O (Domestic Abuse: International Relocation), Re

These proceedings concern two children, ‘C’ who was born on [day and month] 2015 so is aged 9, and ‘F’ who was born on [day and month] 2020 so is aged 4.

The applicant is their mother (‘the mother’) and the respondent is their father (‘the father’). The mother is a consultant [medical specialism] and the father is a dentist.

The substantive application is the mother’s application for permission to remove both boys to live with her in the United Arab Emirates (the ‘UAE’). That application is opposed by the father.

I heard evidence over 3 days on 25 to 27 November 2024 and submissions on 6 December 2024. I sent out a draft of this judgment on 3 January 2025.

The decision I have reached is to grant permission to the mother to relocate with both children to the UAE. In this judgment I will set out my reasons for reaching that decision. This judgment is published following an unsuccessful appeal by the father to the Court of Appeal, which is reported at [2025] EWCA Civ 888.

On 14 July 2022 I handed down a written judgment at a fact-finding hearing having heard evidence and submissions relating to allegations of domestic abuse made by the mother against the father.

The background to the parties’ relationship is set out within that judgment. They were in a relationship between 2012 and 2021. The mother is of A Country / B Country heritage and the father is of C Country / D Country heritage. The parties lived together in England and both children were born in England. They did not marry.

I made significant findings against the father of perpetration of domestic abuse against the mother including physical abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour. These included incidents when

I also found that the father had physically chastised C on more than one occasion by smacking him on the bottom when telling him to stop crying. I said, “It is not suggested that the physical chastisement crossed the boundary into an assault and all parents have moments of frustration or even temper. However, physical chastisement can be emotionally harmful to children even if it does not cause them physical harm. Smacking children in temper or frustration undoubtedly represents poor parenting.”

I said this towards the conclusion of my judgment:

“There can be no doubt that this level and frequency of violence, and the screaming and shouting that accompanied it, would have a significant harmful impact on any children who witnessed it or who were present in the property when it took place. This is for many of the reasons identified by the Court of Appeal in Re H-N above, namely:

i)

It was witnessed by the children, who were placed at direct risk of physical and emotional harm;

ii)

On the mother’s account, which I accept, she has been unable to comfort C or F during these incidents and, indeed, C on occasion comforted his brother;

iii)

It created an atmosphere of fear and anxiety in the home which was inimical to the welfare of the children;

iv)

It risked inculcating, in C and F, a belief that arguments can be resolved through physical violence, that it was acceptable consequence of those arguments that a woman can be hurt, and that a man can impose his will on a woman by the use of physical force.”

I noted that I had no sense from the mother that she was positively seeking to stop the children having a relationship with their father. She told me “Of course I want my children to have a relationship with their father. They adore him, he is their god, they love him and they need to have a good relationship with him”.

I said this about the mother, “My general impression of the mother was that she was a credible witness doing her best to recollect many painful memories stretching over a significant period of time. Her sense of embarrassment and shame was palpable. She did not attempt to portray the father in an entirely negative light. She was positive, as I have said, about the children’s view of him and was able to recollect how and why she had fallen in love with him. The difficulty was his temper, his dishonesty, his enmeshed relationship with his family and his inability to resolve issues of conflict without returning to them time and time again.”

I found the father’s explanation for the significant change of account between his interview with the police and his statements within these proceedings to be “wholly implausible”. I found him to be “an unsatisfactory and evasive witness trying to tailor his evidence rather than simply giving a full and truthful account of what had happened.”

I made the following observations about the paternal grandmother, the father having called her as a witness on his behalf. I said she was an unreliable witness not greatly able to assist me in determining what had happened between the parents. I said that, understandably, her sympathies were with her son. I found her evidence about her concerns that C had, or would develop, phimosis of his penis “odd”. I said this,

“She is a teacher and does not have any medical qualifications. Her concerns appeared to relate to what might happen when C is 12 or 13, but he is now 5 and he would have been younger when she raised them. The mother is a consultant doctor and more than capable of attending to the health needs of her children. There are many potential health conditions than can affect children and it is difficult to understand why this one merited such particular attention. I was not convinced by the grandmother’s explanation that this condition had affected a number of boys in the class that she taught.

There is no suggestion by the mother or by anyone that the grandmother’s concern about phimosis indicates any sexual interest in C or in young children generally. The grandmother’s rather indignant suggestion that the mother’s criticism in some way tarnishes her professional reputation serves to deflect from rather than assist with identification of the real problem here. The grandmother and the mother agree that the issue was raised by the grandmother and that the mother’s reaction was dismissive. In a sense, perhaps, that is not surprising given their respective professional qualifications. In my judgment the grandmother continued to press the issue with the parents because she was not prepared to leave it there. She wanted to make the point that her concerns needed to be taken seriously and that the parents should listen to her and act upon them. It became something of a point of principle. When the mother continued to appear uninterested, and somewhat bemused, the grandmother continued to press the point with the father. In this context it is not surprising, as the mother says, that the issue was raised within a video call involving C. I accept the mother’s evidence about this, that it was raised and that C showed his penis to his grandmother during this call. I emphasise there is no suggestion of any sexual impropriety, this was about the grandmother needing to assert her concerns and that they must he heard.”

I then made the following comments:

The case returned before me for a welfare hearing in February 2023. At that time the father was spending time with both children for 8 hours alternate Sundays. Handovers were monitored by the children’s former childminder, Ms J. The father then spent 4 hours in the community with the children unsupervised and 4 hours at home supervised by Ms J. The father also spent time with the children alternate Wednesday afternoons, fully supervised by Ms J. There was additional video contact. The father had been charged by the police with assaulting the mother and coercive and controlling behaviour. He had entered not guilty pleas. A criminal trial was then anticipated to take place at the end of 2023 or beginning of 2024.

I noted that the father had attended a course run by ‘Caring Dads’ and also the Triple P parenting course and the Separated Parents Information Programme [SPIP]. A s.7 report was filed by Cafcass but the Adviser said that she had been hampered in discussing the court’s findings with the father because he had not been prepared to discuss these with her due to advice from his solicitors and the ongoing criminal proceedings. She was not able to support any progression of contact until the father had demonstrated a reflection of his behaviour and had undertaken therapy to change this.

The father sought an adjournment of the welfare hearing before me in February 2023 to await the conclusion of the criminal court process. He did not seek any significant variation to the ‘spends time with’ arrangements in the interim. The issue before me was whether those arrangements should be reflected in a final child arrangements order or an interim order.

The father’s position at that hearing was that although he wanted to secure a shared care arrangement with his children, he was precluded from doing so because of the pending criminal trial. He said that his “privilege against self-incrimination prevents him providing any evidence whatsoever – whether in his own statement or via questions put to him – in response to the findings made by the court. The result is that he is not able to challenge either CAFCASS report on M’s position which accords with it”.

I rejected the father’s argument as set out in my judgment dated 7 February 2023 ([2023] EWFC 14; [2023] 2 FCR 321) and made final orders. I noted and accepted the father’s privilege against self-incrimination but did not accept that he was driven, for that reason, to seek to delay the proceedings. I said this:

“23.

However, as is clear from the passages I have quoted above from the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice in Re P, such a submission is based upon a misunderstanding of the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination. The father is engaged voluntarily in these proceedings and ‘has assumed an evidential burden’. He has played a full part in the proceedings to date and if he wishes to persuade me to make a contact order different from that advanced on behalf of the mother he has every right to do so. If he wishes to qualify or change any part of his evidence within the fact-finding hearing there is nothing unfair in letting him do so. If in the course of such evidence he decides to waive his privilege against self-incrimination, or any part of it, then Re EC will provide him with the appropriate protection to ensure that these private law proceedings remain fair. In other words, at this final hearing there is available to him a fair process to resolve the outstanding issues relating to the welfare of his children, notwithstanding his privilege against self-incrimination.

24.

What the father’s argument loses sight of is that the lives of C and F cannot be put on hold pending the outcome of these criminal proceedings against their father. Arrangements for them need to be agreed between their parents or else determined by the court. As Section 1(2) of the Children Act 1989 makes clear, there is a general principle that delay in determining those arrangements are likely to prejudice their welfare. There need to be good welfare reasons to justify delay. Whilst unfairness to one parent in the court process could provide such a reason, there is no such unfairness to the father within these private law proceedings.

25.

In my view, therefore, the father’s case as set out in his solicitor’s correspondence and in Ms Pomeroy’s submissions is overstated. His privilege against self-incrimination does not prevent him from advancing his case in the normal way, including giving evidence himself and / or by challenging the evidence of others. He cannot, however, be compelled to give evidence which marks the distinction between private and public law children proceedings and also marks the importance of the provisions of s.98 Children Act 1989.”

On 23 May 2023, less than 4 months later, the mother issued this application for permission to remove the children to live with her in the UAE. Directions were given leading to a final hearing then anticipated to take place in the early part of 2024. On 16 October 2023 the mother applied for further directions in light of an alleged breach by the father of the child arrangements order I had made in February. She said that the father had spent unsupervised time with the children at his home on 1 October 2023. She also alleged that the father had failed to abide by the parties’ agreement in relation to the children’s surnames. The case came before HHJ Scarratt on 17 January 2024. He gave directions leading to a final hearing to be listed in August 2024 but refused the mother’s application to enforce the existing child arrangements order.

The mother appealed HHJ Scarratt’s order. In the meantime, the father applied on 18 March 2024 to vacate the final hearing on the basis that his criminal trial had been relisted to take place in September 2024, he also sought to vary the interim ‘spends time with’ arrangements. That application was listed before me on 22 May 2024.

On 27 March 2024 McFarlane P. granted permission to appeal HHJ Scarratt’s order. On 9 May 2024 Cusworth J allowed the appeal by consent. The parties agreed that the mother’s allegation concerning the events of 1 October 2023 would form part of the issues to be determined at the final hearing. The parties also agreed to vacate the final hearing and relist “on the first available date 13 weeks after the conclusion of the respondent’s criminal trial”.

At the hearing on 22 May 2024 I took stock of the current position, not having had any involvement in the case since February 2023 (apart from a short hearing about disclosure of papers on 26 September 2023). I was aware that a s.16A risk assessment had been filed by Ms Ritson on behalf of Cafcass but had not read this and was aware neither of the parties had seen it. I noted that contact had been suspended as a result of the risk assessment but that the mother was agreeable to fortnightly supervised time with the father for 2 hours. I adjourned the matter to 13 June 2024 so that I could consider properly the issue of interim contact. I also expressed concern that the agreed order before Cusworth J, effectively adjourning the final hearing until the conclusion of the father’s criminal trial, was contrary to the decision I had reached on 6 February 2023 and so adjourned that issue for further argument. After liaison with Williams J, the matter was re-allocated to me sitting as a s.9 Judge of the High Court.

On 13 June 2024 I determined the issue of interim contact. I decided that the children should spend time with their father fortnightly for a period of 5 hours supervised by Ms K or another suitably qualified independent social worker, at the father’s cost. I was told at that hearing that the criminal trial was in the warned list from 5 September 2024. I determined that the final hearing should not be delayed pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings and listed the matter for a 3 day final hearing before me on 25 November 2024 which was the first date available (and therefore after the anticipated date of the trial).

Subsequently I was informed by email that the criminal trial had been relisted for 26 September 2026.

A pre-trial review took place on 15 October 2024 and I gave case management directions including the timetable for the hearing.

