Simon, Re

In so many ways Simon, who is the child central to this judgment, is a very fortunate teenager. He has two parents who plainly love him and want him to play as large a role in their lives as is possible. His parents are intelligent and hard working; he has a surrounding strong support network on both sides of his family and it appears each parent has moved into positive and supportive relationships following their separation. Simon is encouraged to pursue his interests and has travelled widely enjoying a cushioned and supportive childhood. That he presented to the independent social worker (“ISW”) as a fantastic child who is polite and thoughtful is, and I agree with the ISW, a credit to both his parents. I give nothing away by signalling now my agreement that whatever decision I reach in this judgment, both parents will do their best to make this work for Simon.

But Simon’s parents do not agree about a very significant proposal put forward by Jane (Simon’s mother). Jane wants to relocate to live in Dubai and wants Simon to move with her. Peter (Simon’s father) does not agree and believes it is in Simon’s interests not to relocate at this time. Standing back, it is very easy to understand the position each takes. Jane has objectively grounded reasons for her plan. Peter understandably does not want to see Simon move so far away.

It is this dispute that comes before me. This is not a dispute that can lend itself to a mid-point compromise. Simon cannot relocate midway between here and Dubai. One of the parents will be unsuccessful and this will be a huge loss for that parent. It is unfortunate they could not find a compromise agreement but I do not mean to criticise either for this failure. However, it leaves me to do what is best for Simon.

I have considered all the evidence placed before me whether or not I refer to each piece of evidence within this judgment. The evidence incorporates the documents within the hearing bundle; the opening skeleton arguments of counsel for each party supplemented by some limited documents; the live evidence of the ISW (Ms Jones) and of Jane and Peter, and; the closing submissions made by counsel for each party. This case has been argued with courtesy, skill, focus and appropriate brevity and I am grateful, as the parties should be, to the skill and professionalism deployed on their behalf.

[ ].

I heard the evidence over 2 days and provide this written decision on day 3. This is a decision of magnitude and I prefer the parties to have time to consider and digest this decision in privacy prior to open delivery. I have attached a short letter to Simon as annex A. I can only hope this supports Simon in understanding the decision I have made. I of course wish him, as I do his parents and wider family, the very best. They are lucky to have him and he them.

This can be simply stated. Jane seeks to permanently relocate to Dubai. She wishes to leave in mid-August 2025 for the reasons set out below. She asks me to endorse the contact proposals for Simon and his father or to set a minimum level and for dates to be agreed in accordance with the same. If permission is not granted she would not relocate and would seek for the current arrangements to continue. Peter opposes the relocation and would argue for a modification of the current arrangements were permission refused. If permission were granted he would seek some amendment of Jane’s proposals.

Simon is aged 13 and will turn 14 in January 2026. I can summarise the background in relatively short order. This is not a case with significant factual disputes and a detailed history is neither necessary nor helpful.

Peter is aged 39 and Jane 37. They met in about 2009 and started a relationship in 2010. Simon was born in 2012 and the parents separated in 2014. The parties do not agree as their respective caring roles in the period prior to separation but on separation Simon remained principally in the care of Jane.

At this time both parents were living in London. It seems Peter moved in with his parents whilst Jane and Simon stayed in a property owned by Peter’s parents (by which I refer to his mother and stepfather).

In about 2016 Peter met Alison (now his wife). She lived in C and he moved there. They purchased a property there in 2018 and married in 2019. They now have three young children (4 and under). It appears Simon met Alison early in this relationship period and has established a strong relationship with Alison and his half-siblings.

In due course Jane moved out of her accommodation and has been based in [T] for a number of years. In 2018 she met Oliver and they started a relationship in 2019. Oliver lives and works out of Dubai. Simon has developed a strong relationship with Oliver. Jane and Oliver plan to marry. Jane is in rented accommodation in this country but would co-own with Oliver in Dubai. Simon has visited Dubai on multiple occasions. He has travelled extensively outside of trips to Dubai.

The exact detail of time spent between Simon and his father from 2015 onwards is not agreed. It is agreed the relationship has been maintained throughout with time spent in London regularly (with practical support from his mother) on week days. The time spent with each parent appears to have equalised during the Covid period before returning to less time with Peter after Covid. There is a dispute as to the circumstances leading to change but it appears broadly agreed that contact has moved to a position of Simon spending every third weekend with his father in C and half the holidays. Peter argues any order I make should provide for him to have alternate weekends and half the holidays.

