N (a child), Re

Introduction - These are private law proceedings concerning N who is aged 8. N has lived in the United Kingdom with her maternal great aunt and uncle, since moving to this country with them from Latvia when she was six months old. The Applicant in these proceedings is N’s mother; she is Latvian, lives in Riga where she works as a medical professional. N’s father, who is a Respondent within these proceedings plays no active role within them and last had contact with N in December 2017, when N was one month old. N is a Latvian citizen but is able to remain in the UK on the basis of the EU exit settlement agreement [357].

The applications and positions of the parties before me are as follows:

I emphasise immediately that all the applications in this case are governed by the paramountcy of N’s welfare. The exceptional delay and conflict render it complex. I have delivered this judgment in writing on the third day of the listed hearing after two days of evidence. I consider it essential that there is a full and detailed analysis within a judgment, given without any further delay, of what is in the paramount interests of N. That exercise involves consideration of an extensive amount of written and oral evidence. This is a controversial case, and it is unavoidable that the decision that I make will be heart-breaking for at least one party. I apologise now for the length of this judgment.

At the end of the oral evidence of the great aunt, she said: ‘I am not prepared to take on this responsibility for N for the rest of our lives. This [i.e. move to the care of the mother] should happen as soon as it can. We have plans for our own lives that we want, but this does not mean we ignore N’s welfare.’ After the evidence of the Cafcass officer when Ms Coleman had put her clients’ case of ‘when, not if’ and, for a second time, at the end of the evidence of the great aunt and uncle, I asked the parties whether they wanted time to discuss whether an agreed timetable could be achieved by which N would move to the care of her mother over a longer period than the mother and the Cafcass officer were suggesting, with a build-up of contact (and then reciprocal contact) being agreed. I made it plain that I could not be involved in negotiating, or mediating in, any such discussions or ‘middle course’. Counsel did engage in those discussions but informed me that no progress could be made. It was agreed that any ‘middle course’ (for instance, transfer being effected in the Easter holidays or at the start of the summer holidays) could only take place if it were supported by the agreement of the three parties since they would both have to commit themselves to it and support the agreement fully when speaking to N whilst it was being implemented. Neither counsel sought to persuade me that it was open to me to adopt a middle course as an imposed solution.

In my opinion, it is a great shame that this case was not diverted to mediation much earlier. The agenda that would have arisen in mediation in relation to ‘when’ is too obvious to state. Instead, there has been a succession of interim hearings with orders that have attempted to restore contact between the mother and N, without the underlying problem and catalyst of the relationship between the mother, the great aunt and the great uncle being addressed. In my opinion, this is exactly the setting where skilled mediation, including child inclusive mediation (given N’s intelligence and despite her age) might have made a very significant difference to everyone involved, especially N. That now, sadly, is ‘spilt milk’.

During this judgment, I will give a description of N. There is a particularly helpful letter from her school, to which I will refer. However, I say now that N is an intelligent, sociable and multi-talented girl. She has expressed a strong wish not to move from the care of the great aunt and uncle. In closing, however, I asked whether there was any evidence or suggestion that anyone had explained to N that: i) if she does move to her mother, she will still spend time with the great aunt uncle or ii) all the adult parties present consider that she will move to her mother’s care at some stage within the next 2 ½ years in any event (that is, that it is a question of when, not if). The answer to both points is: ‘no’ – there is no evidence or suggestion that has been explained to her. The effect of what has happened is that N has been left since August 2021 in the midst of a controversial family setting where, it has been said by the great aunt and uncle, wrongly, that decisions have been made on the basis of her wishes and feelings; in the context of the controversy that exists in this family that has meant leaving her in a position where she has felt encouraged to choose between her mother and her primary carers. In my opinion, she should never have been left in that position for that amount of time. Its consequences are now plain to see.

It is also plain that the great aunt and uncle love N deeply and have supported her socially, educationally and in relation to her many interests. They have looked after her and cared for her, offering her their love and protection. In her oral evidence, the great aunt said: ‘During the court hearings it was mentioned that N is very bright, but our lifestyle was not discussed. Since N was born, we have travelled a lot and done a lot of hiking, climbing mountains in the UK, travelling in a camper van. During holidays we take every opportunity to go out into nature, climbing, swimming; cold-water swimming is her main drive at the moment. She is very curious and has many interests. All of our children had the same opportunities.’ However, as I will explain in this judgment, they have not been able to support her emotional well-being, in particular, they have divided her from her mother and maternal grandmother.

In this judgment, I will explain why I have come to the very clear conclusion that the only orders that are now consistent with N’s paramount welfare are those sought by the mother. I acknowledge and regret the deep distress that conclusion will cause to the maternal great aunt and uncle and (in the short-term) to N.

I am grateful to Ms Polidore, the solicitor for the mother, for preparing the bundle in this case and also for the assistance that I have had from counsel. In this judgment I will refer to documents by their pdf page numbers in that bundle by placing the page number in square brackets.

Rather than refer to the evidence witness by witness, I have placed all the written and oral evidence that I have heard into the chronology that follows. I will then refer specifically to the oral evidence of the Cafcass officer since it does not fit easily within the chronology.

The great aunt was born in Latvia but moved to England in 1999. She and the great uncle married in 1994; they have two adult and successful sons. In 2015 the great aunt and uncle moved back to Latvia to be nearer to their family, but only remained there for three years. I find that they are a couple who are strong in their opinions and have a tendency to be unbending and exclusive in their approach to caring for N. They have cared for N extremely well but with a growing determination to maintain their role as her primary carers, to the exclusion of the mother. Of the two of them, the great aunt is more reflective, with the great uncle being more overtly strong in his expression. Both of them, however, have taken a very hard-lined and exclusive approach to their position as the primary carers of N and their perception of dominance in relation to the mother.

The parents were both born in Latvia. The mother speaks Latvian, Russian and English; she speaks to N in Russian (N being fluent in Russian and, now, English but not speaking Latvian). Latvian is not similar to Russian and uses a different alphabet (Latin script, rather than Cyrillic). The mother is an intelligent woman who, I find, has found it difficult at times to stand up to the force of the opinions of the great aunt and uncle. When I stand back and consider the overview of her interaction with N during contact, the picture that emerges is one of sensitivity and commitment.

The mother says that she had a close relationship with the great aunt during her childhood and ‘saw her as a second mother’; her own mother has been living in the UK since the mother was a child. At [340] the great aunt says that she treated the mother more like a daughter than a niece. The mother says that she regarded the great uncle as ‘a father figure’ and called him ‘Dad’, since her own father was not present in her life [130].

The family is now divided. The mother is the only child of her parents. The grandmother and great aunt are the only children of their parents. The mother and grandmother are united in their views. The grandmother and great aunt are now estranged and do not communicate with each other as a result of the issues in these proceedings. The mother’s grandfather has sadly died (the great aunt suggested at one point in her evidence, as a result of the stress of these proceedings). The mother’s grandmother is elderly, lives in a location about three hours by train from Riga and in poor health; the mother gave evidence of how her grandmother is deeply distressed by the divisions within the family and tries to maintain contact with all sides of the conflict. There is a group of [second etc] cousins in Latvia, all of whom are aware of the conflict within the family.

From the paramount point of view of N’s welfare, the conflict within the family has an obvious impact on her and will continue to do so while it remains. It is a conflict that has invaded, significantly, N’s relationship with her mother and her grandmother. The extent to which family members and neighbours have been drawn into the conflict can be seen, for instance, in the messages that are at [451-454] (e.g. the son of the great aunt and uncle wrote: ‘Hi …why do you use slander…why do you lie about your financial support to N…your battle methods are very mean…please explain to me what are you trying to achieve…’ [451] and at [453] a neighbour of the grandmother wrote to the mother: ‘you are a total egotist’).

The relationship between the mother and father was short-lived. They had been married for about six months before the mother became pregnant with N at the age of 20. At the time, the mother was in her second year of medical studies in Riga [130]. The father was also studying and working [130]. The mother says that she and the father were anxious about how they would afford the care of a baby, given that they had a household income of about 300 euros. As a consequence, the mother says that she asked the great aunt to help with the baby when she arrived [130].

The parents separated in November 2017, shortly before N was born in Latvia. There was an incident between them when the mother was eight months pregnant and which she describes at [130]. On separation, the mother moved to live with the great aunt and uncle in their flat in Riga. The great aunt attended medical appointments with the mother and was present at the birth. At [131] the mother says: ‘I was N’s main carer; however, the great aunt and uncle would support me to care for N to enable me to study. They would watch her whilst I was studying and taught me everything I needed to know.’ The great aunt says that she and the great uncle have always been N’s main carers [340]. Whatever might be the precise division of care during that period, N has lived with the great aunt and uncle throughout her life.

In about May 2018, the great uncle came to the UK to find work and accommodation with the intention that the great aunt and N would join him. In June 2018 they did so [340]. The maternal great aunt says that this was part of an agreed plan that was made after N was born. The mother says that they told her that they had run out of money and wanted to return to London (where they had lived before) to seek employment [131].

The mother says that she agreed that N should move with them to the UK whilst she completed her medical studies in Riga. At [131] she says: ‘I was not working yet and had no savings which would allow me to support a baby. Further, I was not on speaking terms with the father and did not feel as though I could seek his help. I therefore felt as though I had no other option but to agree to the great aunt and uncle taking N to London…. I made clear that I was only in agreement with N residing with them in London temporarily until I completed my education. They both assured me that, once I had finished studying, I would be reunited with N. It was also agreed that I could visit N whenever I wished. Following their agreement, on 23^rd May 2018, I signed a power of attorney granting the great aunt the power to act as N’s guardian in my absence…for three months.’

I find that the arrangement by which the great aunt and uncle cared for N was intended to be a temporary one that was put in place while the mother completed her medical studies. The intention was that, when the mother had completed those studies and was in a position to do so, she would resume the care of N. That intention was well known, and agreed, by the mother, the great uncle and the great aunt. In the meantime, it was agreed that the mother would spend as much time as possible with N – that is what happened.

Until October 2022, the mother had regular contact with N in the United Kingdom and Latvia on dates that are set out in the chronology [4-6]. The chronology states that the mother saw N in the UK in August 2018, then in Latvia from 19.9.2018 to 27.9.2018, 27.11.2018 to 10.12.2018, 17.12.2018 to 9.1.2019, in March 2019, 24.6.2019 to 29.7.2019, 10.11.2019 to 23.11.2019, 21.2.2020 to 4.3.2020 and 14.6.2021 to 30.6.2021. Then, the chronology states, the mother saw N in the UK on 7.8.2021 to 25.8.2021, 2.9.2021 to 17.9.2021, 15.10.2021 to 17.10.2021, 26.11.2021 to 28.11.2021, 28.1.2022 to 31.1.2022, 25.2.2022 to 28.2.2022, [in Latvia] 21.4.2022 to 2.5.2022, 22.6.2022 to 26.6.2022, [in Latvia] in August 2022.

When considering that list of dates it is necessary to recollect the effects of Covid-19 (both as to lockdown and also as to the demands on the mother as a trainee medic working in a hospital) and the distances and cost involved in travel. The mother says that, during the Covid pandemic, she was required to work in the ‘red’, Covid zone of the hospital [132]. She says that she found being apart from N ‘incredibly stressful’ and that ‘there was nothing that I wanted more than for N to return to my care, however…the borders were closed, and I was working a lot…’ I accept the mother’s account.

When the mother saw N in the UK during the above visits, she stayed at the home of the great aunt and uncle. I find that, up to August 2021, the relationship between the mother, the great aunt and the great uncle was reasonable. The mother was completing her medical studies. The great aunt and uncle were caring for N well and in accordance with the arrangement that had been put in place for them to do so. The mother was maintaining regular contact with N, as was intended. The problems arose in August 2021 when the mother had completed her studies and sought the return of N to her care in accordance with the arrangement that had been made in 2018.