At the commencement of this hearing I was informed that the parties had agreed the time that the children are to spend with their father in the event that the mother’s relocation application is refused. The pattern of that contact is to be 8 hours fortnightly on a Sunday to be fully supervised and alternate weeks after school on a Wednesday also fully supervised. It was agreed that a s.91(14) order should be put in place for a period of two years to prevent any further application for a child arrangements order during that period, without the permission of the court. The only remaining issues were the identity of the supervisor and whether a full report or an incident report is to be provided for each period of contact.

The relevant legal principles were largely agreed between counsel.

This is a welfare decision so the court must apply the paramountcy principle set out in s.1 Children Act 1989. The welfare of each of C and F is my paramount consideration.

In reaching a determination I must have regard to the welfare checklist as set out in s.1(3) Children Act 1989.

The applicable principles were most recently and comprehensively set out in the judgment of Williams J in V v M and another [2020] EWHC 488 (Fam):

“43.

… The framework to be applied when considering cross applications for child arrangements orders, one or both of which involving relocation to another jurisdiction is as follows.

44.

In relocation cases there is now no priority afforded to the application to relocate, as opposed to any application for a Child Arrangements Order. There is thus no lead application and to approach relocation cases in such a way is to fall into the linear approach trap, which the authorities now clearly disapprove of. The essential task is to weigh up two or conceivably more competing options as to the country in which the child should reside and the parental care framework, in which the child will live. That requires a comparative evaluation of the options available. Such evaluation may be made by a balance sheet, but of course one has to be wary of then following a map without contours, which of course can result in a misleading picture and the arrival at an unexpected and probably wrong end point.

45.

The most recent in authoritative appellate decision on the approach to permanent overseas relocation is Re F (A Child) (International Relocation Case) [2017] 1 FLR 979. That, together with the earlier authorities, makes clear that the approach whether under section 8 or section 13 of the Children Act should be as follows.

I have helpfully been referred by counsel to a number of additional cases which highlight particular points relevant to my consideration of this matter.

In WS v KL [2020] EWHC 2448 Knowles J allowed a father’s appeal from an order giving permission to relocate to Hong Kong where the judge had failed to evaluate and balance the competing realistic options before reaching a conclusion, including the option of remaining in this jurisdiction with both parents. The judge had also failed to analyse the effect on the children of having a severely attenuated relationship with their father.

In GT v RJ [2018] EWFC 26 Mostyn J highlighted the difficulty of attributing great weight to the impact on the applicant of a refusal because, paradoxically, it appears to penalise selflessness and virtue whilst rewarding selfishness and uncontrolled emotions. He said that “common sense dictates that where one party seeks that a well functioning status quo should be changed she has to make the running in terms of the evidence and argument to show that change would be more in the children’s interests than no change”.

Re B [2015] EWCA Civ 1302 was a case similar to this, in the sense that it involved an unmarried couple where one parent proposed to relocate to Abu Dhabi in the UAE. The mother was granted permission to relocate and the father’s appeal against that decision failed. However, in that case the children had firmly expressed their wish to relocate and the mother was required, as a condition of permission being granted, to place a charge of £250,000 against a UK property which would be forfeited in the event that she breached the contact arrangements.

In Re K (Removal from Jurisdiction) [1999] 2 FLR 1084 (approved in Re R (A Child) [2014] 1 FLR 643) Thorpe LJ emphasised that in difficult cases such as these it is for the trial judge to assess not only the magnitude of the risk of breach of the contact order but also the magnitude of the consequence of breach.

It is also common ground that I must apply Practice Direction 12J to the facts of this case in light of the significant findings of domestic abuse. Whilst much of PD12J focuses on the impact of domestic abuse on child arrangements, and in particular contact, what is set out there has relevance to wider issues such as, in this case, whether the court should grant permission to the mother to relocate. For example,

“General principles

4.

Domestic abuse is harmful to children, and/or puts children at risk of harm, including where they are victims of domestic abuse for example by witnessing one of their parents being violent or abusive to the other parent, or living in a home in which domestic abuse is perpetrated (even if the child is too young to be conscious of the behaviour). Children may suffer direct physical, psychological and/or emotional harm from living with and being victims of domestic abuse, and may also suffer harm indirectly where the domestic abuse impairs the parenting capacity of either or both of their parents.

Factors to be taken into account when determining whether to make child arrangements orders in all cases where domestic abuse has occurred

35.

When deciding the issue of child arrangements the court should ensure that any order for contact will not expose the child to an unmanageable risk of harm and will be in the best interests of the child.

The leading authority on cases where domestic abuse has been alleged and / or found remains Re H-N and Others (children) (domestic abuse: finding of fact hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448. The President, LJ King and LJ Holroyde in a jointly produced judgment, said:

“[4] Despite the high volume of cases, the need to identify and, where necessary, decide upon issues of domestic abuse is a matter that is rightly afforded a high level of importance in Family Court proceedings. Where past domestic abuse is found to have taken place, the court must consider the impact that abuse has had on both the child and parent and thereafter determine what orders are to be made for the future protection and welfare of parent and child in the light of those findings. Depending upon the circumstances, such orders may substantially restrict, or even close down, the continuing relationship between the abusive parent and their child.”

“[31] The circumstances encompassed by the definition of ‘domestic abuse’ in PD 12J fully recognise that coercive and/or controlling behaviour by one party may cause serious emotional and psychological harm to the other members of the family unit, whether or not there has been any actual episode of violence or sexual abuse. In short, a pattern of coercive and/or controlling behaviour can be as abusive as or more abusive than any particular factual incident that might be written down and included in a schedule in court proceedings (see ‘Scott Schedules’ at paragraph [42]–[50]). It follows that the harm to a child in an abusive household is not limited to cases of actual violence to the child or to the parent. A pattern of abusive behaviour is as relevant to the child as to the adult victim. The child can be harmed in any one or a combination of ways for example where the abusive behaviour:

The parties jointly instructed Alexandra Tribe, an expert on UAE law and a partner with Expatriate Law (providing advice for British expatriates living there), to provide expert advice for the court.

In her main report she says that the UAE is made up of 7 Emirates, two of which are Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Each Emirate is governed individually. Until recent years the only statutory provision available to govern family law disputes was the Federal personal status law. This applied in all Emirates and to Muslim and non-Muslim families. However, between 2020 and 2023 new laws have come into force and there have been changes to existing laws to recognise the needs of the significant expatriate non-Muslim population.

If the mother and children relocate to Dubai then Federal Law 41, which came into force in 2023, would apply. The aim is to adopt a more western approach to family law matters, moving away from Sharia law principles by, for example, providing equality under the law to the parents. Joint custody between the parents is the starting point and if there are matters in dispute then the court would determine the arrangements that are in the ‘interests of the child’.

There are a number of unanswered questions, however. The laws themselves are short and the procedural rules which will provide more practical detail are yet to be produced. It remains to be seen how ‘interests’ will be determined and how this will be interpreted by a judge who will be of Muslim faith and will have been trained in Islamic law.

A greater difficulty for these parents, however, lies in the fact that they are unmarried. Until recently it was a criminal offence in the UAE to enter into a relationship outside of marriage. Although this is no longer the case, the courts have not gone as far as to allow family court applications by unmarried couples. An application under Federal Law 41 requires the marriage certificate to be lodged. This was the issue addressed in Re B above.

An alternative route that Ms Tribe considered would be to register an agreement at the new Abu Dhabi Civil Family Court [“ADCFC”]. This court was established to assist with divorce, matrimonial finance and children disputes for non-Muslims. A recent additional process that has been developed is for the parties to lodge a prenuptial or marital agreement with the court for approval. This would need to be lodged with the consent of both parties. The advice Ms Tribe has received from a legal advisor who has been instrumental in the development of the Court is that it may be possible for unmarried couples to register an agreement on the portal as if this was a premarital agreement. It would not require any jurisdictional link. This could then be enforced in the UAE as if it were a UAE will or arbitration award. It could not be amended. Whilst possible, this route is, however, completely untested.

A further alternative considered by Ms Tribe would be to seek enforcement through what is known as the Lenkor route. An English commercial case Lenkor Energy Trading DMCC v Puri [2020] EWHC 75 (QB) saw the successful enforcement of a Dubai order by the English court. On 13 September 2022 the UAE Ministry of Justice wrote a letter to the Dubai courts citing this case and inviting the Dubai courts to enforce English orders under the principle of reciprocity. In principle this route may be open to enforce an English order but no test case has yet been reported. Ms Tribe has experience of a case where return of abducted children was successfully sought from Dubai. However, that is a somewhat different factual situation. One positive arising from the parties’ unmarried status would be that a party resisting enforcement could not commence fresh proceedings and thereby seize jurisdiction.

For there to be the best chance of enforcing an English order in the UAE Ms Tribe advised that there should be a recital to any order addressing the following points:

“1.

Inviting the UAE courts to enforce the order in the event of breach under the principle of reciprocity.

Confirming that the English court had jurisdiction to make the orders.

Confirming that the parties were present at the hearing in which the order was made.

In her addendum report Ms Tribe commented that the ADCFC would be available for a fresh application to be made to it where one of the parties resides in Abu Dhabi. However, as with Dubai, it would only allow an application to be made where the parties had been married.

She had, by then, experience of a case where her client had successfully enforced a financial order in the ADCFC. However, that was a case where the parties had been married. In an email sent just before she gave her evidence, she said she had been informed of a case where a couple living in Qatar had successfully lodged a settlement agreement. However, again this was a case where the parties had been married. She re-emphasised the point that although she has received indications that it is potentially possible for unmarried couples to lodge by consent an agreement in the court no procedural rules support this and there is no example she is aware of where that has happened.

She also considered whether the parties could agree to arbitrate any children dispute. There is a ADCFC arbitration scheme established for family disputes with a roll of arbitrators in the process of being compiled. However, the scheme is not up and running. Any attempt to enforce an arbitral award made in England would be possible in principle, but (as with many of the potential routes identified) is untested.

In her short oral evidence Ms Tribe said that the parties should not rely on an ability to enforce an English order in the Dubai or Abu Dhabi courts. She has received mixed information about whether it is possible to lodge an agreement by an unmarried couple in the ADCFC. She heard the day before that an agreement had been lodged without a divorce but a colleague of hers had tried and it had been rejected. The problem is likely to lie with the application centre who may simply reject any application lodged without a marriage certificate. They could try to contact someone more senior but there is a high level of uncertainty. She confirmed that a high degree of precision would be necessary with any agreement because the court would not engage with the detail on any enforcement application. She said, “everything is speculation”.

In a subsequent email she confirmed that any enforcement application of an English order would be made to the civil court of the jurisdiction in which at least one of the parties was residing. The ADCFC route would not be one of straight enforcement but would require the prior lodging of an agreement by consent.

In summary, Ms Tribe’s evidence is that enforcement in Dubai or Abu Dhabi of any English order cannot be relied upon. There is no primary welfare jurisdiction available in respect of these children in either Emirate because the parties have not been married. The most optimistic potential route would be to lodge an agreement by the consent of both parties in the ADCFC. However, there is a real risk that any such attempt would be unsuccessful, again because the parties have not been married. Even if it is successful the question of whether or how the court would enforce such an agreement is entirely untested. There might be some benefit to the parties agreeing to arbitrate any dispute in the UAE, in the hope that the arbitration scheme will be properly up and running by the time that any dispute emerges, and that any award will be enforced. However, again this is all very uncertain.

There are two factual issues for determination. The first is whether the father spent time with the children unsupervised in his home on 1 October 2023, in breach of the child arrangements order then in place. The second is whether the father hit F in around April / May of 2024.