In 2024 Jane was made redundant. She obtained a 1-year contract with a Dubai based company as [ ]. It is a condition of her continued employment that she relocate to Dubai by 1 September 2025. If Jane does not move she will need to seek and obtain replacement employment locally.

In 2024 Jane raised her wish to relocate with Simon with Peter. There were suggestions of mediation on the subject. Peter opposed the proposal to relocate. As the parties could not reach an agreement this application was issued in December 2024. Given the fact Dubai is not a signatory to the 1980 Hague Convention permission was sought and obtained for this matter to be heard by a s9 ticketed circuit judge. Initial directions were given by Her Honour Judge Downey on 17 February 2025. On 24 February 2025 I gave directions including the appointment of the ISW and fixed a DRA and this final hearing. I made provision for interim spending time arrangements with Peter and vacated a hearing fixed for that purpose. On 5 June 2025 I gave permission for an expert to report on the jurisdictional issues. I heard the DRA/PTR on 17 July 2025 and confirmed this hearing as agreement had not been reached following receipt of the ISW report.

This is not a case in which the non-Hague status of Dubai has taken centre stage. There is no suggestion of a risk of retention/abduction although Peter has residual worries as to full compliance with any contact arrangements post relocation (if permitted). As such I have not been taken to the settled authorities which remind me that whilst welfare remains my paramount consideration in such cases I should maintain a close scrutiny on the following: (a) the risk of retention; (b) the impact on the child were there to be such a retention, and; (c) the safeguards that might be available in the given jurisdiction were such an event to materialise.

That being said I remind myself of the recent observations of Cobb LJ. in Re O (Domestic Abuse: International Relocation) [2025] EWCA Civ 888 (see §110) noting the distinction between cases of temporary and proposed permanent removal:

Whilst the parties have addressed me in writing on the law (and I keep this in mind for the purposes of this judgment I would summarise the relevant law pertaining to relocation by reference to the same case cited above (see §80-87):

As noted I have expert evidence relating to jurisdictional issues and protective measures. I do not intend to summarise this evidence as it is wholly uncontroversial between the parties. To the extent I consider it relevant I will return to it below.

The ISW conducted a thorough assessment speaking to Simon’s school and family members as well as speaking to Simon himself.

She found Jane to be a well organised and loving mother who knows Simon well and has thoroughly researched her plan. She was very reflective in their discussions and would make the outcome work whatever it was. She had explained to the ISW her reasons for wishing to relocate and her developing proposals for ongoing contact between Simon and his father. She was not negative in her account of Peter’s role. The ISW considered Peter to be a significant person in Simon’s life and they share an important close relationship. She described him as thoughtful, loving, a little suspicious but not entitled as far as Simon is concerned. The paternal family (including Alison) deserve credit for their part in bringing up Simon as a ‘lovely young person.’ Peter felt his role in Simon’s life was being underestimated by Jane. In considering how contact had developed over time the ISW drew attention to the impact of a breakdown in relationships within the paternal family as being central to the reduction in contact. She also noted the impact of Simon’s developing after school activities and how this affected contact. He expressed concerns as to the culture/environment that Simon would experience in Dubai and expressed doubts as to Jane’s commitment to contact were she to be given permission to relocate and to the impact that geographical distance would inevitably have on spontaneous and organic opportunities for contact. A central concern expressed by Peter was as to the impact any relocation would have upon the relationship between Simon and his half-siblings which Peter considered to be a very important relationship. Peter appeared doubting as to Jane’s case as to employment but recognised how his falling out with his brother (with whom Simon is very close) has impacted the management of contact. He was positive about Oliver and recognised the relationship Simon had with him (a view shared by Jane about Alison).

