate park: [message redacted on publication][82]This is not the most extreme exchange, but it is a good example of where even on the simple issue of notifying the other parent of a trip to the hospital, both parents descend into bickering. There are some examples of messages being sent that are civil, but that tone is never sustained. These are parents who simply cannot communicate with one another in the way that they need to. Every message and communication is loaded with anxiety about their own roles and the other parent’s perception of them. Mother is overly defensive and quick to respond in a way that will no doubt provoke. Father is desperate to parent and is quick to criticise. It must be exhausting for both of them and for their children.[83]Over the course of Summer 2024, whilst the children enjoyed time with both of their parents, the disputes continued. The father raised concerns with the mother that she was allowing the children to try alcohol, encouraging masturbation and allowing too much screen time. He asked that they meet together with a therapist to discuss these issues. This is despite the parents having not met and spoken together for a number of years. By the end of August, he communicated that he was intending to seek a change of residence.[84]The mother became anxious and informed AA’s school in September that the father is seeking residency.[85]By the end of September 2024 the relationship/communications between the parents had completely broken down. The father sends the mother a long message at the end of September in which he accuses the mother of lying and of ‘not being home much’. He goes on to write ‘the lack of transparency suggests to me that everything they tell me is true, including: trying to keep them quiet and manipulating them with threats and fears; encouraging masturbation; exposing them to sexually graphic material with books and TV; having very little time with them; having too much unmanaged screen time; encouraging them to try alcohol and letting CA taste it; weak internet child safeguarding; speaking negatively about me and calling me a liar and bad person and a bad husband to my first ex wife; speaking negatively about my faith and exposing them to all kinds confusing anti-religion information; telling them they can live with me and then changing your mind and telling them how horrible their life would be with me and how they would fail in their academic pursuits and how they will never see you again….’[86]In November 2025 the father messages the mother in which he accuses her of ‘yelling at the boys’ when he is on the phone to them. He says that they are crying and that ‘if you yell at them more for talking to their father about their lives I will be calling social services’. The mother replies and accuses the father of ‘emotionally abusing the children by pushing your false narrative that I am a bad mother onto them.’ All of their disagreements are clearly being played out in front of the children.[87]It is within this context that AA presents at hospital with suicidal ideation on 8 November directly reporting that he is feeling ‘down’ after his parents argued over half term and that he feels stuck in the middle.[88]It is difficult to imagine how much clearer it could possibly be to both parents that their actions and their treatment of one another causes harm to their children. It has been pointed out to them by professional’s time and time again. In 2023 the ISW told the court ‘It is respectfully submitted that all three children display worrying signs of emotional distress associated with their exposure to these proceedings and the ongoing acrimony between their parents. This is especially true of AA.’[89]This unhealthy and harmful dynamic then means that when there is a genuine safeguarding issue in June 2025, there is no foundation for a considered and collaborative response. The father sees AA’s complaint of sexual assault in the context of his repeated concerns about AA’s wellbeing. The mother experiences the father’s reporting of it suspiciously given his previous reports of safeguarding issues that have not always been borne out. In fact, the mother comes to understand and believe AA, but by then matters have escalated and the parties are back in litigation. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not find that she failed to protect AA.[90]Rather than reflect, both parties then doubled down on their positions with the father making an application to move all the children to KSA and the mother seeking orders for no contact and to revoke his PR.[91]I do not accept for one moment both parents evidence that the children aren’t aware of the issues between them. They were in 2023 and they certainly are now. All three children are noted to have struggled emotionally due to parental conflict.[92]AA has reported both parents placing pressure on him. His mother makes him feel guilty and this impacts on his interactions with his father. His father can make him feel pressured by asking questions about his mother and his home life. CA told the social worker that she wishes her parents could ‘stop fighting and be friends again’. It is utterly disingenuous for either parent to claim that they have not involved their children.[93]It follows that I do not accept the father’s analysis that he has only acted reasonably and that he is not responsible for any conflict. Both parents bear responsibility. Welfare checklist Ascertainable wishes and feelings in light of their age and understanding.