On 1 October 2023 the plan was for the children to see their father for 4 hours in the community unsupervised and then for 4 hours at home, supervised by Ms J. The handover of the children between the parents was also supervised by Ms J. Unfortunately, however, C had injured his hamstring so was having difficulty walking on that day. The father was unaware of C’s injury so had planned a day trip. He changed the plan and took the children to the arcade games in a bowling centre but C was struggling and so they did not stay there long. The father called Ms J and asked her to meet him at his home earlier than previously arranged. When the father arrived home with the children Ms J was not there yet and the father carried C into the property.

The father accepts that he was alone in the property with the children for about 5 to 10 minutes. He says this only occurred because the mother had not made him aware beforehand of C’s injury. The mother suggests this was likely to have been for a longer period of time, although she accepts she does not know exactly how long this was.

Ms J gave evidence that on 1 October 2023 she missed only 5 to 10 minutes of the children’s time with their father at his home. She confirmed the father’s account of the events of that day. She would normally be at his house at 3pm but at 12.34 pm the father rang her and asked her to come to his home early as C was in a lot of pain. She left her home to walk to the father’s house and must have arrived 5 to 10 minutes later than him.

The father therefore admits spending a short period of time in his home with the children and without supervision in breach of the court order. This was for about 5 to 10 minutes. There is no evidence that this was for a longer period and the father’s account is corroborated by Ms J. The incident highlights the difficulties in communication between the parents, as discussed further below. It also highlights the artificiality and rigidity of the arrangements that have largely been in place since the parties separated. With supervision required for long periods of time and over many months and years there are bound to be occasions when arrangements fall down or need to be changed last minute.

The second allegation is more serious. On 8 May 2024 Ms Ritson, a Family Court Adviser, visited C at school. C told her that when he was younger his father had been angry that he was crying and had thrown him in the bed. He said his father smacks F and throws him in the bed. F had been naughty one Sunday and was crying. “Dad wants to talk about it, but he smacks him instead to make him calm down but it makes him cry more”. Ms Ritson asked him where Ms J was and he said “normally she reads her book downstairs, she doesn’t see much. She’s hurt her ankle so can’t see much”. He said “when dad smacked him she had a bad leg she was downstairs reading. I tried to calm my dad down but he didn’t want to listen to me”. He remembered when his parents were together his father turning the TV up loud so he couldn’t hear what they were doing. When he was older, he tried to stop his parents “but my dad was pushing me around”. His brother was lucky “because he was zero but I remember”. He said his father was “trying to be better but because there’s so much anger in front of his heart that’s why he cant stop it. We cant handle him.” He thought his father had hit F three times, “one when he was naughty and not calming down. One when he accidentally hit his head on the corner of the table and once he fell over he banged his head on the concrete when we were going to a fun park. Two times at contact”. He confirmed that Ms J was not present. He said “I’m worried he will smack me like he did F”. He explained that the father had bought them a punching bag because he thinks it a good thing to punch. F likes it but their mum is worried about them punching. When he was asked about the difference between his parents he said that “dad has anger and mum has love in her heart”. His father had stopped being angry for a bit but now had carried on.

Ms Ritson made a referral to the local authority following her conversation with C, which led to a Child and Family Assessment undertaken by Diane Jagger completed on 21 August 2024. Ms Jagger saw C at school and undertook some direct work with him. She asked C to complete a ‘worrymeter’. He reported that an enormous worry was “when my dad hits my brother” and a huge scary worry was “when my dad was angry to my mother” (nb I accept the point raised by the father than this last worry has wrongly been written up from the notes as “to my brother”).

Ms Jagger expressed concern about C feeling a sense of responsibility for protecting his brother in light of his answers and also a sense of helplessness. The father told her that whatever C had said was not true. He appeared to link the safeguarding issues that had arisen to his objection to the mother’s relocation application. Ms Jagger considered the allegations made by C to be truthful, but the impact on C of telling the truth has been hard with concerns that he is getting his father into trouble. C presents as torn, loving both his parents and holding onto a fantasy (as many children of separated parents do) that they will all live together once more.

The father denies smacking F and says that, of everything that has happened in the current set of proceedings, this is the most upsetting for him. He does not know what would have made C say this and is worried about his current state of mind, particularly when he suggested there was a gunman outside of his (the father’s) home. He agrees that C is carrying a burden and feels responsible for his brother, “C has been deeply affected by mine and [the mother’s] separation”. He believes C may be “struggling with memories becoming tainted in mind”. There are grains of truth in what C is saying, but it has become twisted. He does play a wrestling game on the bed with the boys and that might be where C has got the suggestion of him throwing the children on the bed from. He is worried some of C’s anxieties are being reinforced by the mother, with her influencing how C perceives his father’s behaviour. He may have overheard conversations about him by the mother or grandmother. He agrees with the mother some therapeutic help would assist C.

In her oral evidence, Ms J confirmed that she had had some issues with arthritis and that this had caused her difficulty in walking for a couple of weeks in the lead up to May 2024. During this time, if the children were in their bedrooms with their father, she would stay at the bottom of the stairs and listen to what was happening upstairs rather than seeing it for herself.

I found C’s account of witnessing his father hit F compelling as given by him both to Ms Ritson and to Ms Jagger. He has described the father as unable, on occasion, to manage F’s behaviour and resorting to smacking him. He has described attempting to intervene, as he did with his parents. He does not describe the father hitting him, although he is fearful of this. The father is, as I have found previously, prone to losing his temper with the children and smacking them. C is old enough now to moderate his behaviour so as to avoid this, F is not. C’s account gains credibility from his ability to describe the circumstances in which the smacking took place and also from the fact he correctly describes Ms J as unable properly to supervise the contact because of her arthritis. I find that the father smacked F during contact as described by C on more than one occasion.

As with my previous finding in relation to the father hitting C, this was not an assault, but it represents a further example of poor parenting. It also illustrates the father’s inability to learn from or even acknowledge his mistakes. It is concerning that despite supervision opportunities arose for the father to smack F. These incidents provide further examples of the artificiality of the current situation. It may just be impossible to supervise fully this level of contact, at least without professional supervisors trained in managing both domestic abuse and highly intelligent, charming and persuasive parents.

Beyond the incidents themselves there are two further concerning aspects to these events. The first is that C was again placed in the situation of watching the father hitting someone, this time his brother, and feeling powerless to prevent this. I take no comfort from the typographical error in Ms Jaggar’s report. C is still very much affected by the domestic abuse he witnessed. He now has to deal, in addition, with having witnessed his father hitting his brother. He undoubtedly is suffering and continues to suffer emotional harm as a result of his father’s behaviour.

Second, the father blamed C in the video contact that followed for having informed on him (as set out below). C was made to feel responsible for his father’s sadness and guilty for having informed professionals of what he had done. The father presented himself to C as the victim. The father’s behaviour towards C very much mirrors, in my view, the way he behaved towards the mother during the course of their relationship and continues to behave towards her. He takes no responsibility for his own actions and lays blame on others for the consequences of them.

The father has an absolute right to silence within these proceedings based upon his Article 6 privilege against self-incrimination. The father has exercised that right since my fact-finding judgment on 14 July 2022. He has declined to comment upon any of the findings that I made pending the outcome of the criminal charges against him. It is now anticipated that the criminal trial will not take place until at least September 2026, so his proposed silence will last for over 4 years and possibly longer depending on whether the trial actually takes place in 2026 and pending any potential appeal.

At one point during the course of the hearing I questioned whether the father could maintain a right to silence in circumstances where substantive welfare issues are before the court for determination. Following a short period of reflection during the hearing, I determined that he could and that his privilege against self-incrimination, should he choose to exercise it, means he could not be compelled to answer questions that related to my findings.

That determination follows the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re P (Children) (Disclosure) [2022] EWCA Civ 495 which I cited extensively in my earlier decision in this case reported as above.

The judgment in Re P was jointly delivered by Lord Burnett (then the Lord Chief Justice) alongside Peter Jackson LJ and Baker LJ. They confirmed that s.98 Children Act 1989 is restricted in its application to proceedings under Part IV and Part V of that Act. Private law children applications fall within Part II of the Act. However, they did not agree with the father’s submission in that case that this left the father with a binary choice of being involved in the proceedings or staying silent. His privilege against self-incrimination entitled him to refuse to answer questions when giving evidence in court (or when speaking to a Cafcass officer) that tend to incriminate him. However, the privilege does not entitle him not to engage at all. He could not therefore refuse to answer all questions.

In this case the father has participated fully and answered questions relating to a wide range of matters, save in respect of the findings that I made.

During the hearing I was invited both by Ms Pomeroy and Mr McAlinden to draw inferences from the father’s stance. Ms Pomeroy suggested that I could infer that he wanted to make admissions but was precluded from doing so by the risk of self-incrimination. Mr McAlinden suggested that I could infer that his position was likely to remain one of complete denial, otherwise he would be making admissions both in these proceedings and in relation to the criminal charges. As I made clear at the time, I decline to draw any such inferences. It may be that the father has decided what position to adopt once the criminal process has concluded, it may be that he has not. Until he reveals his position it is unhelpful to speculate upon what it may be.

However, what is clear is that almost two and a half years after serious findings were made against the father, he has not addressed any of the issues set out in that judgment either directly to the mother (e.g. by way of apology), to any Cafcass officer or local authority social worker, or to this Court. As I have set out above, and below, his domestically abusive behaviour towards the mother and his behaviour towards the children has continued. He evidences no real appreciation or understanding of why his time with his children is supervised and presses constantly to extend his time with them and to reduce the restrictions. The exercise of his privilege against self-incrimination, as the father is fully entitled to, does not mean that the judgment and findings are sidelined to await the time when the father decides he is able to address the issues. Nor do the lives of the children and their mother need to remain in limbo pending that time. Four years, from July 2022 to September 2026 (at the earliest), is a very long time both objectively and subjectively in the lives of these children.

The mother’s first statement in support of her application was filed on 19 May 2023. She described her financial situation as “precarious” and that she is unable to guarantee consistency and stability for the children. She had been offered a job in Dubai, which is 1.5 hours’ drive away from her brother and his family in Abu Dhabi. She is currently only able to manage financially as a consultant in the NHS by working overtime but this is not sustainable. She has no savings, no equity in any property and lives in rented accommodation. She relies on her mother coming from A Country to assist with childcare. The father has refused to provide capital for accommodation for the children or to fund private school fees. She spent any savings she had on legal fees and cannot afford fees to fund litigation for financial provision.

The job she had been offered in Dubai was as a Consultant in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. This was to start in September 2023. She said her intention was to work there for 5 years and then return to the UK. There are international schools in Dubai that teach the British curriculum. The flight time to Dubai is 7 hours with regular daily flights. She proposed extended periods of contact for the children with their father during the school holidays for 7 to 10 full days and during half terms for 3 to 6 days.

The mother’s second statement was made on 7 September 2023. She said there that the father’s family had made criminal allegations of libel and misrepresentation against her supported by the father. She received notice of these in July 2023. The proceedings have been brought by the father’s parents and brother. The father made a statement in support in November 2022. She is having to pay for advice and representation in those proceedings in D Country. The charges relate to a statement she made in support of her sister-in-law (the father’s brother’s wife) in family proceedings in D Country. On 28 January 2022 she provided a statement to provide an account of her own experience of the father’s family. She was never called as a witness and her statement was not challenged in evidence. As far as she is aware her statement had little if any impact on the outcome of the family proceedings in D Country. The criminal allegations are false but represent a huge distraction for her and additional financial cost.