The grandparents on both sides expressed themselves in very similar terms. It is clear they have all played a significant role in Simon’s life. They were balanced in their perspective of the parent from the other side of the family. They all talked in terms of missing Simon if he moved but also all recognised they had enjoyed the best part of his childhood and that he was now moving into an increasingly independent stage. Interestingly Peter’s mother talked about Peter’ father leaving when he was young and the emotional impact this had upon him. Alison presented as a mature individual who recognises the need for consistency between the homes. She naturally understands the case from Peter’s perspective and noted the points made by Peter. She echoed the significance of the relationship Simon shares with his half-siblings and the impact of Peter being estranged from his brother. She was balanced in her views. She accepted the rationale for the move but wanted there to be no doubt as to Peter’s commitment to Simon. There would need to be a flexible approach to contact were the move to be approved for it to be successful. By flexibility I understand greater generosity on the part of Jane. Oliver was clear in his commitment to Simon. He left practical contact matters to Jane and was confident she would be proactive in such regard. He was clear the proposed move had more positives than negatives. The school spoke in positive terms about Simon and importantly commented there were absolutely no issues for them arising out of the fact that Simon came from a separated family. The school noted Simon’s emotional vulnerability and spoke of an episode of bullying which had impacted Simon more than might have been expected. He is more sensitive than he shows.

The ISW met and spoke to Simon. Simon clearly identified the important relationships noted above. It was clear he was aware of the plan before the Court (he had a virtual school tour) and was conscious of his parents feelings in each direction. When considering this he was emotional and cried. To an extent he echoed points made by each parent. He spoke of some of the advantages of the move (which had been shared by Jane) and some of the impacts (which aligned with points made by Peter). He was clear as to what he would miss being his family and friends. He was conscious things were a bit tense between his parents. He loved to travel and has done so extensively.

At a second meeting (at Jane’s home) he informed the ISW he had made a list. He was again emotional. He was more forthcoming as to the benefits of relocating and how his relationship with his father could be maintained. I am asked to note that points made chime with an agreed script shared with Simon. He was clear he would miss his family in C but also noted life there is planned around the younger children. He said he would be very sad if he didn’t go and that was why he was crying. He was not worried about either parent being upset as a result of what he said. He was also seen at Peter’s house. He was clear he did not want to add anything to what he had previously said and was again emotional. In a meeting with Peter around this visit Peter confirmed Simon had also told him as to his views about wanting to go to Dubai and how this could be managed. It appeared as if Simon had been preparing himself to say this to him. He was somewhat taken aback but told Simon not to worry and that his parents would make whatever decision work.

The ISW was sure the litigation has been unhelpful in that it has forced the parents to take positions and out of this has come hurtful observations. It was noted that each have spoken in terms of the very significant impact a decision will have on them but have also been clear they will make whatever is decided work. She noted the fact that neither parent has actually met the others partner and that this should be rectified immediately. The litigation has undermined what has been a broadly successful co-parenting relationship. The ISW found the perceived criticisms irrelevant to her assessment. She noted as important Simon’s emotional sensitivity and vulnerability.

The ISW conducted a full welfare analysis. She was cautious as to applying too much weight to the change in views expressed by Simon and felt the initial position of balance might fall closer to this actual views. She was clear she did not feel there was any direct influence by a parent in play. In terms of his needs the crucial point is that his parents need to be cognisant that he is emotionally vulnerable and will be impacted by whatever decision is made. Otherwise, his needs are likely to be met in either scenario. The ISW was unsure as to the likely impact on Simon of either outcome but noted some matters that might be brought into the account. He is not at risk of harm in a classic sense and has parents who (supported by their partners and families) are more than adept at meeting his needs as shown by the child he has become. Ultimately, the ISW made important observations but did not come down clearly in favour of an outcome.

In live evidence she agreed her report was travelling in the direction of supporting relocation. It was vital the parents could come together to give him a joint, agreed, and supportive narrative with respect to the decision reached. The parents both said they would do this and were sincere. Jane’s plans were practical and reasonable. Her modified contact proposals were positive. It is important for the primary carer to be emotionally stable and independent to provide good and consistent care. The ISW agreed there were significant changes ahead for Jane if the move was refused. She would need to find a new job and might need to move home. She was impressed by the schooling available on a move (as were both parents). It is positive Simon is familiar with Dubai. She agreed there was significance to the fact Simon had had his school shirt signed by the school on his last day. This signalled an emotional acceptance of the move. She did not believe this was a case in which the move was part of a bigger plan to remove the left behind parent from the child’s life. This is not to say there have not been challenges in the relationship from time to time. It was clear she felt this was somewhat inevitable in litigation but did not consider it a helpful point to linger on. She felt everyone has been part of the project of making Simon the child he is. It is correct to say Simon has never expressed negativity with respect to the proposed move. She felt that whilst neither parent will have directly canvassed Simon as to the move he is a sensitive child who is close to his parents and will have picked up on their feelings. She felt Simon would be sad if he did not go and it was an important emotional step to tell his dad his feelings. She was taken to rival contact schedules and I felt reached a conclusion under which an opportunity for contact around 70-80 nights a year would be appropriate and workable.