I consider that it is also important to record that there is no suggestion that, during the extensive amounts of time that the mother spent with N during this period, her care was in any way deficient. N was being well care for by the great aunt and uncle and was living with them. All involved adults expected that N would move to the care of her mother at the end of the mother’s medical studies. There is no suggestion, nor could there be, of any lack of commitment of the mother towards N; the frequency of her visits to N speak for themselves. If there were any criticisms to be made of the care that the mother gave to N during contact, they would have featured very clearly in the evidence that has been filed.

In addition to the visits to N, the mother says, she had ‘daily’ video contact which sometimes lasted for two hours [132]. During that period, on 23^rd December 2020 the mother signed a further power of attorney in Latvia for the great aunt to act as N’s guardian in her absence. The great aunt says at [341]: ‘It is untrue that the mother spoke to N every day prior to October 2022 or that the calls lasted thirty minutes each time as N was very young and could not concentrate for that long. We have always supported contact, but it is important to note that the mother never requested time alone with N, so she has not cared for her without support.’ I find that, in addition to the face to face contact between the mother and N there was regular video contact between them as well. I doubt whether it was, literally, every day for as long as the mother suggests, but I accept that it was at a sufficient frequency that, when combined with the face to face to face contact, the mother remained an actively involved in her life and emotional well-being.

At [341] the great aunt says that she travelled to Latvia in August 2021 with N, after lockdown restrictions were eased, and ‘whilst there, we had a family meeting when it was agreed that N would attend nursery in England. During that meeting, the mother made no mention of seeking her daughter’s return and was still studying at that time…. then suddenly the mother contacted us in September / October 2021 to announce that she planned to collect N the next day and return to Latvia with her. We were very shocked and raised concern that it was far too rushed for N. When the mother attended our home the next day and tried to take N, she became distraught, was screaming and refused to leave the house with her mother. The mother was shocked by the force of N’s reaction so agreed to leave her with us whilst she visited more regularly and built a relationship with N, spending increasing amounts of time together. As part of that process, it was agreed that the mother would travel to England in October 2022 so they could spend a week together.’’

That is different to the account that the great aunt and uncle gave at [368]. There, in an account which I consider to be misrepresentative, they said:

The mother says that, as soon as she finished her medical exams in the summer of 2021, she visited N (aged 3) in August 2021 for three weeks in London. She says that, during that visit, she raised for the first time with the great aunt and uncle, her wish to take N back to Latvia to live with her [132]. She says [132] ‘the [original] agreement was that N would return to Latvia to reside with me and thus I did not envisage that there would be any difficulties with this’ [132]. The mother says that the great aunt and uncle did not give her any clear answers to her plans to take N back to Latvia but said that they should discuss things further after the mother returned there.

I do not accept that, when the mother requested the return of N to her care at the end of her studies in August 2021, that this amounted to her ‘changing her mind’ or ‘breaking any agreement’. In fact, it is quite the reverse. She was seeking to implement the agreement that had been made from the outset that she would care for N once she had finished studying. I reject any suggestion (that was not put to the mother during the hearing) that she ‘tried to use force’ or that there was ‘any question of violence against the child’. Given the dynamics of the people involved (that is, the strong minded great aunt and uncle and the less insistent mother) I am not surprised that the discussions about the return of N to the mother were fraught or that the mother backed down when faced with the strength of the opposition from the great aunt and uncle.

The mother says that she next visited N again in September 2021 (N was then still aged 3). She says that there was another discussion with the great aunt about N returning to Latvia with her and the great aunt handed her N’s passport and birth certificate and, ‘as it was late, told me that I could collect N the following day’ [132]. She says that, when she did return next day, the great uncle said to N ‘you will move with your mother, and you will never see us again.’ She says that N began to cry and the great uncle ‘told me that what I was doing to N was worse than the Nazis.’ I accept that the great uncle did make that remark, as the mother confirmed in her evidence. The mother says that the great aunt suggested that she returned in the evening to discuss matters further and that the conversation became heated, with the great uncle accusing her of not being able to care for N and calling her a ‘pig’ etc [133]. That conversation should not have taken place in the presence of a three year old.

The mother says [133]: ‘When I returned that evening, the great uncle proposed that I could either continue to visit N as frequently as I wanted or, in the alternative, I could move to England, and they would reconsider their position after a year. N was distressed and I didn't know what to do. I said that I would visit N as much as I can. I was afraid of pushing the matter, especially whilst I was in their home and given how N had reacted. Further, N had just started nursery, and I was worried about disrupting her. The great aunt told me to take all of my things and leave and so I went to stay at my mother's.’ Again, N should not have been exposed to that incident.

I accept the mother’s account. She had visited in August to ask for N to return to her after completing her studies. She met with resistance and did not push the issue then. She then returned in September 2021 and asked, again, for N to return to her. Rather than push the issue, she once again backed down. It is regrettable that matters were not resolved at that stage, if necessary, by a court application or, better still, mediation. Further, I do not accept that the mother tried to remove N from the great aunt and uncle in an ‘unplanned way’ at this juncture, as has been suggested. She engaged in discussion with them in August, in the expectation that the original agreement would be adhered to. She then left the issue and returned to it in September 2021. Even then, she did not insist on removing N summarily but adjusted to the proposal that she would see N frequently over the next year with a view to N returning to her care after a further period of contact development.

I find that what happened in the summer of 2021 is easily explained. The mother, who had maintained regular contact with her daughter since 2018 and had completed her medical studies, wanted N to return to her care in accordance with the agreement that had been made. The great aunt and uncle had cared for N for three years in the United Kingdom and, I find, were resistant to relinquishing their role in her life. It is at that stage (the summer of 2021) that polarisation began to set in. It has remained in place ever since.

The events of the summer of 2021, and also those of October 2022 are important. In the context of this case they are important because they show that, even though it is accepted by the great aunt uncle that there was an agreement that N would live with her mother when she finished her medical studies, when it came to it, the great aunt and uncle would not implement that agreement. Further, when the great aunt and uncle insisted upon a further period of delay (after September 2021) for there to be a development of contact with a view to N returning to the mother, they did not adhere to that arrangement either.

Further, as I will show, the great aunt and uncle have allowed an impression to develop in the mind of N that the mother, in seeking to secure the return of N to her care, was acting wrongfully and contrary to her interests. Even though N was only aged 3 at the time of events in the summer of 2021, she is still giving an incorrect account of her mother having tried to ‘steal’ her. That account derives from the great aunt and uncle, I find.

The fact that the great aunt and uncle did not keep to the agreement for N to return to her mother sends a very strong message, in my opinion, about what will happen if, once again, N remains in their care subject to an agreement that they will work towards returning N to the mother’s care in the next few years. For reasons that I will show later in this judgment, despite all the input that there has been in this case from professionals and the court, no progress has been made in relation to the mother, the great aunt and the great uncle working together in the interests of N. She remains caught between primary carers who do not support her emotional relationship with her mother and a mother who, for the past three years, has had a heavily restricted ability to show her qualities as her mother.

The mother says that a year then passed and she continued to make frequent visits to N in England although she was unhappy with the situation and ‘felt intimidated by the great aunt and uncle’s previous reactions and felt anxious about raising the matter again. It was clear to me that the great aunt would never agree to N returning to my care. However, I was planning to get married, and I wanted to give my daughter the life that I wanted for her from the very beginning.’ I accept her evidence.

In June 2022, the mother came to the UK to visit N. There was a meeting between her, the great aunt and the great uncle. In oral evidence, the mother accepted that they discussed the school that N should attend in September 2022 ‘in general terms’ and that she agreed to N starting school in UK during that discussion. She suggested that she was influenced by the great aunt and the great uncle and was being respectful to them. I find that the mother did agree to N attending school (she was then ‘rising five’) but I also find that this was not an acceptance that she would remain educated and living in the UK in the long-term. The chronological context of that discussion and the events that then followed in October 2022 demonstrate that the mother was not agreeing to a long-term solution of N being educated in the UK. She has never departed from her wish that N should return to her care.

The great aunt says that, in August 2022 (i.e. when N was aged 4), she travelled to Latvia with N to visit family. Whilst there, she says [341], there was another family meeting at which the mother once again agreed to N starting school in England in the short-term. As a result, she says, she and the great uncle decided to relocate so as to be near to a good school. They now live in the London area [668]. Following that discussion, N started at Primary School [374] in September 2022; she has remained there since.

Prior to the issue of these proceedings, the mother last spent time with N on 7^th October 2022. It is on that date that the relationship between her, the great aunt and the great uncle finally broke down. It is one year after the discussions that had taken place in the autumn of 2021 for the mother to wait a year before N returned to her care. The mother came to the UK and stayed with her mother. The great aunt says that it was ‘a surprise when the mother arrived on 7^th October 2022 to collect N for contact and stated that she was taking her back to Latvia to meet her new father.’ I reject the suggestion that it was a ‘surprise’. It is plainly what they had themselves envisaged in September 2021.

The mother says that she came to the home of the great aunt, at a time when N was still at school, to collect N’s weekend bag so that N could stay with her at the home of the grandmother for the weekend [133]. She says that she informed the great aunt that she wished to return to Latvia with N. The great aunt contacted the great uncle by phone and put him on the speaker phone function. The mother says that the great uncle was abusive to her and, again, told her she was a ‘pig’ and was ungrateful [134]. When the mother asked for N’s passport and documents, the great uncle said that the great aunt should not give her anything. She says that the conversation then ended as it was time to collect N from school.

I did not hear evidence about the precise language that was used in the discussions that day, but I accept the mother’s account that the great aunt and uncle immediately expressed their strongly worded and hostile opposition to N returning to the mother’s care.

As N had been collected from school, there was a further angry scene between them in the presence of N and also, the grandmother (the mother’s mother) [134]. N was then aged four and she should not have been exposed to that discussion. The mother alleges, and the great aunt denies, that the great aunt threatened to slap her and throw her down the stairs during the argument [134]; it is not necessary to make findings about whether there was any physical exchange between them and the issue was not tested in cross examination.

The great aunt then left with N to take her for some vaccinations. The great aunt says that N refused to go with her mother and so she and the great uncle decided that the mother should not take her away for the week as planned and that, in response, the mother revoked the power of attorney in the great aunt’s favour, meaning that she could not travel with her [341]. The mother says that she called the police who advised her to seek legal advice [134]. The mother says that she did take legal advice and then returned to Latvia. The great aunt says at [342] that the revocation of the Power of Attorney meant ‘we have not been able to travel with N since and resulting in her missing out on spending time with her family in Latvia. It has also restricted my ability to spend time with my ageing parents which is upsetting and time I cannot get back. I feel that the mother’s actions are selfish, not focused upon her child’s needs and they have caused a lot of upset within the family.’

It is very clear that the great aunt’s opinions about the actions of the mother have been made known to N. The events of 7^th October 2022 are still active in the minds of all those involved, including N. So, too, are the events of 22^nd October 2022. Those events have been expressed by N as being another example of the mother trying to ‘steal’ N and preventing the great aunt, the great uncle and N from travelling. I have no doubt at all that N’s perception of this has been influenced, both in the vocabulary and terms with which N expresses her account of events, by the great aunt and the great uncle. I accept Ms Musgrave’s submission, which accords with the opinions of the Cafcass officer (which I set out later) that the word ‘steal’ is adult language and that it is highly unlikely that a child of this age would use that vocabulary independently. For the great aunt to try to label the mother as ‘selfish’ lacks self-perception.

Again, I do not consider that the mother tried to remove N in an unplanned way. She had made plans for her to live in Latvia and arrived with documentation to support the move. In the dynamics of the relationship between the mother, the great aunt and the great uncle and in the light of the opposition to the mother’s wish to care for N, it is not surprising that direct discussion between them was not successful.