Welfare checklist

[94]In January 2021, Recorder Sharp KC recorded that AA did not want to choose between his parents. He wished to spend time with both of them, and he wished to visit his father in Country X.[95]In March 2023, following father’s second application to relocate the children to Country X, expert assessment of the children’s wishes and feelings was provided the ISW. His assessment, which was accepted by the court, was that AA was ‘curious’ about Country X and what it would be like to live with his father. BA and CA wanted to remain with their mother. None of the children were able to fully understand the implications of such a move.[96]Within these proceedings, the social worker undertook direct work with the children in July and September 2025. He reported that AA felt a lack of control over where he goes to school and speaking to his father, for fear of being reprimanded by his mother or older brother. He found some of his mother’s books and a phallic bottle opener to be upsetting. AA said that he wanted to spend more quality time with his father, including travelling abroad but without ‘feeling interrogated or placed in the middle of his parent’s conflict’.[97]AA told the social worker that he wanted to stay with his mother but have increased holiday contact with his father. That also reflected BA’s reported wishes and feelings. Both boys did not want to choose where they should live. CA also said that she did not want to choose. She was reported to be well integrated into her school and friendship groups.[98]The social worker met up with the children on 19 October 2025 when they were with their father. At that visit all three children expressed the changed view that they would like to live with their father and spent time with their mother. CA spoke about things being ‘the other way round’.[99]On the same day, AA emailed the social worker. In his email he describes an argument he had with his mother in which he says she called him a ‘snitch’ and ‘daddy’s little helper’. AA writes: She sounded like she hated me and I don’t want to ever have that situation with her again. But I also want to live with dad because I always feel happy and nothing is wrong and everything is going right. But I also don’t know if it is worth it to make mum avoid me because that feels possible after what happened with me and mum. It took me a while to go to sleep after that, and I just didn’t feel great.[100]The social worker went to see AA on 27 November 2025 to explain to him that the email would be disclosed into the proceedings. AA was said to be anxious and distressed.[101]The guardian spoke to all three children on 13 November 2025 by way of video call. That is the only contact that she has had with them. In that call AA asked the guardian about his living options and what she would decide if she was the judge. In her oral evidence the guardian said that AA appeared very conflicted and wanted the decision to be ‘taken out of his hands’. That accords with the social worker’s analysis that the children want a relationship with both sets of parents and feel a huge sense of conflicted loyalties.[102]I accept the social worker’s analysis. The father says that the children most recently expressed wishes are to live with him and that when one considers AA’s age that should carry significant weight. I accept that as bare statement of fact, but it doesn’t stand up to analysis. AA’s wishes and feelings fluctuated between September 2025 and November 2025. Moreover, it has been the assessment of professionals for a significant period of time that AA and his siblings are feeling deeply conflicted. The social worker writes ‘AA’s views and wises would demonstrate a complex emotional landscape marked by loyalty conflict confusion and distress linked to both family dynamics and prior trauma.’[103]None of the children have a full understanding of what life with their father would be like. The fact that during a contact with him, when they were clearly having a lovely time, they reported wanting to now live with him needs to be considered in the context of a joyful experience away from the grind of daily life. All three children have been consistently clear that they are a ‘team’ and do not wish to be separated.[104]That is not to take anything away from the clearly stated views that they have all provided of wanting a full relationship with their father unfettered by conflict.

Physical, education and emotional needs

[105]It should not need repeating here that these three young people have a pressing emotional need to be freed from the pressures and harm brought on them by their parents’ conflict.[106]They need to have permission from both parents to enjoy a full relationship with the other. That is something that both parents clearly struggle with.[107]Physically their needs are well met by both of their parents. BA continues to suffer from a medical condition that needs careful management and treatment. His mother is well versed in his treatment needs but there is no reason why his father cannot also manage this condition.[108]The family have a home with their mother that meets their needs. If they were to move to live with their father, he would move into family accommodation in KSA to area which is a vast modern new city in KSA described as a ‘community in the making.’ It embraces accommodation over various sites, schooling and wider infrastructure within various ‘regions’. It has a huge breadth of sports facilities and community engagement.[109]Education remains in issue. AA is currently home schooled. He is hoping to return to school, and his parents need to support him in accessing education and fulfilling his potential in all areas.[110]Both CA and BA are well settled in their current school. BA will need to move on at the end of this academic year.[111]As well evidenced in the social worker’s report – the parental conflict has impacted on the children in all areas of their life, including physically and educationally.[112]Education is available for all of the children in KSA. The father has provided details of the N community school in which they could all be enrolled. It is difficult if not impossible to assess the extent to which this school would be ‘good fit’ for each of the children. Certainly, it offers an education and I am willing to accept it is likely to be of a good standard. It does not offer GCSEs, and so AA would not be able to complete his current form of education at N. There is also very little information about the extent to which it caters for his musical abilities.[113]BA is a scholar at his current school and will need a school that supports him developing this skill. The social worker notes that BA’s ‘educational progress depends heavily on the predictability of his environment and the absence of emotional disruption.’