The ISW agreed the relationship with Peter was crucial and that maintaining this from a distance was challenging albeit less so than in previous times. She agreed Simon likely did not fully comprehend the impact of the relocation but felt he had emotionally left his current school (see the shirt episode). Simon did show signs of maturity when discussing the move. She was clear that in cases of this sort the rationale for a move will rarely be a child led reason and will be typically be adult led. But these can be important and valid reasons which have significance for the child’s lived experience. His emotions are not indicative of a tie to this jurisdiction but rather a tie to his family relationships. There is no need for these relationships to be lost on relocation although they will be inevitably impacted. It is important having regard to his age to consider the likelihood of contact arrangements changing whatever decision is reached by the Court. He is entering a stage in his life in which his time will be shared between his parents but also between them and his own needs and wishes and autonomy. This will mean strict contact has to be flexible to respect his growing independence. He is a resilient child with supportive parents. The bond Simon has with his father is ‘unbreakable,’ the parents have had challenges but they have got over them and Jane is happy with the relationship Simon has with his father. She felt Jane had been sensible in modifying her proposals. She agreed the holiday periods in UK and Dubai do not align and this creates a complication. She agreed this was a complex decision. She was not concerned as to the paternal bond as they are very bonded but this would need to be fed by good contact were the move to be supported. She did not accept there were identity issues of relevance as there is no question as to Simon’s sense of his identity or the fact that this is deeply embedded in him.

In her statement evidence she described Simon and the relationships he shares with her, her family and with Peter and family. The description given was warm, fair, and balanced. She detailed the changing contact arrangements from her perspective. I note I have a calendar from her which attempts to give me an overview of contact between Peter and Simon in 2023 and 2024 and calendars which set out what contact would look like in the next year whichever decision I make. She explains the current position is a three-weekly pattern and respects the balance between Simon’s relationships with his parents and his outside interests.

Jane explained the rationale for the planned relocation. She highlighted her employment situation and the opportunity she has in the role in Dubai contrasted with the uncertainty for her in this jurisdiction. She noted the connection she and Simon have with Dubai having travelled there on many occasions. Oliver lives there and they are planning a future family life together. She outlined the positive schooling opportunity for Simon in Dubai. Jane detailed her plans re contact were she to be given permission. This would be centred around Simon returning to UK at her expense on a number of occasions each year for extended periods. In her most recent iteration of the calendar this would be on 6 occasions per annum crossing 8 months. In the other 4 months she proposed Peter could visit Simon in Dubai for a period of a week at his expense and thus see Simon every month to some extent. She contrasted this with the time Peter and Simon have spent together over the last three years and considered this was not such a material change.

She explained that were the application to be refused then she would face significant impacts which would have impact on Simon. These includes (a) employment issues and related accommodation concerns given the high cost of her rent; (b) the impact on her relationship with Oliver notwithstanding he does come to this country for significant periods each year; (c) on her emotionally with a consequent impact on Simon; (d) a lost life opportunity.

Jane relies on a supporting statement from Oliver which I have read and on a second statement in which she responds to the ISW report and to Peter’s statement. Her statement is supported by a large number of exhibits which explain the rationale of her application and show the love and warmth Simon receives within his wide family.

