This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court. |
[2023] EWFC 330
Case No. FD23P00010
The Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand London
Date: 28 September 2023
Before:
Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re A (A Child) (Removal to non-Hague country)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The applicant father and the respondent mother both appeared in person and were not legally represented
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hearing dates: 27 and 28 September 2023
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment Approved
This judgment was delivered in private.
The judge has given leave for the judgment to be published in this anonymised form.
MR RICHARD HARRISON KC:
a. The child's views, wishes and feelings in respect of returning to this jurisdiction;
b. The child's maturity; and
c. Whether the child should be separately represented.
(a) It is common ground that A has been in country X for nearly two years during which time she has had no contact at all with her father and limited direct contact with her mother. Removing her from country X will entail disrupting the life with which she has become familiar and in which she appears to be reasonably happy and settled, based upon Mr Lill's limited enquiries to date. A return to England may be the appropriate outcome following a fuller welfare enquiry, but it would need to be managed with some care.
(b) The reintroduction of contact between A and her father will also need careful thought given that he has not seen her at all for four years and is a stranger to her. In common with Mr Lill, I formed the view that an immediate transfer of care to him was not realistic, even without considering the issues with his health or the unresolved allegations of domestic abuse. I should record that the mother's case is that she would like the father and A to have a relationship, but one which proceeds at a very cautious pace commencing with some form of supervised contact.
(c) The fact that the parents are both acting in person has meant that the written evidence is more sparse and less focused on issues relating to A's welfare than would otherwise have been the case had they been represented. For example, I asked each of them about their financial circumstances and living arrangements in order to gain some understanding of what the practicalities of a return order would entail. I formed the impression that there would be significant practical and financial obstacles to a smooth return, but none of the financial and housing information I was given orally is the subject of written evidence let alone any documentary corroboration.
(d) The parents acting in person makes the task of resolving disputed allegations harder. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 precludes either from cross-examining the other. This is an issue which may require further consideration at the case management hearing I propose to order although I hope it may fall away if both of them are able to obtain representation.
(e) Given the limited nature of his enquiries, Mr Lill was unable to provide the court with a full welfare analysis in relation to whether a return should be ordered.
Although a full welfare analysis is not essential in every application for a summary return (as Re NY makes clear), I do consider it necessary in this case in view of the matters above, in particular the limitations in the parents' evidence, the length of time A has been in country X and the difficult nature of the balancing exercise which in my view will need to be undertaken by the court.
RHKC 28.9.23