FAMILY DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
X |
Applicant |
|
- and - |
||
Y |
Respondent |
____________________
Mr Michael Gration (instructed by Penningtons LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 16th & 17th October 2019
Judgment 18th October 2019
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mrs Justice Theis DBE:
Introduction
Legal Framework
Relevant Background
The father's contact with the children
The parents' evidence
The mother
The father
ISW
The children
Submissions
Discussion and Decision
(1) In reaching my conclusion I have carefully balanced the evidence about how settled the children are in their current environment and school, supported by regular contact with the father. These arrangements meet the children's welfare needs but are only part of the wide canvas the court needs to consider.
(2) I am satisfied that the main motivating factor behind the mother's application is to further her career in the way she describes in her statement. She has tried to secure better employment here as described in her statement but has not been successful. I accept her analysis in her written evidence of what she has done and the long term benefits this job will give for her to be able to secure better paid employment when she returns here. I agree with Ms Trevelyan that the mother will find refusal of her application very hard to manage and that there is a real risk that may have an impact on the children and, in turn, their relationship with their father. Whilst I accept the mother may be able to get assistance in managing this, due to the background, I agree with Ms Trevelyan this would take many months, if not longer.
(3) I have carefully taken into account the concerns expressed on behalf of the father about the gaps in the mother's proposals and the inherent risks of her living with the children in the region, the impact on the children of being cared for whilst she is travelling related to her work and the risks of her being delayed. Whilst I of course acknowledge those matters in my judgment they should be viewed in the context of the mother having worked for this organisation before, having lived in Amman before and undertaken similar work. This is a mother who has always prioritised her children's needs and I agree with Ms Trevelyan that whilst these are obviously uncertainties that carry risks this mother will ensure appropriate arrangements are put in place. The same applies to the concern about the children not having properly comprehend the change going to live in Amman will involve due to their age. I am satisfied the mother will support them in navigating those changes.
(4) I also accept what the mother says about her financial position. Whilst she may be able to trim some of her expenses that is not going to put her in a position to be able to repay her debts. Her outstanding legal costs are in excess of £55,000. Through the higher salary, the additional allowances and the rental income she has a realistic chance of securing hers and the children's financial future which she would be very unlikely to be able to do if she remained here. She does not have the same financial support in the background as the father has. The terms of the trust by which the property is held envisaged her working abroad as being an option.
(5) I have very carefully considered the impact of the mother's proposals on the father's relationship with the children. There are two aspects to this. First, the change in the contact frequency and the impact on the loss of the more regular contact. It will be a change, but I am satisfied that it will not impact on the relationship to the extent that it should tip the balance in favour of the mother's application being refused. The children have a good relationship with the father and the wider paternal family. That relationship has been supported by the mother, although she acknowledges in the early period after the separation her own feelings sometimes impacted on what she did. The recent past has demonstrated she works within a structure and there is no evidence she has sought to undermine the children's relationship with their father. This important relationship will be maintained through the longer periods of contact, the opportunity of the father visiting Jordan in the intervening period and the regular skype contact supported by the mother's weekly updates with photos and videos as suggested by her. That package of contact will assist in ameliorating the change in the arrangements. I am satisfied the mother will comply with the order she puts forward. Second, the need for her to respect his role as a parent, to understand the need to consult him in relation to decisions regarding the children. That is recognised in the draft order I have seen, where it is recorded the need to consult with him in relation to schooling.
(6) I have also weighed in the balance the risks of the mother not complying with the arrangements for contact, the lack of effective enforcement if neither she or the children are in this jurisdiction, and her not returning or seeking to extend her time there. In the circumstances of this case I regard the risks as relatively low for the following reasons. The mother accepts in her first statement she left open the option of staying longer, however since then she has reflected and considered the evidence as it has come in and changed her position which I accept. There is much to anchor the mother back here. All her immediate family are here, it is of note that G described to Ms Trevelyan her close relationship with her maternal aunts. The only asset the mother has is here. The evidence suggests she held out for that interest and the security it gives her, and, in my judgment, she is very unlikely to put that at risk. There is no evidence to suggest this is part of any concerted plan to distance herself from this jurisdiction. Finally, although not mentioned by the mother, if she didn't return, she may risk the children's entitlement under the paternal family trusts.
(7) I have considered what Mr Gration submits about the failure of the mother to agree to the children returning in August 2021, as suggested by Ms Trevelyan, as being indicative of her true intent, as set out in her first statement, of keeping the option open of staying longer. In his closing submissions Mr Butterfield confirmed the mother would agree to this. In my judgment the children should return by the middle of August 2021, at the latest, as this will enable them to settle back here prior to starting back at school in September 2021. For G, in particular, that will give her the necessary stability prior to her move to secondary school in 2022 and enable the parents to make the necessary enquires about suitable schools. The position about the timing for applications to fee paid schooling is less clear, but there is more than sufficient time for the parties to liaise about this and agree how this should be dealt with by them.
(8) One aspect of the case that I have given anxious consideration to is the difficulties the parties have experienced in their relationship and whether those difficulties will impede in the inevitable arrangements that will need to be made if the mother and children move to Jordan. Whilst the parents have experienced difficulties in communicating effectively in the past there have been periods when they have been able to communicate appropriately in a child centred way, as shown by the messages attached to the mother's statement. I agree with Ms Trevelyan that the prospects of the parents being able to communicate better are more likely to happen if the mother's application is granted. She considers, and I agree, that if her application is refused that is likely to make matters more difficult which even with assistance will take some time to manage to the likely detriment of the children's welfare needs. This reflects the realities of the dynamics now of the parent's relationship.
(9) I have taken account of the concerns about the security in Amman, the countries she has responsibility for and the region but consider the combination of the mother's knowledge and experience and that of her employer will ensure those aspects of the mother and the children's lives will be properly safeguarded.
(10) Standing back and carefully evaluating the welfare advantages and disadvantages I am satisfied that the mother's application for permission for the children to be removed from the jurisdiction from 6 November until a date to be agreed in August 2021 should be granted as it meets the overall welfare needs of these children.