In her live evidence she agreed there were issues re holiday alignment but felt this was not such an issue. She told me there is some flexibility for Simon to be removed from school for a period of a week and he could travel to UK in this added period (which she would prefer to be in the Autumn to avoid exams). She explained Peter’s brother is also planning to move to Abu Dhabi and thus would be close to them. She is worried how Simon will respond if permission is not given as he is in the headspace that he will be going. She explained her financial predicament. She accepted relocation would impact on contact but need not materially reduce it. There was a debate as to efforts to mediate which came to nothing. She agreed Simon was at a crucial stage in his life but did not think he was appeasing her in expressing himself. He is emotional but is strong minded and vocal. Simon’s view change was not shaped by her. The script referred to was given to him 3-months before the meeting. She did not accept the distinction between this being a plan of either necessity or lifestyle. She considered it was necessary having regard to the points she was making. She appeared to accept she would likely find re-employment but not at the same levels which would come with consequences for her and Simon. She was clear she could not continue in the current role remotely from the UK. She maintained the three weekly contact cycle was reflective of Simon’s needs and wishes and not about restricting contact. She recognised risks were present but felt these could be managed. She explained the visa route she would intend to take, her employment would be permanent and she would own property in which she lived. She was concerned as to her stability were she to have to remain in London. She had prioritised her career but had been forced to do so when Peter had left. She spent some significant time working through the rival calendars re contact. She was clear she would work with whatever decision was reached and could continue to make the relationship work. She did not agree there should now be a change to alternate weekends. The three weekly cycle was reflective of Simon’s needs.

In his written evidence Peter described Simon as a child and his broad interests and the role he had played in part shaping the same. He described the relationship Simon shared with him and the fact he had been a hands-on father since his birth. He explained how his life changed and the important role played by Alison and their children in Simon’s life (and vice versa). Peter also engaged in the issue of contact change over time and was clear that Jane had played a role in reduced time. He outlined the valuable role played by wider family on both sides.

In his opening comments he was clear the planning centred on benefitting Jane by furthering her employment and relationship interests and that Simon was an ‘afterthought.’ Later in his statement he set out his concerns about the move. He felt the move was ‘extremely selfish’ and not in Simon’s interests. Whilst he would oppose any relocation he had particular issues with Dubai highlighting environmental and cultural issues. He also expressed concerns around enforceability of any order and the impact of the geographical distance on contact. He questioned the potential for stress in the relationship between Jane and Oliver as they come to live together full time for the first time and how this might play out were it to materialise. He addressed schooling points and whilst he has noted the impressive option in Dubai highlighted the positive reports re Simon’s current school. He raised his own financial position and how this might impact on his ability to manage additional contact in Dubai.

He was clear he would be devastated if permission were given. He placed a particular focus on the relationship Simon has with his half-siblings and the importance of this being maintained. Retaining this he felt was more important than Jane living with Oliver or having a higher income. He contended the plans would lead to periods during which he would not see Simon for three months or more and that this might be impacted further were Simon to not want to travel to visit due to other developing interests. He stressed the non-alignment of holidays between the jurisdictions and what this would mean for the time Simon could spend with his half-siblings (even when visiting). Peter expressed concerns as to Jane’s ability to maintain contact if permission were granted. He set out his position were relocation to be refused. He had no doubts Jane would be employed. He contended contact should be on an alternate weekend basis plus half holidays.

As with Jane he provided a number of supporting exhibits which highlighted the role Simon has in his family. There is no statement from Alison but it is clear as to the support she offers from the available documents. He has also filed an additional statement which I have kept in mind but do not summarise here.

In his live evidence he set out his position of being a primary carer during Simon’s early years. He set out the subsequent contact changes which are detailed elsewhere within this judgment. He agreed Simon has a passion for tennis but argued this does not have to be centred on London. He did not agree the shirt signing had particular significance as this was something he considered happened at the end of a school year and in any event it was countered by Simon obtaining a part in a school play for the future year.

He addressed the contact proposals and set out an alternative analysis. He drew attention to the non-alignment of holidays and argued the proposals would only allow Simon 43 days per annum with his half-siblings. He set out his own proposals around having 6 weeks in summer (not four). Peter recognised the credit Jane deserved in her role caring for Simon but he struggled to accept that Simon was the most important person for her. He agreed she had been the primary carer for Simon since he left for C when Simon was four. He had moved there for financial reasons and in pursuit of his relationship with Alison. He did not agree this had parallels with the current application given the relative distances. He addressed a series of financial questions around the support he gives, his financial position and his expectations around Jane’s future.