The father currently pays her £1,000 per month by way of child maintenance but says that this is precarious, especially if convicted of assaulting her. He has not offered any further financial contribution and says he is unable to do so. He withdrew his financial support of C’s school fees and she had to move C to a state school in January 2023. She had spent around £125,000 on legal fees and has no savings. She cannot afford the lifestyle she would wish for the children and highlights the various costs for them, given her working pattern. Her salary in the NHS has not kept up with the rise in housing and general living costs. She is exhausted and run down. She has considered attempting to build a private practice but this is not straightforward or immediate and requires initial investment in terms of support staff and room rental. She would have even less time to spend with the children so would need to fund additional childcare.

Her brother and his wife live in the Abu Dhabi and have done so since 2009. Their children are close in age to C and F. She would intend to see them most weekends. She has no immediate family in the UK. Her starting salary will be around £216,000 pa and she will not have to pay income tax. The cost of a live-in nanny will be about £12,000. She would rent and comments that Dubai is a safe and child friendly country. Rental costs would be about £50,000 pa for an apartment with access to a swimming pool and gym. School fees would cost around £18,000 pa and she identified potential schools and outside school activities. She has calculated the likely travel costs. She anticipates being able to save about £100,000 over 5 years. She set out the international roots to her family and also the father’s family. She believes the father’s longer-term intention to be to move back to D Country to be closer to his family. He travels to D Country on a regular basis. She acknowledges that her contact proposals would involve gaps in time between contact periods. She has considered what would happen if the father was to receive a custodial sentence for his assault upon her. She highlights the continuing communication difficulties between the parents. She says she would agree to do whatever is necessary to give effect to an English order in Dubai, including submitting an agreement to the ADCFC. She says that her job offer will not remain open for ever and that another job could be either in Dubai or in Abu Dhabi.

The mother’s third statement is dated 22 November 2023 and was filed in response to Ms Norvixoxo’s report. She repeated how she is struggling financially on a limited income and the emotional and financial toll of the various sets of court proceedings. Moving to Dubai would provide a better work / life balance and would reduce her stress generally. She said she promotes the children’s relationship with their father and always will do.

The mother’s last statement is dated 10 September 2024. By that time the father’s time with the children had increased to 5 hours every fortnight, supervised by Ms K. The father had written a letter to C before the first contact which he read without much reaction. She describes her understanding of what happened at the community-based contacts. The fact these were in the community, including swimming, made it difficult for Ms K to supervise closely every part of the time the father spent with the children. She described occasions when C has started crying and breathing so fast he was hyperventilating. She is concerned that C is taking on responsibilities beyond his age and is scared of his father, whether of his father hitting F or of the repercussions if he speaks up about what he has witnessed.

She agreed with Ms Ritson that there had been no evidence from the father of change and she said “At the same time, I am struggling to move on from the trauma and the deep seated effects of the years of domestic abuse”. She maintained her wish to relocate to Dubai and said as follows:

“The reasons have not changed but I have changed in that I am better able to articulate the effects of the emotional and physical damage done to me and the children by the father during those years of domestic abuse. I am a long way from feeling healed or feeling truly safe and secure but feel better able to talk about it and better able to recognise topics and circumstances that trigger the feelings and recollection of my experience of domestic abuse…

I also feel reminded of the abuse when I notice the permanent damage to my finger on my left hand. My finger is deformed and I am unable to use it with the same professional dexterity as I used to in surgery as a result of the injury. It is very upsetting.”

“I am only beginning to realise the long-term impact of the domestic abuse I suffered at the hands of the father. For many years and whilst in the relationship I was in denial about what I was going through. I was a professional and it was my job to help protect the vulnerable women in my care; I just could not recognise that that was also me, that I too needed the help they did. Since leaving the family home in March 2021, I put aside my pain, fear and trauma, to be strong for the boys and to provide them with a strong protective role model, but inside the scars and vulnerability remain. The wounds are buried but as above discussions and circumstances can trigger recollection, feelings and experience of the abuse. I accept that part of the reason for wishing to relocate and be closer to my family, whether consciously or more likely subconsciously is to remove myself from the immediacy of where the abuse took place and from the perpetrator, the father, so I can have space to heal and space to deal with the demons. I was not brave enough to articulate this until recently, to articulate that I remain deeply affected by what happened and that I have some way to go to heal. Over the last year I have limped from one family court hearing to another trying to hold myself together in the hope that permission would be granted for us to relocate.”

In her oral evidence the mother said that she was flexible about whether she would move to Dubai or to Abu Dhabi if permission was granted. The job offer she had has lapsed and would now be looking in Abu Dhabi as her first choice. Her previous job offer had been in Dubai but her family was in Abu Dhabi. She had found a potential ISW to supervise contact in the UAE. The ISW is UK trained and the mother spoke to the ISW for about 45 minutes last week. The mother then explained that in her current role as a consultant she earns £114,000 gross pa as a basic salary but she works 60 hours a week, working every Saturday and every Tuesday and with an extra night on call. Last week she did 3 night-shifts. She can be at home for these but can be called to work for emergencies which happened last week. She is overstretching herself but that is necessary to pay legal fees in these proceedings and to maintain a standard of living for the children. She does not know when she would find the time to fit in a private practice. In any event, the private market is completely saturated. The financial benefits would be poor once she had paid for insurance, childcare, a secretary etc. Her mother is currently at home with her and she does not get to see her children. The advantage of the UAE would be she would be closer to her family and her mother could see them all in one country. There are practical, emotional and financial benefits.

The previous job offer had lapsed but the recruiter contacts her regularly and wants to put her forward for positions once the proceedings have finished. There is a position in Dubai to be advertised next week. There are opportunities and plenty of international schools for the children. She did not accept it would be difficult to find an ISW to supervise contact within the ex-pat community. She had found one and will find others. Supervision will need to continue until there is insight and reflection by the father. She doesn’t mind what the children do with their father as long as they are safe. She was concerned that the father had volunteered to attend the F school because he was clearly trying to see the children in ways other than had been agreed/ordered. It was suggested to her she had not been communicating about the children’s health needs, she said the only time she forgot was to inform the father about a course of antibiotics. She did not agree that the parents had been unable to communicate about the basic workings of contact, she said they had worked through a lot of swaps and other changes in arrangements. She accepted she had told the father about C’s dyslexia assessment rather than consulting him. When it was put to her that she would not support contact in the future she said: “I can only tell you what these children need. They need to have a relationship with their father. They want to see their dad, they love him and adore him.” To prevent contact “wouldn’t be good for them”. She said “I don’t want to be that woman because at 20 they will disown me”. Part of helping C to recover is to move to a completely new place, closer to his cousins and his uncle and aunt. These children do want to see their father and they crave his love, but C may have PTSD.

The mother acknowledged that she had not updated the court in her most recent statement about the change in her plans, principally looking at Abu Dhabi as well as or in preference to Dubai. She said she did not know she was permitted to (she was acting in person at the time). She accepted that moving schools would be a transition for the children. She denied the children would be forced to learn Islamic studies at school; the only mandatory requirement would be to learn Arabic in lessons once or twice a week. She could not have obtained a job first because she did not know whether she would be permitted to go. Her intention remained to go for 5 years and then review.

I found the mother to be a clear, coherent, and truthful witness. She is a capable medical practitioner working extremely hard in a demanding job, alongside providing full time care to C and F who are undoubtedly thriving in her care. She has received very limited financial support from the father and recognises that she is unlikely to receive from him any capital sum to enable her to provide a home for their children. I accept her evidence that her initial motivation for the proposed relocation was financial, and this remains a significant factor, but that she has also now reflected on how significantly she (and C) have been affected by the domestic abuse perpetrated by the father. I see nothing ‘unusual’ or ‘concerning’ in her reflection that part of her reason for wanting to move is to create some geographical and emotional distance from the location of her abuse and from the father and to provide some time and space to heal. The impact on her of the father’s abuse is still evident, raw indeed. She told me she cannot bear to look at her own finger because it reminds her of what the father did to her and the impact of this on her career. As set out below, the father’s family still have considerable influence over her life and the father himself constantly pushes the boundaries in terms of his time with the children.

The mother has acted in person throughout these proceedings, instructing counsel on a public access basis for hearings. Ms Pomeroy’s criticism that her last statement should have set out the practical arrangements she was proposing (in particular the greater focus now on Abu Dhabi) in greater detail has some force. However, I accept the mother’s point that the order of 13 June 2024 granting permission for that statement is a little ambiguous as to what information can be provided. More importantly, perhaps, I accept the point that it is difficult for the mother to be very precise about the arrangements given the delays that have occurred in determining her application. No employer will hold a job offer open indefinitely. The offer of employment she did have in Dubai lapsed because of the delay and no recruiter will want to look seriously at another employment opportunity until the mother can confirm relocation is her definite plan. In turn, given the father’s opposition, such confirmation can only be provided once this court has reached a primary determination. It is not surprising that the mother is now looking at Abu Dhabi, in addition to or as a preference to Dubai, given that is where her brother lives.

I was impressed with the mother’s evidence about the father and his importance to the children. She clearly recognises his significance in the lives of the children. Her assertion that she has no intention of preventing him seeing the children was heartfelt and, in my judgement, truthful. She has not prevented that relationship continuing and has supported significant periods of ongoing contact despite the seriousness of her allegations and the Court’s findings. Ms Ritson observed that this level of ongoing contact is unusual in a case where significant findings of domestic abuse have been found. That has been achieved largely by agreement and driven, I find, by the mother’s recognition of the children’s love for their father and her fundamental wish to support an ongoing relationship between them, as long as it is safe to do so. I reject the father’s criticisms of the mother as set out in my summary of his evidence below. Far from attempting to undermine his role in the children’s lives, she has been accommodating and supportive of it, recognising his importance to them.

The father’s first statement is dated 7 September 2023. The father described the children as close, with F really looking up to his older brother. C is determined but also very kind and caring. At the conclusion of the previous set of proceedings, he said, “Although we didn’t return to a full shared care regime following the proceedings, as I had hoped for…” they did have an established routine enabling him to see the children on a regular basis and “it felt like the children finally had a bit of normality back in their lives”. He described being shocked when the mother made this application. He said neither of them have any ties to Dubai. Moving the children so far from their current home and to a place with no roots, no family and a very different culture would be a huge upheaval for the children. He pointed out that this is not a culture that looks kindly on unmarried relationships. He strongly believes that such a move would not be in the children’s best interests.

The father disputes the mother’s assertion that she cannot provide financial stability for the children in the UK. He points to her salary and the £1,000 pm he provides in maintenance. He had made it clear in correspondence between solicitors that her financial proposals were unaffordable for him. He believes that had he been able to meet her financial demands in full she would not have sought to relocate to Dubai. She perceives him to be a rich person who is refusing to provide for her and that information is being fed by her through the children in an attempt to pressure him.

He suggests that the main motivation for the mother’s wish to move is the offer of the new job. The children’s lives are unlikely to be enhanced with the heat a real problem, particularly in the summer. Given the distance between Dubai and Abu Dhabi her brother is not likely to be able to offer any practical day to day support with the children. He suggests that the mother’s working pattern in Dubai would leave her in precisely the same difficult position as she is now with any additional financial benefit absorbed by the high cost of living in Dubai, childcare costs and private school costs. He suggests that instead of trying to set up her own private practice in the UK she could join an established one. In response to her suggestion that the mother will employ a nanny he said “I would much rather then children’s care were shared more equally between us in the UK in any event, rather than be done by poorly paid Dubai nannies, just as we used to do before the Court proceedings began.”