On 22^nd October 2022 the mother returned to the UK with her then fiancé [135]. She alleges that the great uncle had contacted friends ‘threatening to kill me if I came back to England. … and [later] asked them to take care’ of her fiancé [135]; I have not been asked to make findings about that. She says that she contacted the Local Authority asking for advice, but they told her to call back on the following Monday [135]. She therefore went to the home of the great aunt and the great uncle with her fiancé, and, at her request, the police also attended [135]. The mother says that the great uncle invited her fiancé into the house, but the fiancé did not go in, thinking it was unsafe. Her fiancé asked if the mother could see N, but, the great aunt says, N refused to see her mother and the great uncle took N out of the back door to a friend’s house [342]. Once again, N was wrongfully exposed to the incident and, I find, to the opinions that were being expressed within it. When the police arrived, they carried out a welfare check and advised the mother that ‘it was a matter for the Family Court’ [135]. As a consequence, N remained in the care of the great aunt and uncle.

The police record is at [763]. It states:

I do not consider it possible to rely on that police record for any matters of forensic detail. I very much doubt that the mother did refer to ‘one week.’ All of the adult parties who gave evidence before me accepted that mistakes were made that day. It was wrong for the mother to attend with her fiancé and the reaction of the great aunt and uncle (in the presence of N) was also wrong.

Once again, however, this demonstrates what happened when the mother asked for the return of N to her care in accordance with the original agreement. I find that it shows what would happen if a similar agreement were now put in place. The mother next spent time with N on 22^nd March 2025, nearly 2 ½ years later.

After the events of that day, the great aunt says that N refused all contact with her mother [342]. She says [342]: ‘we could not even mention the mother’s name without N crying but she is more relaxed now and we can at least talk about her mother. We had to stop trying to force her as N is so against contact and we did not want to risk ruining our relationship with her too but have tried asking friends to speak to N about her mother, to no avail.’ At the time N was still aged 4 (DOB 27.11.2017). I do not accept that the absence of contact was a result of N’s wishes and feelings. If the great aunt and uncle had behaved sensibly and had promoted N’s emotional wellbeing, they would not have allowed the events of 22^nd October 2022 to lead to the cessation of all contact for the period that followed. I find that the absence of contact following the events of 22^nd October 2022 was caused by the opposition of the great aunt and uncle to it. In acting as they did, they behaved in a way that was lacking in child focus. They were manifesting their own opinion of the mother through the arrangements that they would permit for N and were also exposing N to that opinion.

On 8^th November 2022, the great aunt contacted the Local Authority in relation to the disagreement over N’s care; but the Local Authority did not intervene either, considering that there were no safeguarding issues. The mother says that she had also sought help again from the local authority [142 - 152], N’s school, the police [153-157] and the local MP [141] but ‘no one was able to help me.’ [135]. I think that it is important, therefore, to recognise the position in which the mother found herself – she is Latvian, was living in Latvia and was trying to navigate the UK system to discover how to secure the return of her child.

From [168] to [231] there are emails and messages that the mother sent to the great aunt in Russian seeking information about N and asking to see her. They were being sent regularly from November 2022 to 27th June 2023. They are translated at [231] to [312]. The mother was asking the great aunt to allow her to speak to N. She did not get any response and did not get to speak to N.

In addition, the mother wrote to the great aunt by recorded delivery [167] on 31^st March 2023 [165] and 8^th April 2023 [166] seeking information about N and asking to see her. In the letter of 8^th April 2023, she said: ‘I ask you to set out in writing your plan for the return of my daughter in accordance with the verbal agreement made with you and me at the birth of my daughter. You have deliberately isolated my child, and I have lost contact with her.’ The great aunt did not respond to the letters, either.

In May 2023, the mother says that she had contacted a solicitor in England to make an application to the court; however, she was quoted fees of £30-50,000 which she could not afford. She then contacted the Ministry of Justice and was advised to make an ‘Article 21’ application.

On 9^th May 2023 the great uncle sent a video to the mother in which N is crying [347 and 147]; the video was accompanied by a message saying that N did not want to see her mother. In his evidence, the Cafcass officer said: ‘N is very worried and scared that she is being taken; the taking of a video would have emphasised that fear’. The Cafcass officer did not think that it was appropriate for her to have been videoed or for the great uncle to have sent that video.

In his oral evidence, the great uncle said: ‘the video was a direct message to the mother to see the reaction of her child. I can’t say that it was the right decision to have sent it, but it was done with the best intentions to enable the mother to feel and see what was happening. We spoke to relatives a lot and the relatives told us that, from the mother’s point of view, we were restricting her from seeing her mother. That is why I recorded this – N did not know it was a recording. Therefore, there is no way that it might have affected the child.’

I do not accept the explanation given by the great uncle. The video was sent in the context of the mother having been given no response for months to her requests by email and letter to see N. The video was the response of the great aunt and uncle to those emails. I do not believe the great uncle when he says that N did not know she was being filmed (at that stage she was 5 ½). The sending of the video was grossly insensitive and foreseeably hurtful to the mother. There is no suggestion that the great aunt or uncle tried to placate N or give her any support with how she was feeling or the absence of her mother in her life.

There is no explanation for the absence of the mother in N’s life at the time, other than the entrenched opposition of the great aunt and uncle. The sending of the video lacked child focus; it was manipulative and wrong.

On 22^nd September 2023 the mother issued her application in these proceedings. Exceptionally, therefore, these proceedings have been ongoing for 2 ¼ years. At the time of the application, the resolution of issues concerning N was already delayed by 11 months since the events of October 2022.

On 23^rd October 2023, Mr Justice Cobb (as he then was) ordered that the first hearing, which was due to take place on 24^th October 2023, should be adjourned to allow the father the opportunity to attend the hearing [45]. There is an error in the filed chronology in the bundle about this date.

On 9^th November 2023, the first hearing took place before HHJ Vavrecka [56]. His order recites that the father considered that N should remain with the great aunt and uncle. On that basis, it was recorded that the father was not required to attend subsequent court hearings. At the time, the mother stated that she was not seeking to relocate N but, rather, sought contact with her. In the absence of a safeguarding report, the Judge gave directions for the filing of documentation (including the safeguarding report) and listed the case on 15^th December 2023. He declined to make an interim contact or other child arrangements order in the absence of the report from Cafcass.

On 7^th December 2023, the mother filed her first statement in these proceedings. [129]. She stated that she was making her application for contact under Article 21 of the Hague Convention and said, specifically, that she was not applying to relocate N ‘at this time’. She said that she understood the importance of contact being re-established and there being ‘careful planning…prior to such an application being made’ [130]. She expressed her opposition to the court making a ‘lives with’ order in favour of the great aunt and uncle [136]. She said [137]: ‘As I have now not seen N for over a year, I have very serious concerns about what she has been told about me and my absence by the great aunt and uncle…I feel that they are not encouraging N to have a relationship with me…I find it very difficult to communicate with the great uncle as his behaviour can be quite aggressive and hostile.… N is my daughter and she has a strong and loving bond with me. It is not fair for N or me to sever this relationship’ [138].

By that stage, therefore, and for no good reason, the mother had not seen N for over a year, and there had been no written or video contact with her either. It is regrettable that, even with court proceedings in place, it took until 22^nd March 2025 for the mother to see her daughter again, despite there being no safeguarding issues to prevent contact and despite the fact that, until October 2022, N was having regular and beneficial contact with her mother.

On 8^th December 2023, the great aunt made her first statement [339]. It included: ‘My biggest concern is that the mother fails to understand or acknowledge the trauma she has caused to N and she has not given a full account of why contact broke down, simply blaming us for preventing her from seeing N…. I am also worried about N’s safety as the mother has not provided any information to the court regarding her personal circumstances or her new husband.’ On the same day, the great uncle filed a shorter statement in which he expressly adopted the contents of the great aunt’s statement [346]; in it he says: ‘with regards to contact, I do not know where to start with rebuilding the relationship between N and her mother. I am personally upset by the mother’s actions, but the most important thing is N, and I am willing to work together. However, the mother needs to properly explain to the court why she has acted in the way she did on the three occasions she tried to remove N so we can understand, otherwise there is no trust between us.’

In her cross examination of the great aunt, Ms Musgrave suggested that the statements that had been filed by the great aunt and uncle only contained negative remarks about the mother. Having considered the point myself, I accept it. The same cannot be said in relation to the contents of the statements of the mother about the great aunt and uncle. In the statements that were filed in December 2023, the ‘three occasions’ referred to by the maternal great uncle were the occasions in August 2021, 7^th October 2022 and 22^nd October 2022 about which I have already stated by findings. Nothing that was said by the maternal great aunt and uncle could justify the complete cessation of all direct and indirect contact that had occurred. Further, their statements gave no recognition at all to the part that they had played in the events that occurred on those three occasions or their role in closing down the mother’s contact (or the consequences for N of them doing so).

On 15^th December 2023, the proceedings came before HHJ Shanks [B60]. Once again, the safeguarding report had not been filed and the court declined to make any interim order save that the mother should have indirect contact by letters, video call, cards or presents. The order also required the great aunt to send photographs and updates each month to the mother and to use her best endeavours to encourage N to engage in the indirect contact. The order also included other directions.

The Cafcass safeguarding letter was filed on 22^nd January 2024 [668]. It recommended that ‘the court will need to direct Cafcass to complete a Section 7 report’ [672]. The letter recorded that none of the parties are known to ‘Level 1 Police checks.’ It gave a summary of the involvement of local authority when the parties had contacted them for advice about their disagreements over N. It also stated [671]:

On 1^st February 2024 an order was made by consent [64] for Cafcass to file a full ‘Section 7 report’ by 7^th June 2024 with the parties to file statements thereafter. In the meantime, it was directed by consent that the indirect contact arrangements ordered on 15^th December 2023 should continue.

On 11^th June 2024 a Cafcass officer wrote a report [673]. By that stage, the mother had not seen N for 20 months. He recommended that there should be a referral to the ‘ICFA’ programme that is offered through Cafcass (‘ICFA’ stands for Improving Child and Family Arrangements) to carry out six sessions of contact between N and the mother. The report recommended that there should be two sessions of indirect contact followed by four sessions of direct contact over a two-week period when the mother would be in the United Kingdom. The report recommended that any further interim contact should take place as directed by the Cafcass officer. Cafcass agreed to complete international checks in relation to the mother. It was recommended that the mother should renew N’s passport and leave it with the great aunt on the basis that the court should be informed of any holiday plans.

It was not until 22^nd March 2025, some nine months after that report, that the first direct contact visit took place since October 2022.

The s7 report included the following [682]:

The ICFA work was subcontracted out to a company called Bold Moves Ltd with ‘DB’ being the responsible person within that company [737].

On 25^th June 2024, the great aunt anduncle filed a further statement [350]. They agreed to a referral to ICFA to ‘undertake work to restore the relationship between N and the mother. However, they disagreed with much of what was written in the report of the Cafcass officer [350]. They expressed their concern about the proposal that there should be four face-to-face contact sessions, saying that they felt that might be ‘overwhelming’ for N [354]. They stated that they wished there to be child arrangements orders in their favour, recording that N lives with them, since it would reflect her living arrangements and also because it was ‘vital’ that they shared parental responsibility. They gave notice by their statement that they would seek a ‘lives with’ child arrangements order at the hearing on 2^nd July 2024 [354].

Therefore, at this stage, the great aunt anduncle were expressing their opposition to direct contact even under the supervision of DB, as recommended by Cafcass. A feature of their evidence is that they are critical of all professionals who do not share their opinions.