He did not consider it realistic to travel to Dubai although if this were to happen then the May period would be the most likely period given the link to UK May half term. He disagreed contact with him was the most important contact opportunity highlighting the importance of contact with his family. He disagreed he was giving evidence so as to block the planning and argued he was trying to find a solution. He made it clear he would work to make the outcome work whatever the outcome. He accepted Jane would be under pressure and would feel sad if permission were not given but she is the one removing Simon from his family. He was taken to the history of contact and asked to address a series of periods when he did not see Simon. He agreed the calendars provided by Jane were broadly correct. He accepted her proposal was broadly similar to the same but would not work. He was not saying the move was planned to disrupt his relationship with Simon but it would have this effect. It was near impossible for him to travel to Dubai on his own. He disagreed that Simon may not want to spend all his time with the half-siblings. This might be the case in 4.5 years but not for the next 2.5 years. When asked about Simon’s expressed views he considered these were likely influenced by Jane. If Simon were to go then he would contact to be set around the 100 day/night mark.

I heard and have considered the submissions made. I will not repeat them here.

I was impressed by both parents. It was impossible to lose sight of the emotional impact this issue is having upon them. Both were obviously and genuinely impacted when having to consider the implications of my decision. The wider evidence shows them to be both intelligent and loving parents to Simon. I am confident they both hold a genuine motivation for their respective positions. I accept it is likely both will to some extent have naturally and unconsciously shaped their views by reference to what they each want. I sense this may have impacted on the willingness to identify the positives of the move and to an equal extent the possible challenges of the same. But I do not consider this shaping of evidence was in any way improper.

I was also impressed by the ISW. Her report was careful and balanced. It was clear to me she has looked to find a solution that works best for Simon. In doing so she was confronted by the same dilemma that faced the parents and now faces the Court. Irrespective of her ability to give a firm recommendation I found her evidence very helpful. It was professional and sensitive.

I consider it helpful to set out some points which I have drawn having heard all the evidence. This is not a comprehensive review of all issues but focuses on those which appear to me to be most relevant.

The Court does have to be mindful of Simon’s age and the changing independence that will come with this. I agree with the ISW that in the next period of his life, between 14-18, the parents will need to share their want for time with him with his own social needs and wishes. This social need will be bound to fix on the location in which he lives as this will be where his chief social and peer ties are found. I do not diminish the relationships he may form (outside of family) in C but common-sense dictates that these will be very secondary to the relationships he has with peers in London (or wherever he finds his primary home). This reality is recognised in s9 Children Act 1989 which restricts orders post-16 to exceptional circumstances. However, this does not suggest a stark line at 16. In my assessment, and I accept, this is already in play. I accept the evidence of Jane that the three weekly cycle is in part at least reflective of Simon’s own personal needs and wishes. I make clear this is not to be seen through a negative prism as to his relationship with his father but through a positive prism of the independence and character he has developed from the care and love given to him by both his parents. As a result, I judge it is likely the current contact scheme is likely to continue were permission to be refused. One consequence is that I would judge the calendars from 2023 and 2024 would approximate the likely position in 2025-2027.

Stepping back and being objective, I accept the raw detail of the contact proposals (on relocation) put forward by Jane are therefore not so far away from what will likely happen in this country. A three-weekly cycle with holidays presents as broadly one contact period each month with a extended period in holiday months. The proposal as far as it incorporates Peter travelling to Dubai would be different but not so different. I agree it would remove spontaneity and organic/dynamic changes but for a child between 14-18 I am far from sure this would feel so very different.

I also on balance preferred Jane’s case on a number of points relating to the calendar. Whilst I accept the travelling involved is very different in scale and quantum when comparing C and Dubai, I do not accept that one should simply ignore days on which Simon arrives or leaves. This defies logic in circumstances where he currently is picked up in the evening on a Friday. For an increasingly older teenager this does not amount to time without value. I also struggled with the alternative calculation proposed by Peter deriving from holiday non-alignment. The point was that Simon’s holidays will not align with those of his half-siblings meaning he will be in C when they are at school. I make two points. One, this is in the very nature of family life where children co-exist in a family during term time but it remains important and valuable to each child for the purposes of their relationship. The fact children may be apart from each other during the school day does not diminish the important family ties that are constructed around the school day. Second, in fact for the younger two half-siblings this is mitigated by the fat they are not yet in school and so will be at home. The point is not lost on me that Simon’s youngest half-sibling will commence school when he likely commences University. As such I did not find the suggestion of only 40+ days with the half-siblings a helpful comparator.