He is concerned about the emphasis in the inspection report for one of the mother’s proposed schools on Islamic values and teaching. Much of the curriculum seems to be dedicated to teaching Islamic morals and values which will be unfamiliar to the children and potentially confusing for them. They may be exposed to prejudicial views about women and about marriage. C’s current school is non-fee-paying and rated as outstanding by Ofsted. The school prides itself on its passion for sport and C is thriving there. He will find moving to another school very difficult.

The gaps in contact as proposed by the mother would not be in the children’s best interests. Given their ages, it is important for the children to see him on a regular basis. With the contact proposed for the holidays, “There will be no opportunity for me to be involved in their everyday routines”. The ability to do drop offs and pick-ups at clubs “provide important opportunities for me to talk to the children about their days and to be involved with every bit of their lives”. C wants him to take him to sports and be more involved with that. He outlines the extracurricular activities currently enjoyed by C and F’s time at nursery. He says, “in the future, I very much want to return to a shared care regime like [the mother] and I had before. I desperately want more time with them, and the children have similar views to me; C, in particular, keeps asking to stay longer during contact”. He says the children “still don’t fully understand why our time together now is so limited”. He questions how supervision will work in the UAE and who is to pay the costs of this. Travel costs will also be very significant, even with the mother’s offer to pay half the costs. He does not dispute they are an international family but they have no connection with Dubai and this does not explain why moving there would be in the children’s best interests. He says that the mother does have family members in London and has her mother’s help when she is staying. Again, he emphasises the potential for him to spend much greater time with the children: “Whilst my contact with the children is currently limited much more than I would like, I hope that in the future we will be able to return to a shared care regime where I help with more of the childcare responsibilities.” He says, “It feels completely illogical for [the mother] to be having to spend money on a nanny when I am willing and able to help with the practicalities of the children’s schedules”

In response to the mother’s evidence about the impact of the father’s domestic abuse and the ongoing proceedings, including the proceedings in D Country, upon her, the father says that the ongoing family and criminal proceedings “have similarly taken a toll on me. Sadly, I feel much of the stress and anxiety we have both suffered (and money spent) could have been alleviated had [the mother] agreed to mediate”. He does not believe that the mother has no other option than to relocate in order to achieve financial security. Even without his maintenance payments the mother is in a better financial position than the majority of parents in the UK. He denied the mother’s suggestion that he has been “mute” and had been putting himself first and the children second saying “I made this very difficult decision, after advice from my lawyers, that the privilege against self-incrimination meant I could not discuss the specific findings in any detail with the s7 reporters and I was, therefore, unable to engage with them and explain how I had changed when they made their recommendations for contact at the final hearing.”

With respect to the proceedings in D Country, the says that his parents and brother are suing the mother in the criminal court in D Country for 50 Euros each. He says “I am not a party to these proceedings, and I have limited information about them”. The mother had made very serious allegations against his brother and parents. He does not accept the mother’s assertion that her evidence was unimportant (in the sense of affecting the outcome of the proceedings) and said “such allegations clearly are very important and cannot be left to one side”. Her allegations could impact on his parents contact with his children. He said “I understand my parents and brother were all separately awarded contact with my brother’s children by the [D Country] Court and that my brother’s ex-wife is now appealing based on a claim by her that the [D Country] Court did not give sufficient weight to [the mother’s] evidence.” He denies that the purpose of bringing the proceedings was to wear the mother down or pressure her to withdraw as a witness in the English criminal proceedings.

So far as the financial issues are concerned, he again offers himself as a potential solution by offering to provide childcare and avoiding the need to pay a nanny “if [the mother] were open to considering this”. He says that the mother cherry-picks which parts of the order she wants to be upheld, asking for flexibility when she needs it but not offering flexibility in return.

In the father’s second statement, in response to Ms Norvixoxo’s report, he comments that she has seen how special the children’s bond is with him and acknowledges his fears about the impact to their relationship if the mother was given permission to relocate. He is also worried that any relocation would be a culture shock for the children. He referred to friends down the road who have children who are close to C and F and, also, children of members of his staff. There are four D Country families at C’s school and they are organising an outing so they can all meet in person. He refers to other friends of the mother’s who have children who play with C and F. He suggests the mother could obtain a similar salary in the UK to that achievable in Dubai were she to move to private practice. He again spoke of his aspiration to have “a more balanced co-parenting relationship with [the mother] in the future, where I can bear more of the day-to-day responsibilities for the boys – including doing things like the school run, picking them up from clubs and helping with their homework… I want to help much more like I used to”. He says his work is more flexible than the mother’s so he is free to look after the children. This would be “more emotionally beneficial” than being looked after by a nanny. He had recently volunteered “to help the teachers at [C’s] school” on a school trip at F school but the mother “disapproved of this”. He said he was “just trying to be helpful”. He wants to be seen as “a supporting and loving co-parent”. He wants to engage in joint therapy with the mother and “shift towards me being able to support [the mother] with much more of the day-to-day responsibilities for the children”.

In his third and most recent statement, the father emphasised how settled the children are despite this having been a difficult time. Ms K reports their contact with him to be positive. It had been difficult for the children to deal with the return to fully supervised contact but Ms K has done much to try to make this seem as normal as possible. The children have been enjoying their time with him and want to spend more. Having attended courses after the fact-finding hearing he says that he accepts that he had fallen far short of being a loving and caring partner to the mother when they were with together. It is important for the children to see him treat their mother with respect and he has tried to implement what he learned from the course. Sometimes, however, he feels that the mother is being “unnecessarily obstructive” of his relationship with the children. It can be difficult to arrange contact and ensure it goes ahead and this “ultimately has the effect of undermining my role in the children’s lives.” He comments on the swimming activity and the measures taken to ensure the children were supervised during this. He agreed to avoid doing this again and felt the mother was being unduly critical. She objected to him taking the children to an adventure park. He did not get clear information about an eye infection that C had in September 2024 and the anti-biotic treatment for this. He says that he feels “I have done everything I can to be accommodating of [the mother’s] concerns”. However, he is worried that the mother does not necessarily share his commitment to rebuilding their relationship. Later on, he goes further to suggest that the mother “is determined to undermine my role in the children’s lives no matter the impact it might have on the boys”.

The father sets out his concerns about the proposed move to the UAE, and particularly its impact on his time with the children. He is concerned about the long gaps in contact. He will struggle to take leave during school holidays and half-terms because they are his busiest times at work. It is when children patients come in for check-ups and adult patients want repair work to be undertaken. This would further restrict his ability to see the children. He has not been able to find any ISW, let alone an ISW experienced in domestic abuse, available in Dubai to offer supervision. He says he cannot afford to fund supervision in the long term. He takes very little comfort from the mother’s reassurance that she does not seek to restrict his relationship with the children. He says “During the course of these proceedings, [the mother] has chipped away at my contact with the children and it is now more restricted than ever”. He would have no ability to apply through the court system in the UAE.

In his oral evidence the father told me how well his contact is going with his children. He explained why he had volunteered to assist at the F school and this takes place within the premises of the school who had said there was no need for a DBS check because there are always teachers available. He had sent an email to the mother about this but, because she did not reply, he thought it was okay for him to go. He did not explain to the school the circumstances, but they would have been aware because they had the court order. At that time, he was having some unsupervised contact in the community. He saw C at the F school and F was aware that he was there because he was next door. C cried when he left.

The father accepted that supervised contact would need to remain in place until the criminal trial. He cannot speak about the court’s findings as set out in the judgment including the findings of physical chastisement of C. He believed that C’s allegation about him smacking F has come from his confusion and seeing two parents not talking or communicating and with different rules in each house. He felt that the children have been caught in the middle. He agreed that there is much more litigation ahead of them but “all this could have been brought to an end”. By this he meant through mediation.

He was asked about the litigation in D Country. It is, he said, his mother, father and brother who seek criminal convictions against the mother. He said he was trying to avoid having to go to court in those proceedings, “I am trying to keep out myself”. Within the original D Country children proceedings between his brother and his wife, the mother’s statement had been taken into consideration. Ultimately, however, his brother is allowed to see his daughter. He considers that the mother has only herself to blame for the criminal proceedings having been issued against her. Because she had filed a statement in those proceedings, “it falls on her”.“She should not have been involved”. The decision whether to continue or end those proceedings, “unfortunately it is on the prosecution”, but, “there are steps that can be taken”. He emphasised that “I am trying to disengage myself from this”. In terms of the likely outcome it is possible the mother may be convicted. He is trying to keep out of it as much as possible. He is not responsible for any inaccuracies or misrepresentations in the court paperwork. He suggested that the mother should contact the General Medical Council to alert them to the possibility of a criminal conviction and sentence. He suggested “the penalty will be very minor” if convicted, but then said that, on the worst-case scenario, “she will have a suspended sentence”. He said, ‘I don’t think perjury is such a big issue for her job”.

In the course of his evidence on this issue the father sought on a number of occasions to draw the questions away from the prosecution of the mother by his family in D Country to his prosecution for assault and coercive control of the mother in this jurisdiction. It was clear this was of greater concern to him. He said, for example, that he faced more serious offences than the mother and that he had to inform the Dental Council of the charges. When he was asked what the impact would be on the mother and the children if she was unable to work, he said “we will have to engage my family to support us”. When it was put to him that the mother faced a very insecure financial future as a result he said “I am in the same situation”. He had taken steps to secure his position through setting up limited companies to run the dental surgeries. In so far as the finances are concerned, they had agreed to take C out of school because they could not afford the fees. He suggested again that there was room for discussion, “if we had talked about it in advance, I could have helped her financially”. However, he would not be drawn on how that might have been possible.

Once his criminal trial is over then he will ask the mother to engage in mediation with him. Putting matters on hold is “the best I can do at the moment”. He reiterated his concerns about the impact of any relocation on his time with the children. He did not know what was achievable given his work situation and lack of accommodation in Dubai. He said “I’m not the one who should put the proposals in place… There will need to be a plan to be decided about contact”. The children need to see him every two weeks and there should be video calls every day.

He agreed that he was very sad in the video call after C had made allegations against him. C said “why are you so sad?” and then put his head down and cried.

Ms J has filed a statement in these proceedings and gave brief oral evidence, largely upon the issues of fact as set out above. She said she has read the court fact-finding judgment. Despite the contents of the judgment, which made her surprised, saddened and shocked, she found working with the father and the children “delightful’. She found supervising contact in the father’s home to be easy because it is compact. The boys spend most of their time in the living room or in their bedrooms upstairs. She is always with them or “sometimes in the case of their bedroom, sat at the top of the stairs” as she can see into the room from there. She expressed positive views about the boys’ relationship with their father and extended paternal family. She has never had any concerns or seen the father angry with the children or chastise them.

Ms K gave brief evidence about the father’s time with the children following her reengagement as a supervisor in May 2024. By and large the contact had been successful and positive. It can be difficult supervising when the children are having disagreements or when there is an activity with a lot of running. It was better not to have mealtimes at the end of contact and the different philosophies in each house about the use of gadgets can cause issues. The children have asked their father why he does not come to school to pick them up and they do tend to want to stay longer. The agreed increase to 8 hours a day would in her view be better for the children and she could also assist with after school contact. She had no concern about the father’s ability to parent or be available for the children. There is a lot of emotional warmth and love. C tells his father he loves him and goes to him for comfort and hugs.

She agreed she had previously recommended that there was no need for supervision. She had not really had any specific conversations with anyone about the reasons for supervision (although she was aware of the judgment).