On 27^th June 2024, the mother filed her second statement [356]. She expressed her support for the proposal of the Cafcass officer. She said that she was in the process of amending her legal aid application to seek the return of N to her care. She said that she did not agree to the extension of the power of attorney in favour of the great aunt anduncle. She did not agree to them having parental responsibility for N [361]. She says that, although she was receiving monthly updates from the great aunt about N, the updates have ‘barely any substantial information’ [361].

On 2^nd July 2024 a hearing took place before HHJ O’Donovan. By the time of the hearing, N had not seen her mother for 21 months. The order recorded that the mother gave an undertaking to renew the Power of Attorney in favour of the great aunt anduncle. Further, it recorded that the mother delegated parental responsibility to the great aunt anduncle as an interim measure on the basis that the mother should be consulted on major matters relating to N. The parties agreed to engage in the ICFA activity programme, with the great aunt anduncle agreeing to ensure that N attended. On that basis, an addendum report from Cafcass was ordered and contact was to continue as ordered on 15^th December 2023 with additional contact as recommended by ICFA. A further hearing was directed to take place, six months later, on 8^th January 2025.

On 29^th October 2024, a video call took place between N and the mother under the supervision of DB. It was the first time that the mother had seen N for two years (that is, since the events of 22^nd October 2022) [739]. With the benefit of hindsight, there was no justification for that gap in contact. There is a full record of this first video contact session at [739]. It suggests that the mother asked appropriate questions of N and that N responded positively. It concludes by saying: ‘at the end of the contact, The mother says ‘thank you for the conversation and talking with me. Love you.’

On 7^th November 2024 a second supervised video contact session was arranged. There is a record of it by the Bold Moves worker at [740]. The great aunt asked the supervisor to come on to the call 15 minutes early ‘for a chat with N’. N, then nearly seven years old, said that she did not want to talk. The record includes [740]: ‘The great aunt says that there were two things after the last time, that N started crying and did not explain why and they comforted her. It was not about the trip being cancelled and that the mother came straight on and it’s OK and N said I don’t want to speak to her again. They explained it was a procedure and N said she is not ready for it. She cries and said ‘I don’t want to talk about it’. The great aunt said that she has spoken to the Cafcass officer who has said that the ICFA has to go ahead. N shared with her music teacher in her lesson that ‘I have to speak to my mum’…The great aunt said the damage that has been done and N said ‘I want to delete my mummy due to the passport’ and she felt let down and the mother has not said sorry…. They leave the video call and N does not come back. The mother arrives. She felt the last call went well.’

Thus, that video contact session did not go ahead. If N had been supported and encouraged properly by the great aunt anduncle, I see no reason why the contact visit should not have occurred. I find that N’s opposition to joining in with the contact session was a manifestation of the environment in which she was living with the great aunt anduncle, rather than anything to do with the mother. The mother had behaved entirely appropriately in the first contact session.

On 21^st November 2024 there was a video discussion between N, the great aunt and the Bold Moves worker. The note in relation to it is at [740]. When asked by the worker ‘why don’t you speak to mummy’, N replied ‘maybe she will take me away to a school to go to in Latvia’ – there was no validity, of course, in any thought that the mother might remove N to Latvia other than through due process. By that stage, of course, it was over two years since N had last been in the presence of the mother. The great aunt said that, although N had been smiling when talking to the mother, she is holding her emotions and was in school in tears. The note records the great aunt saying: ‘of course N needs her mum…she is worried about being taken away.’ The great aunt said that N was ‘not holding it together’. It is clear that nothing was being done by the great aunt to allay N’s misplaced fears.

In evidence, the mother said that, at the time, she was hoping to be able to speak to N on her birthday, but was not able to do so. The mother said that she was raising this with the great aunt, but all her messages were blocked as were her own mother’s. The first time that the mother has been able to speak to N on N’s birthday, the mother says, is this year (2025). She has not been able to speak to her at Christmas or on her own birthday. There has been no justification for that.

On 5^th December 2024 there was a third supervised video call. The note is at [741]. N spoke to the mother about her birthday party that had taken place on 27^th November but said that she did not want to talk ‘today’. Although N (who was at home with the great aunt anduncle) did start ‘chatting’, the contact supervisor noted that she ‘keeps looking off camera to her side.’ N then said that she wanted to leave the call. The mother asked N to wish her a happy birthday (6^th December). N said ‘Happy Birthday’ to the mother and then left the call.

On 9^th December 2024, the Cafcass officer wrote a case analysis for the purposes of the Dispute Resolution Appointment that was listed on 8^th January 2025 [690]. He stated that N ‘has appeared somewhat lost in the disputes between the adults in her life.’ Given that N had lived with the great aunt anduncle, separately from the mother, since the age of six months, he considered that ‘N’s parental bonds and attachments will have formed with them and not the mother…to put simply, in N’s world, despite the different names and links, the great aunt and uncleare her primary carers and, psychologically, she will view them as her parents.’ He reported that there were no safeguarding concerns in relation to N spending time with her mother and developing her relationship with her.

I am very hesitant about classifying the great aunt anduncle as being perceived by N as her ‘parents’. I recognise the analysis of parenthood in the speech of Lady Hale in Re G 2006 UKHL 43; [2006] 2 FLR 629. My own preference is to use language that describes the actual set up within this family – that is, to refer to the great aunt anduncle as being regarded by N as her primary carers, the people with whom she has lived for all of her life and to whom she is strongly attached.

As to the position of the great aunt anduncle at that time, the Cafcass officer said [695, para 19]:

I accept Ms Musgrave’s submissions that the issues that the great aunt anduncle were raising in that paragraph: i) are adult issues; ii) are reflected in what N has said (and which originate from the opinions of the great aunt anduncle), iii) gave an example of their negative opinion of the mother and iv) are lacking in depth, maturity or child-focus.

The Cafcass officer recommended that direct contact be ‘established and built up’. He considered that the great aunt anduncle ‘seem to dismiss the need for a relationship for N with her mother.’ He noted that N has a negative view of her mother and had suggested that her mother ‘tried to steal her’ and take her back to Latvia, stopped them from going on a holiday in October 2024 and fed her with lots of candy [696]. N told the Cafcass officer that she did not want to live in Latvia because ‘I have a nice school and friends, and my teachers won’t know where I am.’

The Cafcass officer said [697] that it was ‘evident from speaking to N that she feels she has the power to control the contact. She is being exposed to the negative views regarding her mother which come from the ongoing negative views of the adults in her life…It is evident that this is a little girl who is caught in the middle of family conflict and is being prevented from having a meaningful relationship with her mother because of the adult issues.’

The Cafcass officer also said [697]:

Having read and heard as much evidence as I have in this case, I accept that analysis. Like the Cafcass officer, I have no faith that the great aunt anduncle are able to support any relationship with N and her mother. That is as true now as it was in December 2024 when the Cafcass officer wrote his report.

On 19^th December 2024, the great aunt sent an email to the mother saying that she, the great uncle and N would be travelling to Latvia from 30^th December 2024 [396]. The email offered the mother an opportunity to meet N during that visit. The mother responded by seeking more details and also proposing that she should have contact with N in Riga, rather than at her grandmother’s house due to the distress that might be caused to the grandmother [383 and 397]. The great aunt replied by saying that the trip had not been booked and any discussions about the mother meeting N were premature [384 and 401]. In the end, the great aunt, the great uncle and N did travel to Latvia, and the mother did not see her at all while they were there, save for (apparently) two video calls [384 and 403].

On 5^th January 2025 the ‘ICFA report’ was written by DB [D737]. It included the following:

That report speaks for itself. The opposition to contact on the basis of N’s mental health was not a reflection of anything to do with how the mother and child inter-related during contact. It was a manifestation, again, of the environment in which she was living and the inability of the great aunt and uncle to support the mother /child relationship. There is no justification for the mother not to be able to see N around the date of her birthday; it was obstructive.

On 8^th January 2025 (i.e. the day of the next hearing), the great aunt and uncle filed a statement [364] setting out their disagreements with the report of the Cafcass officer. Again, they asserted that there were inaccuracies within the report. They said that gifts for N from the mother had been given to her. They said ‘Cafcass failed to account for the psychological impact on N caused by the mother's sudden attempts to remove her from our care without preparation. This has caused distress and fear, which had been overlooked in the report. The report does not adequately reflect N’s expressed wishes or feelings, in violation of article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child’ [N was aged 7 at the time]. They suggested that the Cafcass officer’s investigation was superficial and lacked analysis of the mother’s behaviour. Further they said that his recommendations ‘contradict principles in the Children Act 1989, which prioritise the child’s best interests and stability.’ They suggested that the Cafcass officer should file a corrected report and that there should be a psychological assessment. As to the future contact arrangements: ‘we support structured and gradual contact between N and her mother, facilitated by professionals, to rebuild their relationship in a manner that prioritises N’s wellbeing’ [365].

Their complaints about the Cafcass officer’s work have no validity. His conclusions were justified and correct.

On 8^th January 2025, the case came before HHJ Shanks at a Dispute Resolution Appointment [75]. The order recites that the great aunt and uncle agree to the ‘restoring of the relationship between the mother and N through direct contact facilitated in the short-term at a contact centre; further, that they would consider N returning to her mother’s care in the future in the event that is what N wanted’ (N was then aged seven). However, the order records, ‘at this time, they do not agree with the Cafcass recommendation.’ Although the order recited their support for restoring the mother/child relationship, I do not accept that they were committed to that end.

Therefore, six months on from the order of HHJ O’Donovan and despite the involvement of the ICFA programme, there had still not been any direct contact.

The mother’s agreement to a number of matters necessary to support the proposed contact is recorded in the order, as is her agreement to renew the power of attorney. The order expresses the Judge’s expectation that ‘subject to the contact at the contact centre progressing well, after 3 or 4 sessions contact could move to the community with the maternal grandmotherassisting with facilitating this’. The order also recorded that the mother retains parental responsibility and must be consulted on any issues regarding N’s welfare, including decisions about medical treatment and referrals for support, education and travel abroad. The court deemed the mother to have made an application for N to live with her and dispensed with the need for an application [76, para 6]. The order also recorded that the great aunt and uncle confirmed that they did not require the assistance of an interpreter for future hearings [77, para 8].

As to the arrangements for contact, the order provided for the great aunt and uncle to make N available for direct face to face contact on alternate Saturdays at a contact centre for two hours between 10 a.m. and 12 noon, to start as soon as the contact centre had availability, with the maternal grandmother being able to attend from the second session. Once contact moved to the community, the order stated that it would continue on alternate Saturdays for at least two hours (with it being anticipated that it would be longer) and that handovers would be facilitated by the maternal grandmother. Those arrangements were ordered to be in addition to the contact ordered on 15^th December 2023 with the great aunt and uncle being required to continue to provide the mother with monthly updates about N. The Judge gave directions for other documentation to be filed and ordered a further Dispute Resolution Appointment on1st April 2025 [78].

On 10^th January 2025, the Primary School wrote a letter about N [374]. This is the letter that I have already mentioned, and which gives a very clear picture of N and the girl that she is. It stated that N has been a delight since starting at the school in September 2022. She is an ‘incredibly hard-working girl’ who strives to do and give her best in everything that she does. She has an ‘impeccable’ attendance record and enjoys coming to school. When she first came to the school, she could speak no English but is now fluent in it. She has a huge circle of friends and is well-liked. She achieves well academically due to her diligent attitude to learning. She displays wonderful behaviour at school. The letter states that ‘recently, we had to provide N with some well-being support from our wellbeing mentor. This was due to N being placed on a call with her mother, without prior warning. We have been advised that this was a decision made by Cafcass, when they did not ask her if she wanted to take the call before making it. This did cause N distress, and, in school, we had to offer to help her navigate this.’ The school was obviously not aware of the amount of preparation work that had gone into planning the calls between N and her mother; of course, any preparation work could also have been done by her primary carers, if they had wished to support the contact.