This judgment is not, and cannot be, a quasi-financial assessment yet I heard sufficient to draw two relevant conclusions. First, I accept that if I refuse permission this will come with meaningful negative implications for Jane and Simon. It is plain the job in Dubai is a ‘once in a lifetime opportunity’ but I do not use the extremely positive package offered by the same as my reference point. Rather I accept the less significant but still relevant evidence of Jane that whereas she previously earned an income of around £120k per annum (gross) for reasons given (which I accept) any replacement employment now will likely fall below £100k and possibly as low as £80k per annum. Whichever figure is used this will have a meaningful impact and will make the retention of her extremely expensive rental accommodation very challenging to the point where it will likely have to be surrendered. In many ways it has served it purpose by allowing Simon to access his current school but this will mean there will be unpredictable changes for Simon whatever decision is made. Second, I am less pessimistic about Peter’s capacity to visit Dubai than he is. He suggested this would be impossible. Yet I heard about his family finances and whilst I do not have a full picture I know his finances permit him a [luxury car], leased [car A] (costing £1300pm) and a leased [car B] (costing £800pm). I find it difficult to reconcile this evidence - which must be a marker of family income - with his evidence that a personal trip to Dubai would cost £2500-4000 for a week and £6500-10,000 for a family week but would be impossible. In this regard I consider his evidence was strategic and shaped by his broader position.

Whilst I recognise the attractiveness of the schooling opportunity in Dubai I did not find this a central factor. The schooling in London is also positive, is well known to Simon and meets his needs. In my assessment this is at best a feature likely to support a conclusion rather than shape the conclusion.

I recognise the apparent dissonance between the choices Peter has been able to make and his objection to Jane’s planning. It is clear he has been able to prioritise his own wellbeing (this is not a criticism) by moving to C and forming and building a new family and career. This has enabled him to have a successful, comfortable, and stable lifestyle which benefits Simon significantly. This plainly has brought challenges to the maintenance of relationship but this has been managed through commitment and goodwill. Now Jane wishes to move in part to improve her lifestyle and enable the full development of her own relationship plans. I accept the move is of a different quantum but there are parallels which cannot be ignored. The distinction is that Peter was free to do this because Simon remained fixed in the care of Jane. This reality gave Peter a freedom to maximise his own welfare whilst maintaining his relationship with Simon. I understand why Peter has struggled to recognise these parallels but they are relevant to my assessment.

Importantly, I was not particularly assisted by suggestions of compartmentalisation of the move into either a lifestyle or necessity compartment. Whilst I can of course conceive of cases in which such a stark distinction might apply this is a case which is nuanced and does not fit to such a rigorous approach. It is plain to me that this case engages lifestyle factors but these are not outside of the welfare assessment. The quality of life the move may engender will of course be the quality-of-life Simon obtains from the move. The independence and stability the move gives to Jane will be the stability that Simon benefits from. Seeing his mother happy and content is a sound foundation for day-to-day success. I am not persuaded the move has to be necessary to be justified.

I am clear the planning for this move is well thought through. If it is permitted then I am sure it will be effected with success. There really is no basis for suggesting otherwise. I do not need to detail each and every component.

I am satisfied the motivations in this case are genuine and child focused although they lead to different positions. This case is not about removing a parent from the child’s life. Any attempt to do so would be bound to fail and would, I judge, fatally impact on the relationship that parent has with Simon. I agree Simon has an ‘unbreakable bond’ with his father and he is sufficiently sensitive and astute to see through any obstruction raised in such regard. Given the parents love for Simon I am confident neither would attempt the same, in any event I judge they are not motivated to do so.

I have no doubt Simon has a meaningful and important relationship with all the individuals canvassed within the ISW report. His grandparents are important to him and part of his future whatever I decide. I judge they will not permit any other outcome. But they recognise their role in his life is changing and they are right to do so. This is irrespective of my decision. Alison, the children, and Oliver are also very important people and have a very important role in making future plans work for Simon. I agree a meeting between these adults is long overdue. It is a credit to all of them that they have been able to recognise the importance each have to Simon from a distance. But it is a shame they have not had the opportunity to build upon this understanding.