Age, sex and other relevant characteristics

[114][Ages redacted for publication][115]All three young people are of mixed heritage. In addition, AA and BA were born in Country X and so the family have had and continue to have strong connections to country X.[116]Their father is a practising member of his church and through him they continue to experience a link to that faith and its teachings.[117]They have half siblings on each side of the family. [Details redacted]

Likely effect of any change in circumstances

[118]As was said by Ms Scotland during the course of the hearing, there has to be a change. The status quo of conflict, repeated litigation and stress, is harming all three children. In the father’s eyes, the change that needs to occur needs to be total. A move to KSA, a move of primary carer, of school, of friends and of environment and a recalibration of the family.[119]In my view the change that needs to occur is to the parental dynamic. That is what these children are crying out for. The father’s comprehension of the impact of the full scale change he advocates for is in keeping with Recorder Sharpe KC’s previous assessment. That is, that the father does not see, or is unwilling to fully consider, the effect of all three of his children if they were to move in the way that he suggests. AA has already experienced significant instability in the last 12 months. He has been engaged with CAMHS due to his anxiety and is due to start therapy at the conclusion of these proceedings. He has restructured his education around home schooling whilst indicating that he does wish to try and get back to school and a more normal routine.[120]A move to KSA and a completely different way of life in an expatriate community is an enormous change in the children’s circumstances. That change is intensified by the fact that the children would also be moving from one primary carer to the other.[121]The father questions the mother’s position as being described as their ‘primary carer’. I appreciate that he feels sidelined by that term, but it does not exist to elevate one parent over another. It is a description of the parent who undertakes the day-to-day parenting and responsibilities for a child. I am reminded of the ISW’s analysis in 2023, that the mother was the children’s primary attachment figure and that a move away from her care would be a ‘deeply damaging event’ particularly in the context of parental conflict and family breakdown. The mother has remained the children’s primary carer since that time, and I see no basis for finding that the move from her care now would be any less significant.[122]All three children are currently subject to a CIN plan, under which the local authority is seeking to put in place further support for AA and vitally, co-parenting work for the parents. It is under the CIN plan that there will be ongoing oversight of the children’s wellbeing and their parent’s ability to make the changes necessary. All that will fall away if the children move to KSA.[123]In my view that would be deeply detrimental to all of the children’s welfare. They need their parents to undertake the co-parenting work and they need access to the local authority support and guidance that is designed to target the very issue causing them harm. Any harm suffered or at risk of suffering.[124]I have already set out very clearly the harm being caused to these children by parental conflict.[125]They are suffering to the extent that if there is no significant change within the next six months the local authority has stated it will consider issuing proceedings. The significance of that evidence was explained to both parents during the course of the hearing so they can be in no doubt as to the risk. How capable the parent is of meeting their needs.[126]Both parents are very capable. They are well educated, well resourced, intelligent adults who love their children deeply. The issue is their ability to consistently meet the children’s emotional needs.[127]I have already recorded my findings and observations as to how both parents continue to contribute towards the conflict between them. The relationship between the parents is complex. At times of conflict both parents struggle to give the children emotional permission to enjoy a relationship with the other parent.

What are the optimum child arrangements for each of these children?