In January 2025, there was a referral of N to CAMHS who triaged her [445] but concluded that emotional support should be considered with the school and the adults supporting N. N has had support, however, from the well-being officer at the school.

On 31^st January 2025, the mother filed a long statement [376]. In it, she stated that she was pleased with the recommendations that the Cafcass officer had made. She stated that she had serious concerns about ‘the great aunt and unclespeaking about me negatively to N’ [378]. She said that the great aunt and uncle continue to be angry at her and extend that anger to anyone who supports her– ‘for example, N is no longer allowed to see her grandmother (my mother) as she was present when I discussed taking N back to Latvia’ [378]. She contended that the great aunt and uncle knew what they were doing and were motivated by a wish for N to live with them ‘as they have raised her like their own child’ [382]. She said that she wanted N’s move to live with her in Latvia to be arranged in a child-focussed way and that her preference was for N to finish the school year in her current school and then come to live with her in Riga in July or August 2025 [385]. In my opinion, the mother’s stance was sensitive and sensible.

In her statement, the mother says that N would live with her in her apartment in Riga where she would have her own bedroom (there are photographs of it at [460 – 461]). She had made contact with the educational authorities and said that it was her understanding that N would be placed in a school that she applied for, subject to there being space. Because children do not start at school until they are aged 7, she would be in first grade; she gives details of the schools that she would prefer for N [386]. She had also researched available after school clubs [387-8]. She said that she would arrange video calls between N and her friends in England and would bring her to England to visit them, if possible. She also stated that she has been ‘in contact with a psychologist, who is registered with the Latvia Psychotherapist Association, about whether she would be able to do some work with N. The psychologist speaks Russian.’ As part of her proposals in this case, the mother has suggested that the psychologist could offer family therapy that could involve the great aunt and uncle also.

On 7^th February 2025, the great aunt and uncle sent an email to the mother saying that were taking N to Latvia and would provide details once the trip had been booked. The solicitors for the mother wrote back, saying that the great aunt and uncle were required to ask the mother for her consent to N travelling abroad (in further correspondence, the great aunt and uncle did not agree that they needed consent). The solicitor for the mother gave the great aunt and uncle until 12^th February 2025 to give details of the proposed trip. The mother says that she was then informed by other family members that the great aunt and uncle were travelling with N to Latvia on 17^th February 2025 [467]. On 10^th February 2025, the mother’s solicitor again wrote to the great aunt and uncle saying that N did not agree to the proposed trip and advised the great aunt and uncle that they should make a court application, if they wished to continue to travel. The correspondence is in the bundle at [474 to 516]

On 17^th February 2025, the great aunt and uncle travelled to Latvia with N, despite knowing of the opposition of the mother to the trip [469] and despite the terms of the orders that had been made (i.e. [B76] ‘And Upon the Court making clear that the Mother has Parental Responsibility for N and must be consulted on any issues regarding her welfare, including but not limited to decisions regarding medical treatment and referrals for support, education and travel abroad. The Court expressed that the mother must be consulted in advance’).

On 18^th February 2025, the mother issued an application for a prohibited steps order, stating: ‘The mother seeks a PSO to prevent the Respondents (the great aunt and uncle) from travelling out of the jurisdiction …with N’ [97]. She filed a statement in support of the application on 19^th February 2025 [462]. Although that application remains extant, it is not pursued at this hearing.

On 1^st March 2025 N attended the contact centre for an initial meeting to allow her to see the contact venue with a view to the commencement of direct contact. It had taken this long to arrange for direct contact to occur.

On 11^th March 2025, the mother applied for the final hearing date to be brought forward from 26-28 August 2025 to a date in July [105]. The application was opposed by the great aunt and uncle for reasons that are set out in email correspondence at [111] (‘premature and speculative’, a July date would interfere with her schooling, they wished to travel with N, an August date would allow adequate preparation if N were to move to Latvia). The mother made the application on the basis that the case should be heard before the start of the summer holidays as she would wish to take N to Latvia for the start of the new school year [108].

On 22^nd March 2025 the first supervised contact session between N and the mother took place. That was the first time that N had spent any face to face time with her mother since the events of October 2022 (i.e. two years and five months previously).

The notes of that session are at [782] and include:

On 27^th March 2025, The Cafcass officer wrote a ‘Cafcass goodbye letter’ to N in which he said as follows:

On 4^th April 2025 the Dispute Resolution Appointment took place before HHJ Shanks [115]. The order of the Judge recited that the mother retains parental responsibility for N and ‘must be consulted on any issues regarding her welfare’. A decision was made not to join N to the proceedings. A prohibited steps order was made prohibiting the great aunt and uncle from removing N from the jurisdiction save for periods that had been agreed in writing between the parties. An order was made for the great aunt and uncle to make N available to spend time with the mother on alternate Saturdays at the contact centre for two hours between 10 a.m. and 12 noon with the great aunt being permitted to attend the contact session. ‘Once contact moves to the community’ it was ordered that the great aunt and uncle should make N available for contact on alternate Saturdays for a minimum of two hours with the great aunt being responsible for the handover. It was recorded that the contact provisions of the order of 15^th December 2023 should continue in addition to the additional direct contact that was ordered. The Judge gave directions for the filing of documentation, including an addendum report by the Cafcass officer.

On 3^rd May 2025, the mother and N attended a contact centre for the second session of supervised contact. The note of the session, taken by the contact centre workers, is at [784] and includes:

The mother’s account of this second session is at [528]. She said that N was scared and worried and kept saying that she wanted to go home. N asked the mother: ‘Mum, why do you restrict me to travel? We wanted to go to Spain, but you have restricted us.’ The great uncle collected N from the session 15 minutes early [529]. At [549-551] there are photographs of the mother and N at this contact session. Living in the environment with the great aunt and uncle, as N did, and having been exposed to the events that I have described, I am not remotely surprised that N appeared worried when visiting the mother about whom the great aunt and uncle had expressed such adverse opinions to N’s knowledge. I find that every contact visit that has taken place thereafter has also to be seen in that context. If N remains in the care of the great aunt and uncle that context will remain, I have no doubt – the environment that they have created manifests their opinions.

On 17^th May 2025, the mother and N attended the contact centre for supported contact. This was the third session. This is no note from the contact centre workers of this session, or of the subsequent sessions that took place there. The mother says that N was 15 minutes late [529] but appeared much happier and relaxed. The mother says that she feels that the session went really well [529]. There are photographs of the contact session at [553 to 559]

On 7th June 2025, the mother and N attended the contact centre for the fourth (supported) contact session. The Cafcass officer observed the contact. At [751] he says:

In his oral evidence, the Cafcass officer said: ‘To begin with, N was upset and quite clingy and obviously finding it difficult to make sense of everything. The mother stayed with N on the sofa and encouraged N to explain why she felt sad. The mother managed it in a very gentle way and allowed N to express how she felt. The conversation then continued and they played some games. Then things improved. They were giggling.’

The mother says that she considers that this session was not as positive as the previous one and that N began to cry when the Cafcass officer arrived. However, she says that, after a while, N calmed down and was able to have some fun in the session.

Following the session, the great aunt and uncle wrote emails complaining again about the Cafcass officer and his work [530]. They alleged that the Cafcass officer had given the mother the impression that that she did not need to make any effort to rebuild a relationship with N but merely had to comply with court orders. They said that they were not trying to condemn the mother but simply saying that it is her character that causes her to behave as she does. They suggested that N did not want to go to the contact meetings. Therefore, once again, they demonstrated their lack of support for contact and the relationship between the mother and N. I reject all of their criticisms of the Cafcass officer’s work. Their condemnation of the mother is apparent in their written and oral evidence and is well known to N.

On 21^st June 2025, the mother and N attended the contact centre for the fifth contact supported session [534]. It was intended that the contact would involve taking N to the carnival, but that did not happen. The mother says that N arrived 15 minutes late and said that she did not want to play or talk. She kept saying ‘I want to stay in England…I want to go home.’ She was crying and, in the end, the great uncle collected her at 11 o’clock [588].

The next (sixth) contact session was on 5^th July 2025 [534]. The mother says that N said that she wanted to go home, repeatedly, but did not seem distressed. The great aunt and uncle say that the session was cut short as they were asked to collect N early due to N’s distress [588].

On 23^rd July 2025, the great aunt and uncle made an application. The application states that it is being submitted ‘to bring to the court’s attention two serious safeguarding incidents that require urgent judicial consideration’. The application is not in the bundle and, although I asked for a copy, I have not seen one. It refers to the incident in October 2022 when the mother ‘tried to return with N to Latvia’ [524]. Those issues had been very thoroughly aired already in the parties’ earlier statements. The second part of the application relates to the mother giving N a magnesium supplement during a contact session which the great aunt and uncle suggested ‘represents a direct threat to the child’s physical health and safety.’ The great aunt gives their account of this in their statement at [589]. The mother accepts that she gave the supplement to N but does not accept that she did anything wrong in doing so [526]. In the circumstances, it was probably unwise for the mother to have given N a supplement, but it did not justify the response from the great aunt and uncle or the filing of an application. There were no safeguarding issues in relation to the mother and never have been.

On 9^th August 2025, the mother had contact with N (seventh session). The mother says that she arrived 20 minutes early; her mother, the grandmother, also attended the contact. The mother said that N was ‘really happy to see her’ [534] and that they all had a wonderful time. She said that she showed N pictures of her proposed bedroom in Latvia. There are photographs of this contact session at 573-578.

On 12^th August 2025, the mother filed another long statement [523]. She dealt extensively with the ‘safeguarding’ applications that the great aunt and uncle had made on 23^rd July [524-526]. She raised, with justification, her other concerns about them and repeated that ‘the great aunt and uncledo not see me as N’s mother at all. I am concerned that N has been made to think that her only family is the great aunt and uncle, and any family in Latvia who agrees with them’. I accept the mother’s analysis.

In the statement, the mother also gives details of the contact sessions that had taken place [528-534]. I have already included the relevant parts of that statement in relation to the individual contact sessions. She set out her proposals for future contact [535] and said that she continued to prepare N for living with her in Latvia [535]. He said that N has been admitted to a school in Riga. She said that she believed that it would be contrary to N’s welfare to remain with the great aunt and uncle for a long period after a court decision in her favour and that, after the planned final court hearing on 28^th August, she would wish to take N to her mother’s house on 1^st September 2025 with a view then to taking her to Latvia shortly afterwards [536]. She said that she did not want to inform the great aunt and uncle about the flight details as she felt that they would try to prevent them from being able to board the flight by contacting the police or turning up at the airport [537].

The mother proposed that N should have no contact with the great aunt and uncle for the rest of 2025 [537] and that, thereafter, they should have monthly indirect contact by card / letters. She said that she would not agree to N spending time with them in England [538]. She said that she sought a prohibited steps order to prevent the removal of N from her care and would register the Section 8 orders in Latvia. She also set out her detailed proposal for contact, if N remains with the great aunt and uncle [539]; it included direct contact each month in England and video calls at least three times a week together with additional contact during the holidays.

During this hearing, the mother’s opposition to direct contact between N and the great aunt and uncle softened. She is now saying as I have set out above – there should be a child arrangements order in their favour providing for indirect contact for three months and then such direct contact as may be agreed (it being the intention that direct contact would take place). I consider that the mother is genuine in her wish to promote continued contact between N and the great aunt and uncle. She knows and acknowledges their emotional importance to N.

Also, on 12^th August 2025, the great aunt and uncle filed a statement [586]. They said that N reacted negatively to the contact sessions [588] and that N says that the mother keeps asking her questions. They said that N believes that the mother wants to take her away. They said that they are concerned that the Cafcass officer had failed to consider the steps that they had taken in the past to try to facilitate and develop N’s relationship with the mother and that they found the allegations that they were unable to promote their relationship and had alienated N from her mother to be ‘offensive and distressing.’ This statement is an example of why Ms Musgrave was right to submit that their statements are entirely negative about the mother.