I agree whatever decision I make will have implications and impact on Simon. He is bound to suffer losses either way. In my assessment these are capable of management having regard to the points made within this judgment and set out below.

This is not a case in which Simon’s wishes and feelings carry significant weight. I accept the evidence of the ISW as to his evolution in expressed feelings but I accept this arises out of a situation of some emotional turmoil. His distress in making the point likely reflected an understanding of what he was saying and what this would feel like for his parents to hear. I judge he understands what they want and knows the heartache any view expressed by him will cause them. This does not mean he has not moved in favour of a position but it needs to be understood in context. I agree with the ISW in her conclusion that this may reflect Simon being more sensitive to the impact on his mother of refusal than on his father of permission. This seems to me to be a likely emotion given he shares his primary home with his mother, and without disrespect to his Peter, Jane is the key parent in his day-to-day life. She is the one who centrally ensure things happen on a daily basis and he is bound to find himself emotionally aligned with her position.

These are parents who will make any outcome work. They are sensitive to Simon’s needs, whilst they do not agree at this time. They have the resources to make the best of the outcome I reach. I do have some reservations as to what this will look like if I refuse permission given some uncertainty as to Jane’s employment but I find her to be an intelligent and resourceful individual who will find a solution. In contrast I am confident Peter will be able to spend time with Simon in Dubai if that is what I decide. The key need in this case is of an ongoing relationship with both parents (and family) whatever I decide. Having considered the evidence, I judge it is possible to achieve this.

The change proposed in this case is significant and my assessment of impact lies at the heart of this judgment. I accept there will be changes whatever happens. If permission is not given there will be employment issues to resolve, likely housing change and possibly stresses on the relationship between Jane and Oliver. If permission is given the key change revolves around the maintenance of contact but there are other practical changes. I accept the planning with respect to other changes is well researched.

I have had regard to Simon’s characteristics throughout this judgment. I bear in mind his age and growing autonomy. I have regard to the important family relationships he has. I have regard to his emotional sensitivity and the vulnerabilities that may flow from the same.

I consider these are very capable parents who are well able to meet Simon’s needs. They are fortunate as to their financial resources and the support they receive from both partners and wider family. There is no reason to believe this will change.

This is not a case of risk of harm so long as the parents keep to their commitment to make this work for Simon whatever I decide. I accept their evidence in this regard.

For Simon, for the parents and wider family there is family life which they wish to preserve and continue to enjoy to the maximum. I both understand and respect this wish. I am asked to interfere to some extent and must act proportionately in any steps I take. I must give due respect their right to private family life. At the heart of this is Simon and his welfare is my paramount consideration. This necessitates a balancing exercise between the impact on him were he to relocate and were he not to. Changes of this magnitude bring a balance of positives and negatives but this is not simply an exercise in list construction and addition. I must approach this balancing exercise with care and with a recognition that certain matters will stand out when compared to others. In my assessment the crucial feature in this case is to ensure an ongoing relationship which is set at a level which does not diminish the current relationships Simon enjoys. But this does not mean without any impact.

I accept Simon does not need to relocate to Dubai. But to suggest this as a test to be applied is to lose sight of his welfare as my paramount consideration. My duty has been to apply his welfare to the proposals placed before me and to give due regard to his right to respect for his private family life.

I have reached the conclusion that I should give the permission sought by the applicant. In reaching this conclusion I have particular regard to the following:

For these reasons I give permission for Jane to remove Simon on the basis sought. I have endorsed her contact proposals as explained above. I will leave the parties to turn this into a workable draft. But it will of course require an element of flexibility in future years

I have pondered the need for a mirror order. Peter seeks the same based on his view as to Jane’s attitude to contact. I have not accepted this view. Jane would accept the same on the basis the costs are shared. There is a question as to whether any order I should make should be interim or final (albeit in real terms final). I have reached the following reasoned conclusion:

I will hand this decision down this afternoon. I am happy to receive any corrections or requests for clarification at that time. I have also provided a draft redacted version for publication alongside this draft. I would welcome any additional suggested redactions. I attached the letter to Simon as noted above [This is not attached to the redacted version of the judgment as it is a personal letter to Simon]