The father gave his evidence carefully and with a considerable focus on his own situation and the loss he has already sustained in his relationship with his children and would sustain should the mother’s relocation application be granted. Like the mother he is clearly a very capable and highly intelligent person and is a successful dentist with his own practice. He has the ability to be a warm and loving parent, but he has a temper and, when that flares, he is incapable of preventing himself from lashing out physically. He is not always a truthful witness. He is unable to admit his own mistakes or take responsibility for his own actions. He shows a marked lack of empathy for the mother. I commented in my earlier judgment that I was surprised that he was not mortified that his physical altercations with the mother resulted in permanent injuries to her, even if this was accidental rather than the result of his physical assaults upon her. That lack of empathy towards the mother remained clear to me from his oral evidence during these proceedings. He genuinely believes himself to be a victim rather than perpetrator. A victim of the criminal process that he is subject to, a victim of the restrictions in his relationship with his children and now the victim of the mother’s relocation application.

It is not surprising to me that Ms J and Ms K speak warmly of him. He can be charming, but unless they have experienced his temper or his lack of empathy, as the mother and children have, they may find it difficult to believe he can behave in such a way. My impression from both witnesses from their evidence was that although they had read the judgment, this did not accord with their own experience of the father and, therefore, they had been prepared to let their guard down with him.

The father’s repeated references in his written evidence to his wish to take on a greater role in the care of the children, to assist the mother with co-parenting, to resume a shared care arrangement and his evident frustration that this is not possible were troubling. He is able to articulate an acceptance that all this is not possible (pending, he says, his criminal trial), but he shows little understanding of or insight into why this is not possible. He does not seem to appreciate the link to his exercise of his undoubted right to silence. Rather, he seems to wish to set to one side the court’s findings and focus instead on how he used to spend greater periods of time with the children and can (mostly) demonstrate a warm loving relationship with them. There was a sense from his evidence that ‘if only the mother would agree’, he could then resume a much more ‘normal’ relationship with his children which would then resolve childcare, financial and other issues. He often referred to the potential of mediation without being prepared to articulate what outcome this could achieve. Indeed, as I will come onto below, there was a darker side to his evidence and I was left with the strong impression that the father sees a link between all the issues in the case that could resolve everything (to his advantage) if only the mother would relent and ‘take a more reasonable position’. Conveniently, in his self-analysis, the father pushes to one side that she is the victim of his significant physical abuse and coercive control as are his children.

Unusually, in this case there are two s.7 reports.

The first is from Ms Norvixoxo, who completed her report on 8 November 2023 and subsequently left her position as a Family Court Adviser. At that time the contact arrangements were for the father to spend time with the children for 8 hours alternate Sundays, 4 of which were in the father’s home and were supervised, and for 3 hours alternate Wednesdays. She spoke to Ms J who told her that the father is lovely with the children and they get emotional when it is time to leave him. They ask him why they cannot stay the night and he responds appropriately. She, Ms J, did not think the contact needed to be supervised.

The mother sought permission to relocate to Dubai and the father opposed this and sought additional unsupervised time with the children. He said he was unable to talk about his views of the findings made against him because of the pending criminal trial. As a result, Ms Norvixoxo was unable to assess the father’s insight and views about the findings. The mother said she wants the children to have a relationship with their father and will continue to promote this if allowed to relocate. C told Ms Norvixoxo that he remembered seeing his parents fighting and arguing and that he was trying to stop them. He said his time with his father was “quite fun” and that he wanted to sleep at his father’s house, “he said he wants me to sleep with him sometimes when I meet him because he misses us quite a lot”. He said he liked it in Abu Dhabi but sometimes when there he gets too hot. He said he liked it in England because there is a lot of nature and friends at school that he knows. His three wishes were that his mum and dad were apart so they did not fight, he wished his dad did not hurt his mum and he wished they were nice to each other.

Ms Norvixoxo said that the children are not aware of their mother’s wish to relocate. However, from C’s answers to her it would be safe to assume he would be unhappy about this. F was too young to be asked. The children’s physical and educational needs were being met. The mother had identified potential fee-paying schools for the children which would be likely to meet their educational needs in Dubai and she did not have any concerns about the mother’s ability to do so. Her projected earnings would be sufficient to meet the cost. They would also provide her and the children with a better standard of living and better work / life balance.

Should the children relocate, then although they would be likely to adjust to their new way of life, the impact on their relationship with their father “will be profound” given the significant gaps between spending time arrangements and the geographical distance. This would impact on the quality of their relationships and create a significant emotional distance. The children would have the opportunity to spend more time with their wider maternal family as the mother’s brother and his family live in Abu Dhabi. Refusing permission would likely impact negatively on the fragile co-parenting relationship between the parents. It would likely cause the mother emotional distress. Ms Norvixoxo noted that the parents are currently involved in three sets of litigation, with these proceedings and the criminal proceedings here and in D Country. She said “It is not difficult to imagine the mental and emotional toil this is having on their emotional wellbeing as well as the financial impact on them”. Both sets of criminal proceedings have the potential to impact on each parent’s ability to work and therefore on their ability to provide financially for or be available for the children.

Ms Norvixoxo questioned the need for ongoing supervision of the father’s time with the children given he already has some unsupervised time with them. She considered the mother’s reasons for relocating to be genuine and that she wants to improve the quality of life for herself and her children and she has set out how she intends to promote their relationship with their father. She concluded: “This is finely balanced decision; there are merits in the children relocating to Dubai or remaining in the UK. I do not currently feel able to make a recommendation either way.”

In her oral evidence Ms Norvixoxo confirmed that she had not felt able to make a recommendation. She had struggled with the concept of half the contact being supervised and the other half not. There would be positives about the children relocating but she was concerned about the impact of Ms Tribe’s evidence. She agreed that as far as she was aware no application could be made to the Dubai court because the parents were unmarried and that it is an important part of the parental role to be able to exercise parental responsibility. However, she did not agree that she had seen evidence that the mother had been making major decisions without consulting the father. She agreed that communication was a problem but that was not surprising given there had been domestic abuse in the relationship.

On 9 May 2024 Ms Ritson filed a s.16A risk assessment as a result of her discussion with C at school the day before, as reported above. She expressed concern that contact was not being properly supervised and that unsupervised contact was putting the children at risk of emotional and physical harm. She recommended supervised contact either at a centre or by a ISW who had a full awareness of the findings and ongoing concerns.

Ms Ritson’s full s.7 report is dated 15 May 2024. She had been the appointed Family Court Adviser in the previous proceedings. She did not agree with the father’s then proposal to delay these proceedings to await the outcome of his criminal case. She pointed out that this is a case where domestic abuse has been found, which suggests an imbalance of power in the parental relationship and that co-parenting will be very difficult to achieve. The mother feels a long way from a co-parenting relationship with the father because there has been no reassurance by him of any change. She is therefore unable to move forward from the trauma caused by the domestic abuse and is now concerned about what the children have said following contact. From the mother’s presentation in interview, it was clear that she remains traumatised by the abuse that she suffered. She tried to remain strong but became emotional on four occasions. First when describing C experiencing “hyperventilation and flashbacks”. C told his mother that the father had hit F and that “he was being really naughty. You must have been really naughty for daddy to hit you”. She also became upset when asked what the impact would be on her if her application to relocate was refused. She said she would manage but was fearful she would never be able to give herself and the children the life and opportunities she would like to. She became upset also when speaking of occasions when near the father, she experiences “flashback, my heart races, I feel like I will be sick. I’ve been told I have PTSD”. She described not looking at her hand as “this is a constant reminder”. She also became emotional, and they had to pause the interview, when speaking of the photographs the father had been directed to disclose to her. He is refusing to give them to her, claiming they are lost, because he knows how much they meant to her.

Ms Ritson said “It is possible, there remains an element of on-going domestic abuse and I am concerned on-going litigation in the UK and in D Country are a mechanism to continue to exert controlling behaviour.”

The father presented as sad in interview having been informed of C’s new allegations. He said he could not understand this as all contact was either fully supervised or in the community. He suggested that the children were being informed things by their mother. He felt unable to discuss the previous finding that he had chastised C because of the legal advice he had been given. Ms Ritson was concerned that currently there appears to be no evidence of change in the father. He had completed a ‘Caring Dads’ and a ‘Triple P parenting’ course but she concluded that “There seems a long way to go before [the father] is accepting of the extent of the abusive, coercively controlling behaviour he was found to have exerted over [the mother]”

The father argued that the mother is able to offer herself and the children a good lifestyle in the UK on her current wage. Ms Ritson said that she had not formed the impression that the mother was seeing to relocate in order to restrict the children’s relationship with their father. There is no evidence that she would not comply with any court order for contact nor has she formed the view that the mother would not support contact that was in the best interests of the children, “Itherefore maintain the view she would continue to promote a relationship between the children and their father should she relocate and this be in their best interests.”

PD12J is relevant, in her view, because of the impact on the mother and on the children should permission to relocate be refused. The mother “is entitled to move forward with her life and move on from the abuse she has suffered”. The father is understandably fearful of the loss of the children should they relocate but she said “I would like [the father] to begin to consider the harm that he has caused by his behaviour and consider [the mother] and the children and their need to be able to move forward. This does not mean his role in the children’s lives will end, but it will change. Currently, he has a long way to go to prove to [the mother] he can be the safe parent that they need.”

C spoke to Ms Ritson about enjoying his time with his father alongside the incidents as set out above. He spoke about visiting Dubai 3 or 4 times. He said it was “quite nice because it’s hot and we get to swim a lot”. He could not think of any bad points apart from it being far away. He also said his cousins where there so he could see them more. When asked about the level of contact with his father he said “it's enough but I would like a sleep over each Sunday and him take me to school and mum picks me up.” If he lived a long way from his father and so did not see him at weekends but spent more time with him in the school holidays he said “maybe, but my dad wants to see me more often. He says he's going to [D Country] when we're not with him. He's a very rich person, he goes every weekend we're not with him. My dad wants to see us more, but I don't feel we need to see him more. I go two times a week if I didn't, I would miss him a little”.

The children remain unaware of the mother’s application to relocate. Ms Norvixoxo had interpreted C’s wishes and feelings as indicating that he likes living in the UK and would prefer not to live in another country. Ms Ritson did not see C’s comments as unusual given his lack of understanding and knowledge of the potential move and care needs to be taken not to give too much weight to this given his age and understanding. In her view, C has positive memories of his visits to the UAE. Should the children move there would be significant destabilisation to their education in the short-term but the question would be whether that would be outweighed by long-term gain. They would miss their weekly time with their father and this would feel like a loss until a new routine is established. However, she agreed with the mother that the children would most likely be excited by the prospect of relocating with the right balanced conversations, but also reassurance that they will have video calls with their father and extended periods of direct contact in school holidays.

The father had admitted to Ms Ritson feeling sad in a video call to the children on 12 May and that C had picked up on this and started to cry. Whilst it is understandable that the father felt sad in light of the allegations that C had made a few days before, “it was not helpful to the children for [the father] to present this way, demonstrating and inability to place the children’s needs above his own. The mother told her that the father “was angry and unpleasant to the children”. He was “mostly silent and looked angry on the screen”. She then said: “[C] asked him why he looked that way and [the father] replied “You need toask your….” And then “Have you got anything to say to me, have you got anythingto say to me” [C] said “I know why you are like this” then fell silent and startedcrying whilst [the father] was still on the video. [The father] offered no comfort to [C]despite that he was crying and repeated “Have you got anything else to say” thenshut the video call abruptly. [C] continued to cry afterwards saying “It is becauseI told the lady at school that daddy always thinks he is right and never thinks heever does anything wrong”, and “It is my fault for telling her.”