They suggested that they had previously offered the mother the opportunity to move to the UK temporarily for six months and build up her relationship with N then – they said that they had been prepared to help her with housing and other support that she might need to do this in the UK [589]. They stated that they believe that it would cause N significant harm to return her to Latvia against her will and, in doing so, would take her away from a stable and secure environment. They say that they remain committed to rebuilding N’s relationship with the mother but that they must share parental responsibility to achieve that [591].

On 19^th August 2025, the Cafcass officer filed an addendum to his earlier report [746]. It included the following:

On 23^rd August 2025, N spent time with the mother and grandmother. The mother’s written account of the contact is at [602]. It is an account of a happy visit that lasted from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. They took N to an experience in London. At 18.09, the great aunt sent a message to the mother complaining that N was returned late. Her message stated: ‘please urgently inform us where the child is, the reason for the delay and whether the child is safe’ [603].

On 26^th August 2025 the case came before HHJ Shanks for what was intended to be a final hearing. However, there was no Russian interpreter for the great aunt and uncle and, as a result, the hearing was adjourned [118]. The mother agreed to renew the power of attorney until the relisted final hearing. It was agreed that N would spend time with the mother on 30^th-31^st August, 6^th-7th September, 20^th to 21^st September, 27^th-28^th September, 11^th to 12^th October and 25^th to 26^th October. Thereafter, it was agreed that there should be a fortnightly pattern of unsupervised contact until the re-listed hearing. At a later stage it was added to the order that the final hearing would be before me on 8^th to 10^th December [120].

The mother spent time with N thereafter, but without overnight stays, on 30-31^st August, 6^th September, 20-21^st September, 27-28^th September, 11-12^th October and 25-26 October. On 22-23^rd November N stayed with the mother overnight for the first time. In her statement at [597], the mother says: ‘it has been an absolute pleasure to be able to spend time with N. N is a kind, responsive, curious, intelligent, quick-witted, cheerful child. N and I have had such fun spending time together and I am so grateful for this. Sadly, despite it being expected that N would have overnight contact with me, this has only happened once.’ She said that contact had been going well but it has deteriorated as this final hearing has approached [598].

I can well imagine the pressure under which N has lived over the past few months. She has known the opinions of the great aunt and uncle about her mother and has been led to a distorted view about the past by being exposed to those opinions. In her eyes she was being required to spend time with a mother who had tried to ‘steal her' from her home and who had behaved as the great aunt and uncle have described. It was only when the reality of time with her mother became apparent to her during the contact sessions and she was able to rid herself of that influence, that she showed the true value, warmth and potential of her relationship with her mother.

The mother’s note about the contact on 30^th August 2025 is at [604]. It lasted from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. N had a new smart watch that the great aunt and uncle had given to her and, at [603] the mother expresses the concern that it had a GPS tracking device (which, from the evidence given by the great aunt, appears to be the case). The mother and her mother took N to the cinema. When they were going to the home of the mother’s mother, the mother says that they started to get multiple messages [see 606] from the great aunt and her son [604]. There is a copy of a written message from them at [606] asking the mother to let N ring them to ensure that she is OK. N also ‘realised’ that they were looking for her, the mother says, and started to say that she wanted to go back to the great aunt’s home. The mother says that she spoke to the great aunt’s son and told him that they would bring N back [604]. They spent a short time in the home of the mother’s mother and then took N back to the great aunt and uncle’s home [605].

At [660], the great aunt and uncle say that they had been expecting N to stay with the mother overnight and return on 31^st August. However, ‘the mother failed to collect N [on 31^st] saying that N did not want to have contact. Unfortunately, the mother made no attempt to discuss matters with us to see if we could support N to spend time with her mother.’ In fact, what happened, I find, is that the multiple messages and the smart watch all contributed to unsettling N. Further, this contact session, and the subsequent sessions, have to be seen in the context of what had gone on before.

On 6^th September 2025, the mother took N to a show [607] and see the photograph at 624-625]. She says that N told her immediately: ‘I don’t want to stay overnight at your place.’ However, she says, they had a nice time and N enjoyed the show. After it, N was tired and they agreed to have some lunch and then return N to the great aunt and uncle. N and the mother agreed that, if N wanted to spend time with the mother next day, she should call her. The next day, N rang to say that she did not want to come to the mother that day. The mother says that she could hear the great uncle in the background saying: ‘say you don’t want to.’ In their statement at [660] the great aunt and uncle say that ‘the mother failed to collect N for contact on 7^th September 2025, stating that she had agreed with N that she would stay at home as she was tired.’ If the mother had insisted on N staying the night, I have no doubt that the great aunt and uncle would have raised that as a complaint.

On 20^th September 2025, N was with the mother from 9.50 a.m. to 19.50 hrs. She was feeling unwell that day [607] and so they decided to stay and do activities at the home of the mother’s mother. N said that she did not want to stay overnight [608]. The great uncle rang and N told him that she wanted to stay to watch the rest of the film ‘Toothless’ but did not want to stay the night. The mother says that the great uncle told N that she must either stay the night at her grandmother’s home or come back immediately. The mother says that N was crying and really disappointed. She took N home by taxi without seeing the rest of the film [608].

On 21^st September 2025 N arrived with a letter for the mother. The record of contact is at [609] and gives an account of a happy contact. However, N also stated that she had written the letter at 6 a.m. that morning and it read: ‘I don’t want to go to Latvia. Please leave me in the UK. Here is my family. I am living here for 7 years etc. Signature: Wrote by myself. From N’.

In their statement at [661] the great aunt and uncle say that, on 20^th and 21^st September ‘contact finally took place on both days as per the court order, but only after we had repeatedly reminded the mother of her duty to attend for contact on both Saturday and Sunday and we had to chase her to confirm arrangements for handovers.’

On 27^th September 2025 the mother, N and grandmother went to another venue (see the photographs at [641-642)]. The contact record is at [610] and gives an account of an enjoyable time and of N returning to the great aunt and uncle before 8 p.m. At [661] the great aunt and uncle say, on 28^th September, ‘the mother shifted the responsibility of deciding whether contact should take place on to N. We repeatedly sent reminders that contact should be taking place as per the court order and requested that the mother collect N as expected.’ Without the great aunt and uncle supporting the relationship between the mother and N, and encouraging N in relation to that contact, I do not think that any criticism by them about the mother not keeping N overnight has validity. It is not a valid stance to say to a mother that she should be keeping the child overnight when they have not encouraged the child to participate in the contact or reassured the child in relation to it.

Contact did take place on 28^th, however. The mother and N spent the day together and the note at [612] is of another enjoyable day that ended at 15.40 when N returned back to the great aunt and uncle. This is another example of what the Cafcass officer meant in his evidence when he said that, when N spends time with her mother free from the negative influence of the great aunt and uncle, she enjoys herself.

On 11^th October 2025, the mother collected N at 10 a.m. and they went to a museum. The account at [613] is of a good day spent together (there are photographs at [636-7]). N was back with the great aunt by 19.30 hrs. The great aunt and uncle say [661] that the mother returned N that evening, saying that she did not wish to stay overnight. They say that N told them that she tried to explain her feelings to her mother but ‘The mother told N it’s none of your business, little one, the adults will decide everything.’ I very much doubt that the mother said that.

The next day, the great aunt and uncle say that the mother only collected N after ‘repeated reminders [from them] about the court order’[661]. When the mother arrived,there were tense discussions about the Smart Watch. N wanted to take it with her and the mother eventually agreed that she could. They spent the day in East London and N was back with the great aunt by 15:00 hrs [615].

On 25^th October 2025 the mother and N went to the home of the grandmother and watched a Harry Potter film. However, the mother says, N was not feeling well and had a temperature. The mother says that she was also feeling unwell. In the late afternoon, the great uncle said that he would take a taxi and collect N. He did so and N was back at their house by about 18.15 hrs [616]. The great aunt and uncle say that, when N returned, she ‘told us that she tried to speak to her mother about her feelings and express how difficult it was for her to think about being separated from us. According to N, the mother shouted at her in response saying that we are ‘nobody’ to N.’ Again, I do not accept that the mother said that or shouted.

However, the next day N came again having been collected by the grandmother. After lunch, the mother says that she decided to discuss things with N and that led to them both being in tears [617]. The mother says that this conversation was ‘very special’ for them [618]. After the conversation had ended they decided to go to the local playground and then N returned to the great aunt’s home by 5 p.m.

The mother was cross examined as to whether this conversation with N was inappropriate. She said: ‘if a child wants an answer to a question in a child friendly way, I will answer. There were no other adults present. N is really struggling with her feelings. I needed to concentrate on her feelings. It was a mother and daughter conversation. It was not me, in an adult manner, asking her to explain things. She wanted to speak to me. N needed to know that I heard her feelings.’ I think that it is totally unrealistic to think that the mother and child would not discuss together what was happening or that the mother would not ask her child how she felt. There is no suggestion that the mother led N in this conversation or tried to turn her against the great aunt and uncle. In the light of N’s level of emotion, I do not see how a conversation of this nature could have been avoided. There is nothing to suggest to me that this was conducted by the mother in a way that lacked child-focus. I reject the criticism of her.

Contact was due to take place on 8^th to 9^th November 2025, but the mother cancelled it because she had to work (in Riga). The mother proposed that the contact should move to the following weekend, but the great aunt and uncle said that ‘N already had plans that weekend to attend a birthday party for two friends from school.’ As a result, there was a gap in the contact.

On 18^th November 2025, N approached the wellbeing officer at school for help in writing a letter to her mother, setting out her feelings. The great aunt and uncle say that N did this independently [662]. I accept that she did; however, I do not accept that the wishes and feelings that she expressed were not influenced by the great aunt and uncle. N has been aware of their feelings towards N since at least October 2022 (when she was present on 22^nd October of that year).

On 22^nd November 2025, N was collected at 10 a.m. There was more tension about the smart watch [617]. N gave the mother the letter that she had written, which the mother did not read immediately. They went to Hamleys toy shop and bought a birthday present for N and also a present for N’s cousin [618]. They then went to the grandmother’s home. The mother read the letter that N had sent [598 and 618]. There is a photograph of the letter and its contents at [656] – it begins: ‘Mum, I love you but I want some things to change. I want so you understand my feelings. My feelings are very sad. Because you are trying to take me to a different country.’ It ends with: ‘If you will take me, I will be: ‘like, why did you do that?’ because if you will take me none of my life will get better. You should know what is right and what is wrong to do. The things you do to me are wrong. The thing I want to tell you is my biggest wish that I want. My biggest wish is to stay in the United Kingdom.’

There was an emotional discussion during the contact about the letter; during it, N became upset and said that she did not want to go to Latvia. N called the great aunt and uncle her ‘parents’ and, the mother says, said that she did not see any future with the mother, even communicating with her, if she stayed with the great aunt and uncle. There was then a discussion between N and the mother which the mother says was ‘very emotional and tough’ for them both. After that, they watched a Harry Potter film together [618].

It was contended that the letter that was read on this day followed on from the discussion that had taken place on 25^th October 2025. Thus, it was suggested to the mother that, having engaged in an inappropriate discussion with N on 25^th October and not listed to what N was saying, N then chose to write her mother a letter so that her mother could read her opinions. I do not accept that analysis. I do not accept that the letter was a reaction to the discussion on 25^th October.

The mother was cross examined about the letter that N had sent and said: ‘I do not accept that she wrote this because I did not listen to her feelings. She tells me that the great aunt and uncle read the letter first before it is given to me. I think that she writes under the influence of the great aunt and uncle. I see that N is in control. I do not agree that N relies on the great aunt and uncle for her emotional stability. I think that she is so influenced by them that she is not feeling safe to express her feelings. The only place where she feels safe to express her feelings is at school. I have been focussed on my child’s wishes and feelings, and I have wanted to let her know of that focus.’