[128]The current CAO looks like this:a. The children live with their mother.b. They spend time with their father: i. Four times a week indirectly via video call at 6.30pm UK time for 20 – 60 minutes ii. February half term iii. Half Easter holidays or 7 days whichever is longest. iv. Half the Summer holidays or 21 days whichever is longest. v. October half term vi. Alternate Christmas holidays from the day after school – 27 December or from 27 December to 2 days before school starts again. vii. For up to 9 consecutive days in each term time in the UKc. The father is able to take the children out of the jurisdiction to any Hague Convention country or to Country X and upon the payment of a sum of £10,000 which is deposited with his solicitors and to be made available to the mother in the event that he did not return the children.[129]Having considered the checklist, and particularly the impact of any change in circumstances, it is my view that the children’s primary residence should remain with their mother and that they should continue to attend school in the United Kingdom. In my analysis the impact of change would be significant and coupled with the loss of the current support would be utterly detrimental to the children’s wellbeing.[130]I note that the children wish to spend more time with their father. AA is currently home schooled but is registered with education services and the younger two siblings are attending school. The younger children therefore have two months off during the Summer and AA may have less. In my view the children should be given the opportunity to spend more time with their father during the summer break and so I am minded to provide that the order for that period is amended to half the Summer holidays or 28 days whichever is the longer, so that if AA has less than two months holiday he can still also spend a full month with his father and siblings.[131]There is no welfare reason to alter the four times a week indirect contact currently in place. In all other respects the existing orders for contact should remain in place.[132]I have considered the ongoing application of PD12J given the previous finding made against the father. I have not made findings of ongoing domestic abuse. The finding previously made has already been considered before the current arrangements were determined. The mother’s evidence is that she can and will support those arrangements.[133]It is, of course, always open to the parents to agree other arrangements. It may be that AA would wish to spend a longer period with his father so that they have some time alone together. I am not inviting the parent to place this decision on AA’s hands, but to reflect on his wishes and his needs as they arise.

Should the children be able to travel to KSA?

[134]In my view they should. I note the mother’s concerns that KSA is not a Hague signatory, and I have read the expert advice carefully. In reality the family are in much the same situation as they were in when the father was permitted to travel to Country X. That is, that there is little that the mother could do to secure the children’s return if their father did abduct them other than to commence proceedings in KSA. There is a significant magnitude in terms of consequences of breach. However, I assess the risk of abduction as low. I note that the mother complains that the father has retained the children for longer than permitted on two occasions in the last 12 months, but both occasions were during times that her father and the children were in the UK. There is no evidence of the father ever trying to retain the children abroad or to abduct them elsewhere. The father said in his evidence that he has always accepted and respected the jurisdiction of this court and I accept his evidence.[135]In my view the previous safeguard of a payment of £10,000 being made to solicitors each time the father takes the children to KSA remains appropriate and proportionate.[136]I understand that no attempts were ever made to lodge an agreement with the Country X’s courts. I would encourage the parties to take steps to see if an agreement can be lodged and approved in KSA. That is on the basis that the courts there may refuse to do so. If they do I am not encouraging or endorsing in any way any further litigation there.

Type of order

[137]The father has asked that I consider making a joint ‘live with’ order. I can find no precedent for a joint lives with order across two jurisdictions and it seems to me that is for an obvious reason. Whilst there may well be good welfare reasons for telling the parents and the children that they have ‘two homes’, practically and legally such an order would be nonsensical. Practically, they have a primary home with their mother, that is where they spend their day to day lives. Legally, such an order would raise real issues as to habitual residence and enforceability in either jurisdiction. This is already a case in which the recognition and enforceability of the court’s orders in KSA is in issue. It would also jeopardise the CIN work, as the children need to be primarily resident in Devon for DCC to work with the family.

Wider observations

[138]There are already a number of undertakings in place dated 2 March 2023 that neither party has asked to vary and so they remain. I see no reason to depart from the previous provision for passports to be held by the mother and the specific issue order of 2 March 2023 also remains in force.[139]Both parties have suggested the need for mediation and assistance in communicating. I would always encourage mediation. Under the CIN plan there will be work with both parents on co-parenting. I would invite them both to state their support and commitment to working with the local authority on the face of the order and to record their agreement to the recommendations set out by the social worker in his s7 report. I will direct that communications are to revert to Our Family Wizard and I would invite both parents to reflect on the excerpt I set out within this judgment and how they have used it before.

S91(14)

[140]There can be no doubt in anybody’s mind as to the need to protect the children from further conflict. It is not in my gift to give them respite from that, that is a matter for their parents. What I can do is provide a protective filter against any further private law applications under s91(14) Children Act 1989 for each child until they reach the age of 16. That of course means that the order will be in place for different periods of time for each child, but will ensure that they have reached an age where their views are likely to be determinative before either party could make an application without leave.

Closing remarks

[141]I intend to write to each of the children explaining my judgment. I will tell them that I have made the decisions that I have in their best interests and that they have no responsibility at all for the situation that they find themselves in and that now it is up to their parents.[142]Lastly I am very grateful to the way in which everybody conducted themselves during the course of the hearing. The parties exercised dignity and respect for one another despite their differences and I was greatly assisted by counsel for the father and for the children.