The mother then added, “Separately, after you spoke to [C] last Wednesday I noticed a big change in him. He was markedly happier and lighter as though a heavy burden had been lifted. He was a joy around the house up until the video call with his father on Sunday. Since the interaction with his father he has been withdrawn and upset, as though he has crawled into a shell.”

Ms Ritson described this latest development, if true, as “very concerning”. This suggests that the father is causing emotional harm to C during indirect contact. For indirect contact to resume the father “must reflect on how his behaviour and presentation impacts the children. My worry is, he is not able to do this, that his behaviour is self-centred and not child-focussed.”

A move to the UAE would cause the children destabilisation as they will move from their home, school and local environment and lose day to day contact with their father, teachers, friends and neighbours. They would have the opportunity to learn about a different culture and would be provided with a private education. The move would offer the children an adventure and the opportunity to experience living in another country, to make new friends and have new experiences. The mother would be in a better financial position which could offer more opportunities for the children and a better standard of living. They would also be able to visit their maternal cousins at weekends. The children have an attachment to their father and will need to maintain links with him. The children would benefit from direct contact with him as long as it is safe.

Ms Ritson would expect a move to reduce the stress currently on the mother and “she will be able to move forward to some degree from the past experiences and trauma of an abusive relationship, which in turn should positively impact the children.”

She suggests that in the event of relocation taking place the parties may wish to introduce letters and cards between the children and their father. This would enable them to receive something through the post from him and they could be encouraged to write back to inform him of their day-to-day activities.

The children and parents are from a multi-cultural background with family in D Country, A Country and the UAE. Given the nature of the parents’ diverse heritage and their previous experience growing up and living in various countries, Ms Ritson does not see the mother’s wish to relocate as surprising. These are high earning professionals so the mother’s wish to earn to her capacity and privately educate her children is not surprising. Ms Ritson says:

I set out in full below Ms Ritson’s analysis of the harm the children have suffered and are at risk of suffering:

“84.

The children have suffered significant emotional harm from witnessing and being in the vicinity of domestic abuse. They remain at risk of suffering further significant harm should [the father] lose control in the future. This could have devastating consequences for the children who may be harmed physically by being caught in the crossfire, physically harmed due to physical chastisement or emotional harm through feeling fear of witnessing their father being out of control or abusing an intimate partner. Potentially even one incident of this nature could have a life-long negative impact on the children.

85.

Further, we know from the Findings [the father] has physically chastised [C]. I am worried given the allegations of further physical chastisement of the children during contact, when it has not been properly supervised and [the father] denying any physical chastisement of the children when this has been found as a fact. [C] has spoken of being fearful his father will hit him. It is imperative that any contact between the children and their father is properly supervised given the Findings and these new allegations.

86.

Should the children continue to have unsupervised contact with their father, I would be concerned about the on-going risk of emotional, physical harm as well as an undermining of [the mother’s] parenting of the children.

87.

As [the father] does not feel able to discuss the Findings we must assume the risk of abusive behaviours, remains unchanged. I remain confused why he would not plead guilty in the criminal proceedings unless he does not truly accept the Findings of this court. There are Findings of domestic abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour and harm to the children. These proceedings must remain focussed on the best interests of the children, their safety being the primary focus and prevent further delay. It is my view decisions can and must be made without waiting for the outcome of the criminal proceedings.”

The mother has evidenced her ability to provide appropriate day-to-day care of the children. There is nothing to support the father’s concern that she is influencing the children against him. The father is theoretically able to provide good enough care for his children but concerns remain about his abusive behaviour, emotional regulation and messages to the children.

If permission to relocate is granted Ms Ritson would hope twice weekly video contact could be reestablished and letters and cards between the children and their father. Supervised direct contact would need to be “considered and agreed between the parties”. If permission is refused then direct contact would need to remain professionally supervised on a fortnightly basis for a minimum of 2 hours “until [the mother] is reassured that [the father] has fully addressed his abusive behaviours”.

In her oral evidence Ms Ritson said that she had concerns about the father’s contact from the very beginning of her involvement. There had been findings of significant domestic abuse without any evidence of change. The level of harm is high. It is, however, right for parents to make decisions about their children so they have been able to agree direct contact. The father has benefited from the financial situation he is in. However, she drew a line at swimming “how on earth did that ever happen?”. It cannot be properly supervised (Ms Jagger also expressed concern about this swimming contact). She considered that Ms K (who was supervising contact) must have thought this was agreed by the mother. If the father had properly reflected on the harm he had caused, he would be more empathetic about the difficulties the mother has in co-parenting with him. An example of this was the father’s decision to volunteer for the F school. She would not want to see the father making those sorts of arrangements without consultation with the mother when she is a victim of his domestic abuse. He does not ask himself how she would perceive this, “I have a little bit of power and control here because I can still do this”.

She is also concerned about the possibility of the legal proceedings in D Country representing a continuation of coercive and controlling behaviour. This could be an instrument used to cause stress to the mother. The father was very limited in what he discussed with her about those proceedings. She would be concerned if the father is supporting of or instrumental in that process, knowing potentially the outcome to the mother of his children and a person that he has subjected significant domestic abuse to.

Ms Ritson highlighted that the relocation would give the mother an opportunity to move forward from the trauma she has suffered. Given what she has been though, then she needs permission to do so. The father’s hold on her must be released. She wants a place she calls her own, she and the children need security. It is important for her to regain a sense of empowerment because she has been disempowered by the abuse. She did not think the mother would lose sight of the relationship between the children and their father. Contact would be much less frequent but there are cases where the relationship has been maintained through contact abroad and in the UK. If the father changes and can demonstrate change then this mother will support progression of contact. A natural break could give some space, in particular for C, to start to recover from what has happened. He is struggling. This is not a father who can have a hands-on approach to parenting because of the risk. She agrees that the children will miss their father but does not believe the impact on them will be “profound”. This is a mother who will put her children first at every juncture.

She accepted she had not seen the father with the children but did not need to because she accepts the relationship is warm and loving. The mother does not say anything different. However, it only takes a moment to become angry and it is clear that the father is capable of that. It was put to her that the father’s case is not that the mother has sat C down and told him to say things but that he may have overheard them. She accepted that if this had happened it was possible it may have had some influence on him.

She said that a social worker supervising contact must be qualified with extensive experience of domestic abuse. A contact centre is a very good place to manage contact. Any social worker will ideally come with experience of managing similar cases. If the parties cannot agree who, then it should be in a contact centre. If the parents cannot agree schools, then the decision should rest with the parent with primary care. Given the findings that have been made there is an imbalance of power and co-parenting is not possible until the father has restored trust. If that appears unfair to the father “it is his behaviour that has brought us to where we are today.” The father has been clouded by his lack of emotional regulation and his own needs. Nothing is going to change in the near future. The father cannot talk about it and so “he is stuck and cannot move forward” but “the children cannot wait”.

Although Ms Ritson was careful to confirm that there is no recommendation in her report, she said that the views she has expressed tend to support relocation.

I was impressed by the evidence of both FCAs, but in particular by the evidence of Ms Ritson. Both Advisors set out the factors in support of and against relocation but I found Ms Ritson’s evidence particularly compelling. Her analysis of each of the parents and the impression they formed upon her very much matches my own impression.

I have read detailed final submissions documents prepared both by Mr McAlinden on behalf of the mother and Ms Pomeroy on behalf of the father. I also heard extensive oral submissions. I am grateful to both counsel for these. I have taken all the points raised into consideration in my decision making even if not referred to below.

The mother’s case is that she seeks permission to relocate to the UAE, either to Dubai or to Abu Dhabi. C remembers and remains traumatised by the domestic abuse perpetrated by his father upon his mother. The mother also remains traumatised and is stressed by and tired of the ongoing proceedings. The father is able to discuss the court’s findings, nothing prevents him from doing so. There is no evidence of change following the court’s findings. The purpose of the D Country proceedings has never been made clear. The father has made two statements in those proceedings. He has not sought to correct the errors in the evidence filed by his family. He shows no empathy or insight into the impact of those proceedings on the mother. There are subtle undertones to his evidence and what negotiations may bring. He has not put his cards on the table. In light of the findings, and the father’s unwillingness to address these pending the outcome of the criminal trial, it is likely that contact will have to remain supervised for a considerable period of time. The mother will need to remain these children’s primary carer. Remaining within this jurisdiction means the mother is tied into a cycle of coercive and controlling behaviour. Financial independence will enable the mother to address the power imbalance in her relationship with the father. It will give her psychological distance, time to breathe and heal. Her plans are genuine and reasonable. The mother is a very capable highly qualified person so more than able to put proper plans in place for her children. If there is no job then she will not relocate. Until she has permission and a job she cannot confirm the finer details of schools, GPs etc. The parties have spent a very large sum of money on legal fees.

The mother can be relied upon to support the children’s ongoing relationship with their father. She accepts they adore him. She understands the impact on the children and her own relationship with them if she fails to promote their relationship with their father. However, her case remains that he has hit F. C knew about Ms J’s injury and his account is credible. This is a man who cannot control himself. He will spend more intensive periods of contact with the children during holidays and they will have the opportunity to develop their relationship with the maternal uncle and his family.

The father remains opposed to the proposed relocation. Ms Pomeroy emphasises the lack of any clarity as to the arrangements for the proposed move; there is even uncertainty as to whether it would be to Dubai or Abu Dhabi. There is no certainty the mother will find a job and she has no school place for the children. She doesn’t know how long she will be there for. She has only been able to identify one proposed ISW as a supervisor for contact. She was only able to suggest using the ISW to resolve any communication difficulties given the lack of any jurisdiction to resolve disputes between the parents. The plan is not just lacking, it is completely absent.

The father’s evidence was that the documents in the D Country proceedings were filed by the lawyers instructed by his family. He did not speak to the lawyers directly. His second statement was given because he was called to speak to the prosecutor who wrote down what he said and made him sign it. The prosecutor was not interested in other information. There is no expert evidence about the D Country proceedings and the father’s family members have not been called to give evidence in these proceedings. Nothing that has been filed has necessarily been inaccurate and the D Country court now has this court’s judgment.

These are two young children. Both want things to continue as they are. Contact with their father has been of good quality as seen and noted by Ms K. Both children want to spend more time with him, including overnights. F is still young and building his relationship with his father. Ensuring the relationship continues between the children and their father has required considerable intervention from the court. The mother’s application puts the continuation of that relationship at risk. Initially the mother’s application was based on finances and her wish to give the children a better life but she now focuses on different aspects. The vast majority of her last statement consists of criticisms of the father. She has not focussed at all on the practicalities of the proposed move. Her plan is not pragmatic or welfare based. She seeks empowerment and to create a distance between the father and the children because she is the victim of domestic violence. That is “an unusual and concerning way to run a relocation application”. This is not a move to another EU or English-speaking country. The move will represent a drastic change in lifestyle to a country where the mother and children have never lived and have not spent any significant time. The presence of domestic abuse should not supersede or override the absence of a plan. These children will have no court anywhere in the world that will have jurisdiction to make welfare decisions for them. In effect, this will mean that the mother will be making all the decisions for them. The court cannot be comfortable sending the children to a jurisdiction where there is no possibility of enforcing its orders and where the father cannot exercise his parental responsibility.

If the children remain here then everything remains as at present. The children stay in their schools, they will live with their mother and retain their friend and support network. They will continue to spend considerable time with their father. There will be no disruption and no change. Any impact on the mother has not been established nor has any impact from that on the children. It was confirmed on behalf of the father that he has spent £222,514 in legal costs to date with respect to the current proceedings.