I find that the letter was a reaction to the environment in which she was living and her knowledge that her primary carers, whom she loves, are opposed to the mother’s applications. I also find that the letter has to be set in the context of N knowing that the date of this hearing was approaching. I find that the letters that N has sent are a very clear demonstration of the polarisation that the great aunt and uncle have caused since August 2021. They show clearly the extent to which N has been drawn into that polarisation by the great aunt and uncle. the great aunt and uncle have influenced N into their opinions. The mother has made no attempt to counter that by seeking to influence N against them.

N stayed that night with the mother for the first time. They woke at 7 a.m. next day and the mother describes the day that followed at [619]. It is an account of a happy day spent together.

On 25^th November 2025, the great aunt and uncle sent an email [657] to the mother saying that N had told them that, after the mother had read the letter: a) The mother raised her voice at N several times, b) The mother had said that ‘your granddad and grandma are nobody to you’, c) the grandmother had said: ‘I am stronger than everyone. I work in a kitchen. I feed soldiers ‘d) N then felt very unwell and scared and that she shouted a lot at the mother and grandmother. They said that N had told the mother that she wanted to call them twice, but she was not allowed to do so. The fact that the great aunt advances that as a credible account from N about what had occurred is informative. I have no doubt that the mother and her mother did not behave as was being suggested. I consider that the email that was sent by the great aunt and uncle was immature.

In her oral evidence the maternal great aunt remained committed to the erroneous opinions about how the mother and grandmother behaved during that contact. She said: ‘When N cones back from her mother she is very stressed, says that she is regularly shouted at and that the grandmother (who works as a chef in the army) would call soldiers. I do believe N. That is why I believe that N should have one to one time with the mother, away from my sister.’

On 26^th November 2025, the mother met with the headteacher at N’s Primary School [598]. She says that the headteacher told her that the great aunt and uncle are ideal guardians and that there were concerns about changes in N’s behaviour in the last few months. The mother says that she was asked whether N’s voice had been heard in the proceedings. I consider that, from the point of view of the school, they witness a child who is intelligent, sociable and as described in the letter of 10^th January 2025 [374]. They also witness the great aunt and uncle who are deeply committed to N, ensure that she presents well at school and engage well with the school. What the school does not witness, because of the very limited role that the mother has been able to play in N’s life, is the emotional damage that the great aunt and uncle cause to N by influencing her in her adverse opinions of her mother (and, now, her maternal grandmother) and obstructing her relationship with them. Unlike the school, I have been required to consider a much broader canvas than that which is known to N’s teachers or the school well-being officer.

On 27th November 2025, there had been a plan that the mother would collect N  from school with a cake, and they would then have dinner together. However, following the meeting with the school the day before, the mother sent an email to the great aunt and uncle saying that she would not meet N that day as she did not want to force her to do so after ‘such an emotional weekend’ [599]. N then sent the mother a voice message from the great aunt’s phone saying ‘please don’t come tomorrow. And, if you have a gift, just send it to me on video.’

On 28^th November 2025 the great aunt and uncle wrote their final statement. They ended it by saying [662]:

On 4^th December 2025, the great aunt and uncle issued an application seeking permission to file an updating letter from N’s Primary School regarding N’s recent presentation. The application asserted that ‘the letter is the only up to date independent evidence available to the Court following the increase of contact at the last hearing’.

The letter from the school was handed to me at the start of the hearing. It reads: ‘N attends our school, …Recently, we have seen a change in N’s behaviour at school. Where she is normally a bubbly, confident and settled pupil, she has become emotional, more introverted and just not herself. N is finding her circumstances stressful and challenging to deal with. N continues to have sessions with our Wellbeing Mentor to ensure that she has a safe space to express her feelings. Despite being concerned for N’s wellbeing, we have no safeguarding concerns as such.’

In her oral evidence, the great aunt said ‘there were no issues with N’s behaviour at the school before September when direct contact started. It has increased her fear of relocation and, therefore her concerns.’ I do not accept that. I do find it informative that the maternal great aunt links N’s current heightened emotion to the start of direct contact. If that is how she does view it, it does not suggest that she would be able to support a build-up of the mother’s relationship with a view to N returning to her care by the end of primary school (as has been argued on her behalf).

I am not remotely surprised that the circumstances in which N has been living have started to take such a heavy toll on her. It has taken this long for these proceedings to come to a final hearing. She is living in an environment where there is no support for her relationship with her mother (and now maternal grandmother) and she has been led to a distorted narrative of the past. She is having limited contact with her mother without any support or encouragement from her primary carers. She knows that decisions of fundamental importance are waiting to be made about her and that she faces potential change and disruption.

On Saturday, 6^th December 2025 (the weekend before this hearing started), N spent the day with the mother. However, once again, she did not spend the night or the following day with her. Ahead of the visit, N had written another letter for her mother. It included: ‘You need to know something that they did not steal me. You need to just stop. Because I am getting fed up with your things and I want to tell you that I want to be free to stay here. I can tell you something that we can do. We can make sure that we can be friends. I can go to Latvia for a holiday. We can go to different countries. We can meet up together and go somewhere. It does not mean that I have to live with you. And it does not mean if I see you all the time I have to leave this place. You need to just leave me. Then it will be the end of the problem. I will feel very happy if you will leave me here. But I will repeat that if you will take me then nothing will change. The only thing will change is that my happiness will turn to sadness…I really want to live with my grandmum and my grandad. I do not even a single bit want to live with you. It will be fine if you will leave me alone.’

It was argued on behalf of the great aunt and uncle that, by saying that she would go to Latvia for a holiday, N showed progress in her relationship with her mother with their support. In the light of everything that I have already set out, I do not accept that submission. The letter has to be read as a whole and does not give any reason to conclude that there has been any sea change in how the mother’s contact is viewed within the household of the great aunt and uncle. Their evidence made it very clear that there has not.

In her oral evidence, the mother said: ‘This weekend was my birthday. I collected N at 10 o’clock and we chatted a lot. I asked her a lot of questions about school activities. She was happy to explain about school and how she is one of the best kids in the class. We went to an amusement park and we played there. Then we went to get a present for me. We went for lunch at my mother’s home. She was really open-minded this time, was asking a lot of questions about my apartment, and we looked at photographs together. I emailed the great uncle and said that I would bring her back that evening. She had told me that, on Sunday, she was going to have a party with her ‘bestie’. She was really anxious about the court proceedings, and I thought her best interests were to be to spend time with friends and relax. So, I brought her back at 6 p.m. I read her letter while she played some games on my phone. I said: ‘thank you, I have read it.’

That is the end of the chronological account of the evidence that I have read and heard. I will now set out the main parts of the oral evidence of the Cafcass officer.

The Cafcass officer gave evidence for two hours and was cross examined by both counsel at length. He adhered to his recommendation that N should live with her mother and should relocate to Latvia. He considered thatthere should be indirect contact between N and the ‘Respondents’ for three months and that there should then be consideration of direct contact with them.

He considered that, in expressing her wishes and feelings, N used adult language [e.g. see 696 at paragraph 22]. When speaking to him, N had said that she likes it when her mother visits [ibid para 23]. He said that N is very aware of the distress that the great aunt and uncle were feeling. She spoke about being ‘stolen’ and, the Cafcass officer said, ‘this was a little girl who had heard too much’. His impression was that the great aunt and uncle were saying that, if N did not want to go with her mother, they would not force her. He considered that there were a lot of barriers put in the way of contact. He thought that N is very scared that her mother is going to take her and run away with her. She feels that she is controlling this dispute; that, said the Cafcass officer, will have given a burden that is simply unfair.

As to the letters that she has been sending, the Cafcass officer said: ‘we see echoes of the influence of the great aunt and uncle, as we do in her conversations with her mother.’ He thought that N is carrying a lot of burden and thinks that she is left having to decide. Once she has put down the baggage of that burden, he thinks that there is a good relationship with her mother. However, he said: ‘I think that she is carrying the uncertainty everywhere. Once she was able to offload, she was then able to engage in the contact.’ Overall, he thought that the mother handled the contact extremely well.

If the court does order that N should live with the mother, he said: ‘I would not be worried about how she would manage caring for N but I do think that N would need support. There is nothing that I have seen that causes me any concerns about the care that the mother would offer. This is a mother who is highly intelligent and in tune with her child. Nothing that I have seen suggests that she could not care for N appropriately.’

However, he said, N will still need a relationship with the great aunt and uncle. They have been her emotional parents throughout her life. He said that he hopes that, once proceedings have been concluded, the adults will be able to put their past behind them.

Initially [701], he said, he had looked at a staged approach to the transfer of N to the mother’s care. However, given the animosity, a date would need to be given for this to be done swiftly over a few weeks. He said that transfer to the mother would probably need to happen over Christmas holidays so that N starts a new term in Latvia. She should finish her term here. She breaks up on the Friday 18^th December but should be looking at moving to her mother by Monday. He said that such an immediate transfer will be difficult but that will be the case whenever it occurs. There is a considerable emotional risk to N whatever the outcome. If N does not go to Latvia with her mother, there is a real risk that she will not have a relationship with her mother. It has taken this amount of effort to even start contact.

Ms Coleman sought to emphasise in her cross examination the enormity of the steps that a transfer would involve in ‘ripping her out from everything that she knows’. I consider that is superlative language.

In relation to the events of October 2022, he said that those events could not be viewed in isolation. The plan, he said, had always been for N to return to her mother’s care and she should have done so years ago. This was a private family arrangement that has gone on for longer than anticipated, leading to her becoming entrenched in her life here. A move would be ‘huge’ for her and would remain emotionally harmful to her for, probably, 6-12 months, he said. However, if she remains in this country, that will also be harmful as well.

As to the practicalities of the mother caring for N in Latvia, he said that the mother is a doctor and N will need to have childcare. The practicalities will be quite difficult but the same can be said about very many working parents. Initially, the fact that she does not speak Latvian may put her at a disadvantage socially, but the mother is proposing that she is at school where she will be supported in Russian and English.

After cross examination had ended, I invited Ms Coleman to put her precise proposals to the Cafcass officer. It was then that it emerged clearly that the position of the ‘Respondents’ was ‘when, not if’ – that it is a question of when N moves to her mother, rather than if she should do so. On that issue, The Cafcass officer was very clear indeed. If it is a question of ‘when’, he thought that it could not be in her interests or sensible for the transfer to be delayed. It has taken three years (since October 2022) to get this far and the contact that has taken place has been full of conflict. If N moves now, she will start her education in Latvia with children who will only have started school at the age of seven. At the age of 8 there is an opportunity for N to adjust to the transfer. Delay would make things worse, not better. Although there has been progress in the sense that there has been court-ordered contact, the underlying conflict has remained and the letters that N has been sending have signalled the underlying conflict that she is still experiencing. He did not consider that delaying the transfer on the basis of the status quo would lead to an improvement in the relationship between N and the mother; the past three years and the polarisation of the adults militated against that.

I was very impressed by the evidence of the Cafcass officer who had given this case a great deal of thought. I thank him for it. Specifically, I adopt his analysis in relation to the ‘when not if’ points that he made at the end of his evidence and which I have recorded in the paragraph above.

Law – This case has to be decided by applying the provisions of Section 1 of the Children Act 1989. I will set out now the provisions of section 1(1), (2) and (3) of the Act. They are as follows:

When a court determines any question with respect to:

In my opinion, in this case, it is of particular importance to work through the provisions of Section 1(3) of the Act when conducting the welfare analysis. I will do that. In doing so, for the reasons that I set out from the case-law that follows, it would be wrong to approach this case on the basis that there is any presumption in favour of the mother as a natural parent or that there is any presumption in favour of continuing the ‘status quo’.

On those issues, I have been referred to Re E-R [2015] EWCA Civ 405. In that case, the Judge, at first instance, had said: ‘There is a broad natural parent presumption in existence under our law and indeed common sense would cause one to say that a young child will, all other things being equal, be best off in the primary care of a parent. Part of the conundrum in this case is working out if all other things truly are equal.’ Allowing the appeal from the Judge’s decision, King LJ said: ‘When granting permission to appeal McFarlane LJ said: "It is highly regrettablethat the relevant case law was not drawn to the attention of the judge by counsel then instructed". I respectfully agree. Had the two key authorities been put before the judge he would inevitably have approached his analysis from a different perspective aware that there is no "broad natural parent presumption" in existence in our law…I accept [counsel’s] submission that the judge wrongly conducted his analysis of T's best interests on the basis that there is a presumption in law in favour of a natural parent. On this basis alone the appeal must be allowed.’ King LJ went on to refer to the decision of the House of Lords in Re G 2006 UKHL 43; [2006] 2 FLR 629 and that of the Supreme Court in Re B (A Child) [2009] UKSC 5. The essence of the relevant jurisprudence can be taken form the passage that I cite from Re B, since it incorporates the relevant part of Re G.

In re B (A Child) (2009) UKSC 5 Lord Kerr, giving the judgment of the court, said as follows at paragraphs 36-37 of the judgment:

Re E-R (ibid) also gives helpful guidance in relation to the relevance of the status quo. At paragraph 34 of her judgment, King LJ referred to an observation of Balcombe LJ in a 1992 decision and said:

In relation to international relocation, the law has been summarised, most recently, by Cobb LJ said Re O (Domestic Abuse: International Relocation) [2025] EWCA Civ 888, where he said at paragraphs 80-84:

As to the marginally different approach to the relevance of proportionality in decisions relating to international relocation, Cobb LJ said at para 97 (ibid):

Ms Coleman reminds me that the decision in this case is mine alone and that, if I am to depart from the views of the Cafcass officer, I must state my reasons for doing so – L v F [2017] EWCA Civ 2121 at paragraph 75.

Finally, of course, in reaching conclusions of fact, I have reminded myself that the onus is on the party making the allegation (or contention) to prove it and that the stand of proof is the balance of probabilities. An alleged event only becomes established as a fact if the party making the allegation demonstrates on evidence that it is more probable than not that the alleged event occurred in the manner described by that party.

Welfare checklist analysis I find that N expresses a clear and strong wish to remain living in the United Kingdom with the great aunt and uncle. She wants to remain at the same school and in the society of her friends. She sees a move to Latvia with her mother as amounting to a considerable change in her circumstances to which she is strongly opposed.

I also find that those wishes and feelings are an inevitable consequence of the environment in which she has been living. The great aunt and uncle have not supported N’s relationship with the mother and there is no realistic prospect of them doing so. They have allowed N to believe a distorted account of how she comes to be in her current circumstances and have strongly influenced her in her opinions and in her wishes. Her expressed views about her mother are a product of their opinions.

If N remains in her current environment, it is highly likely that her wishes and feelings will become more entrenched. I see no realistic prospect of the great aunt and uncle being able to support her in the development of her relationship with her mother. Therefore, if a transfer to her mother is delayed, her wishes and feelings are likely to become more entrenched, rather than less. That would make a delayed transfer to the mother much more damaging or else, more probably, impossible to achieve.

Her wishes and feelings have been formulated, not just against the backcloth of all that I have set out above. They have also been formulated without adequate information. She does not know that she will have to move from the great aunt and uncle in any event (according to them). She also does not know that she will still have contact with the great aunt and uncle if she moves to her mother. Through the influence of the great aunt and uncle, she still believes that the mother is trying to steal her from them and cut her off from everything that she knows in the United Kingdom. I find that is not what the mother intends. I accept that, if the great aunt and uncle behave in a child-focussed and supportive way, the mother will support their contact with N in the future.

As to her feelings, I accept the Cafcass officer’s evidence and find (based on the evidence that I have received) that, when N spends time with her mother free from the environment created by the great aunt and uncle, she enjoys her time with her. I also find that her mother has demonstrated, repeatedly, that she is alert to N’s feelings and sensitive in dealing with them.

As to her needs, I accept that the great aunt and uncle have met her physical, social and educational needs very well. However, I find that they cannot and do not meet her emotional needs. They have caused her to be caught up in a divide between themselves on the one hand and the mother and grandmother on the other hand. They profess not to understand the damage that their stance since August 2021 has caused to N and, wrongfully, blame the mother for it. That damage can be seen in everything that I have heard about N’s reaction, when with them, in relation to contact with the mother – they have not a good thing to say about the contact or about the mother. It has been entirely wrong and damaging (and the result of the actions of the great aunt and uncle) for N to have experienced 2 ½ years when she did not see her mother and two years in which she did not have any communication with her.

I find that the mother is able to meet N’s needs and is well aware of the challenging times that will lie ahead when N is first with her. I accept the Cafcass officer’s opinion that the first 6 to 12 months will be particularly challenging and there will be long term consequences for N in moving. However, I also find that the mother is as well equipped to deal with those challenges as anyone might be. She has shown a clear commitment to N throughout her life and has not been deterred, despite the incredible demands and hurdles that have arisen for her from the stance taken by the great aunt and uncle. I accept that N will find education in Latvia to be challenging to begin with and she will also have to learn Latvian to develop socially. However, the mother has made sensible and workable educational arrangements and can support N in learning the language.

I find that the proposal now advanced by the great aunt and uncle of a transfer to the mother’s care being delayed for up to 2 ½ years, if it were to be genuinely entered into by them, would be contrary to her needs. It would mean that N would know that there has been a commitment to her moving at that later stage. She would be exposed to the negative views of the great aunt and uncle about her mother for that period and would be caught in the same conflict for that further time. Educationally, if would mean that the transfer came at a time when she had formed even stronger links to her friends and to the English educational system. The reality is that the transfer to the mother would be no more supported by the great aunt and uncle then, than the development of the mother’s relationship with N has been over the past three years.

I regard it as totally unrealistic for the great aunt and uncle to suggest that, having filed and given the evidence that they have, expressed themselves to the Cafcass officer and others as they did and having behaved as they have since August 2021, they will now change their approach to the mother and support her in N’s need for a full relationship with her. Far from their proposal meeting her needs for an eventual transfer to the mother’s care, it would be highly likely to lead to N, as an 11 year old, being even more absorbed into their opinions and refusing to have a relationship with her mother.

N has a need to have an effective and conflict free relationship with her mother, her maternal grandmother, the great aunt and great uncle. Her relationships with her mother and grandmother have been significantly curtailed and contaminated by the great aunt and uncle. It is likely that the curtailment and contamination would continue, if she remains in their care. That will have long-term consequences for N. It would also educate her into the mistaken and split belief that people that are connected to her are either wholly good or wholly bad - that type of behaviour causes long term difficulties in relationships for children who are exposed to it. I accept that the mother is much more likely to support N in having a long-term relationship with the great aunt and uncle.

Further, I accept the submission of Ms Musgrave that, given that the great aunt and uncle say that they do not seek the long-term responsibility of her care, there are benefits to N in living with her mother, as her long term carer and, in later life, parental figure.

The change of circumstance that the mother’s case involves is considerable for all the reasons that I have stated. If, in 2021 or 2022, the great aunt and uncle had been amenable to building up the mother’s relationship with N (rather than blanking out her contact with her for 2 ½ years) the change of circumstances that are now involved would not be anything like so great. However, things being as they now are, the options involved are either to make that change at this stage or to leave N in the emotionally damaging environment that has been created for her with the prospect of things getting worse, not better, by even further delay. I find that the suggestion that the consequences of a change in circumstances will somehow be mitigated or mollified by the passage of time is unrealistic and wrong. Playing for time is not a child focussed option from the perspective of any of these family members. Insofar as the great aunt and uncle do mean that it is a question of ‘when not if’, then leaving the transfer for two years will leave N facing an even bigger change of circumstances in all probability – or she will face a life where she has no effective relationship with her mother and maternal grandmother (which would also amount to a very significant and long-term change in her circumstances).

As to N’s age, sex, background and characteristics, these have already been set out in the evidence. I think that her age is of particular importance. At the age of eight, she can make the move into the Latvian education system that would be far more difficult for her at the age of 11. If she is to move, the time is now, not later. I agree with the Cafcass officer to that effect. I also think that her characteristics and background are important. She is child who shows the effects of the upbringing that she has had, and which has been blighted by this intense and wholly unnecessary family conflict that arose because the great aunt and uncle became so opposed to the mother’s involvement in N’s life in 2021 and 2022. I have found that, as soon as the mother tried to discuss her wish for N to return to her care, they closed down her relationship for at least two years and have caused N to be aware of their continued adverse views about her. It would be contrary to her welfare for her to be exposed to a continuation of that background.

As to harm and the risk of harm, the harm that she has suffered is emotional harm. An eight year old child should not find herself in a position where she is writing letters to her mother of the kind that N has been writing or being exposed to the trauma caused by the unnecessary conflict that surrounds her. That trauma has caused her to take sides within that conflict in a way that is harmful and will continue to cause her harm for a long as it persists. I do not see any realistic prospect of the great aunt and uncle being able to mitigate that harm if she remains with them.

The risk of harm is also one of emotional harm and involves a balance. On the one hand, she will experience harm (as the Cafcass officer stated) by being removed from the current environment in which she wants to remain and being placed in Latvia with her mother against her expressed wishes. On the other hand, there is the emotional harm that I have described that will arise if she remains living with the great aunt and uncle whilst being further distanced from her mother and maternal grandmother in the knowledge that she will either move to her mother’s when (and if) the great aunt and uncle decide that she should within the next 2 ½ years or will lose the relationship with her mother and grandmother.

The fact that the parties could not commit themselves to any middle ground solution, despite having time to discuss it, having heard the Cafcass officer and seen how the evidence was developing, not only removed such a solution from the available options before me (due to its dependence on mutual engagement) but it also meant (as counsel submitted) that the options before the court are limited. A middle ground solution (of transfer being delayed over a period of a few months) could only work if all three adults committed themselves to it and committed themselves to supporting it fully in their discussions with N; that commitment was not proffered. On that basis, the balance of harm militates strongly in favour of the proposals by the mother. Further delay would be more harmful than a transfer now.

As to the capability of the mother, the great aunt and the great uncle to meet N’s needs, I find that the mother is able to meet her needs. I do not consider that the great aunt and uncle are able to meet her emotional needs for the reasons that I have given.

Conclusion - Thus, there are two options before me that I have described. I have weighed them up, side by side, within the welfare analysis that I have conducted. Having done so, I conclude that it is in the paramount interests that I should order:

The arrangements that I have imposed for the next two weeks attempt to take account of the activities that N has and the fact that she is involved in a school performance and has a ticket to the ballet later in December 2025. I hope that it may be possible for all three parties to attend the school event to support N. I will hear any submissions that are advanced to improve on that interim arrangement if there are specific activities of which I am unaware. N will be able to spend Christmas in this country before she leaves and will be able to stay with the mother at the home of the grandmother pending the move.

A copy of this judgment should be sent to the Cafcass officer, with my thanks for the high quality of his work. I would also ask the parties to consider whether a copy of this judgment should be shown to the head-teacher at the primary School. The Cafcass officer has stated that he would explain the outcome of these proceedings to N. I am grateful for that. In the light of the controversy and extent of this judgment, I am hesitant about writing to N myself. However, if the parties would wish me to do so, I would ask the solicitors to liaise with the Cafcass officer and construct an initial draft of a short letter that they would suggest that I might send. I would then amend it as I see fit.