The mother has exhibited to her evidence approved translations of some of the documents filed within the D Country proceedings.

The complaint is dated 15 February 2022. It is said there that the father’s brother’s wife created barriers and obstacles to his brother having contact with their children and to the father’s parents having contact with their grandchildren. They applied to the D Country Court for what appears to be the equivalent of a child arrangements order and interim orders were made (it is not specified what orders). It then describes the court proceedings in this country between the mother and the father as “a ferocious court battle” over the mother’s “stubborn refusal to allow the father of the children access to them”. Those proceedings were expected to be concluded “very soon” as a report had been prepared by a specially appointed social worker who had interviewed the children and had been present at their meetings with their father who had concluded that the father “is perfectly capable of caring for and protecting them” and that the children could spend time with him without any risk. It is said that the mother’s opposition to contact only started when the father refused to reconcile with her. Once the mother had realised that she could do no further harm to the father by denying him contact “she turned against us, his closest relatives” and filed a statement in the D Country proceedings, “brimming with defamatory statements, untruthful complaints and representations of non-existent facts”. She had falsely described the paternal grandfather as “misogynist, hostile towards women and abusive”, had falsely described the maternal grandmother as “mentally unstable” and interfering in the way that the father takes care of his children’s health and had falsely alleged that the father’s brother had attempted to get a woman drunk on shots to suppress any inhibitions she might have and perform sexual acts on her against her will, in collaboration with the father.

The father swore a statement on 7 November 2022 saying that the mother’s account within the D Country proceedings is untrue and defamatory.

The mother has attached a copy of her affidavit in the D Country proceedings dated 28 January 2022. She sets out there some detail of her interactions with the father’s family and of her relationship with the father, including that she was the victim of domestic abuse. Much of the information there repeats information provided by the mother within these proceedings, including the reference to women as ‘coats’ (objects men put on and take off) and the ‘M island test’ (testing women to see if they can withstand the family’s men). She was told to shut up and that she spoke a lot for a woman. She repeated the information (given to me at the fact-finding hearing) about the paternal grandmother’s concern about C’s penis including that she asked the father to pull down C’s trousers during a video call (an incident that I described in my fact-finding judgment and said had happened as the mother described it).

She also attached a copy of an affidavit sworn by the father in those proceedings on 4 April 2022. He describes there that the mother had “become furious” when he commenced a relationship with another woman and “initiated a relentless court battle… to deny me and the rest of my family access to our children”. When that failed “she has thrown herself into an attempt to harm either me or my family at large in any way she can”. She also attached an affidavit by her dated 18 April 2022 in response. She set out there the restrictions then in place in relation to the father’s contact.

I found the father’s evidence on this issue evasive and unsatisfactory. The information provided to the D Country court about these proceedings in the complaint filed on 15 February 2022 can only have come from him. As I found in my July 2022 judgment, the mother’s allegations of domestic abuse were truthful and the father’s denials of these were untruthful. The restrictions upon his relationship with the children did not come about because of the mother’s “stubborn refusal” to allow the father to spend unhindered time with the children, they came about because of the risk of physical and emotional harm to the children and to their mother as their primary carer. The mother was, I found, truthful when she described the father showing C’s penis to the paternal grandmother on a video call.

The father appeared relatively unconcerned that a false picture about these proceedings has been portrayed to the D Country prosecuting authority and to the D Country Court and has remained uncorrected. The emphasis in his evidence was of trying to create a distance between himself and the case brought by his family and prosecuted on their behalf, “I am trying to keep out myself”. He sought to blame the mother for becoming involved in the first place, “it falls on her”. He seemed largely untroubled that the mother of his children could be convicted of a criminal offence in D Country and convicted upon evidence some of which is plainly false. His response in his evidence was, essentially, ‘what about me?’, a reference to his criminal prosecution in this jurisdiction upon allegations I have already found to be true to the civil standard of proof. He seemed to regard the potential imposition of a suspended sentence of imprisonment on the mother as a relatively minor penalty and the potential loss of her career as a matter for the mother to take up with the General Medical Council.

I cannot know, of course, whether the evidence the mother presented to the D Country family court in support of her sister-in-law is entirely true or partly false. I can only say that her evidence is at least partly true. Her evidence about her relationship with the father and the paternal grandmother matches the account she gave me of events within this jurisdiction. Events that I have found to be true. In addition, I have found her overall to be a truthful witness. Equally, however, there is no evidence produced by the father to suggest that a D Country court has ever found her to be untruthful.

I have attempted to understand what the motivation could be of his family for bringing this prosecution against the mother. The father has not suggested in his evidence that his brother’s relationship with his children was ultimately impeded in any way or that his parents’ relationship with them was. He has not suggested that there was a contested hearing where the mother’s allegations were challenged in evidence. This all very much brings back into focus the breakdown in relations between the mother and paternal grandmother over the suggestion that C might have phimosis. I described (at paragraph 80 of my fact-finding judgment) that this became a point of principle for the paternal grandmother. She needed to be heard. I said, in that context, that the father needs to assert his autonomy and stand up to his parents. However, in relation to these D Country proceedings the father has not asserted his autonomy at all, on his own evidence. He has done nothing to distance himself from this process or to attempt to persuade his parents to take steps to discontinue the process. He presents himself as powerless to prevent his family’s actions when in reality he could stand up to them if he chose to.

There was, however, a darker side to the father’s evidence. He implied, indeed said, that steps could be taken to halt the D Country proceedings. He implied that this would require some wider agreement on other issues. I have no doubt that what he meant was for the mother to withdraw her support for the criminal process against him in England and allow his relationship with his children to be more ‘normal’. One of the conditions would be her withdrawal of her plan to relocate. There was a suggestion in his evidence of potential financial support from him and / or his family. This was, I find, what he meant when he suggested that mediation may provide a route out of these difficulties; when he suggested that, if only they had been able to sit down together, they would have been able to work things out. In other words, releasing the mother from the D Country proceedings would come at a substantial price.

Ms Ritson rightly raises the question of whether the D Country proceedings are being pursued as a form of coercive control of the mother. In my judgement they are. They are being used as leverage by the paternal family to secure advantage within this jurisdiction. The father has, in part, provided the ammunition to the paternal family to start this process and has done nothing to attempt to bring it to an end. He recognises, I have no doubt, the potential advantage to him should this strategy succeed.

This application by the mother is to relocate with the children to the United Arab Emirates, a country that is not a signatory to the Hague Convention 1980. I acknowledge at the very outset of this analysis, that neither Dubai nor Abu Dhabi recognise the rights of unmarried parents. Various potential routes have been suggested by Ms Tribe as to how, in particular, the Abu Dhabi Civil Family Court might be invited to exercise some form of jurisdiction over these children. She outlined the reforms that have taken place in an attempt to align the law more closely with the welfare-based jurisdiction more commonly understood by the expatriate community. Both those reforms are in their early stages and, how they would impact upon these children, if at all, is unclear. The short synopsis of her evidence is that neither the father nor the Court should rely upon there being any welfare or enforcement jurisdiction, at least for the immediate future. Ms Pomeroy is essentially right to say that the safest assumption is that should these children relocate to the UAE the father will probably not be able to assert his parental rights and responsibilities in those courts. He will, therefore, be left without a forum in which he can litigate against the mother about these children.

Ms Pomeroy’s submission was that, in essence, this is fatal to the mother’s application. The Court could not sanction any such arrangement unless coupled with other safeguards, such as the substantial security provided by the mother in Re B (above). I do not accept that submission, each case has to be considered on its own facts applying the welfare checklist. Circumstances may arise where the balancing exercise tips in favour of relocation despite the lack of any such safeguards. Indeed, it would hardly be a balancing exercise if one aspect of the evidence or the factual matrix is to assume decisive importance.

It is clearly, however, a factor that attracts considerable weight in the balancing exercise.

I have set out above a summary of the findings that I made in my July 2022 judgment. I made significant findings against the father of perpetration of domestic abuse against the mother, including physical abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour. The incidents described spanned over 5 years. They amounted to considerable violence, coercion and control and denigration of the mother. I also found that the father physically chastised C on more than one occasion, incidents that I found were likely to have taken place in frustration or temper and undoubtedly represented poor parenting by the father.

I went on to find that the level and frequency of the violence inflicted upon their mother would have had a significant impact on these children. On occasions they witnessed it. They were placed at direct risk of physical and emotional harm. The mother was rendered unavailable to comfort the children during those incidents. C had to comfort his brother. It created an atmosphere of fear and anxiety in the home. It risked inculcating in C and F a belief that arguments can be resolved through physical violence and that it was an acceptable consequence of those arguments that a woman can be hurt and that a man can impose his will against a woman through the use of physical force.

At the conclusion of my judgment (paragraph 116) I urged the father to consider carefully what I had said, to reflect upon it and to take the opportunity to ‘reset’. I made a point of emphasising some of his more positive attributes. I said I hoped that the mother’s warm description of his children’s love for him would act as a catalyst for reflection and change. I said he had much to do and think about, but also much to gain.

It is sad to consider that, in the two and a half years that have now passed, very little if anything has changed. I have considered above, and accepted, that the father has a privilege against self-incrimination and that he is entitled to exercise his right to silence. However, from the perspective of the mother and of the children, it creates an artificiality to the current situation. Their lives cannot remain in limbo, waiting until the outcome of the criminal proceedings, whether that will be in September 2026 or at some other date. Long term supervision of contact for a significant period of time (up to 8 hours) is not only artificial but carries with it the risk of breach. Events happen, as they did on 1 October 2023. That risk is accentuated when, over time, the supervisors begin to lose sight of why supervision is necessary in the first place.

As I have said, the father’s case, in reality, is based on the premise that the findings against him should be put to one side until he is in a position to address them. He does not really accept the need for supervised contact, although he can articulate the reasons for it. At every opportunity in his written evidence he pressed the point that he is available as a co-parent. He is not. He shows no appreciation of why it is currently very difficult for the mother to co-parent with him. He shows no appreciation of the link between this and his exercise of his right to silence.

The mother was and remains a victim of the father’s domestic abuse. The mother’s permanent injuries are a visible and daily reminder to her of his abuse. This remained obvious to me in the course of her evidence within these proceedings. His emotional abuse of her also continues to impact. I recall her disgust when describing him covering her with saliva, preferring that he had instead hit her. He denigrated her abilities as a mother. He failed to support her when his mother questioned her ability to provide for the health needs of her own child. The father continues to show no empathy towards the mother, on really any issue. Instead, he portrays himself as the victim.

The father continues to perpetrate, or be complicit in the perpetration of, domestic abuse on the mother. He continues to blame her, as a victim, for his own predicament. He pushes the boundaries whenever he can. He claims not to understand why his attendance at the children’s F school or school trips might be an issue for the mother. He claims not to understand why activities that are difficult to supervise properly, such as swimming, might be an issue. He has failed to take steps to attempt to prevent his family initiating and pursuing criminal proceedings in D Country against the mother, even though he is aware that the material filed in those proceedings is inaccurate.

The children were and remain victims of the father’s behaviour. Despite all that has happened in the past, the father has been unable to prevent himself losing his temper with F more recently and smacking him. As I have said, C’s account of this was compelling. The father appears to accept that C has been deeply affected by witnessing physical incidents between himself and the mother, but has never accepted primary responsibility for this. He has now exposed C to further incidents, this time with F, as well as exposing F himself to poor parenting as a victim of his temper. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, it was the mother’s description of the impact on her children which caused her to become particularly upset in her interview with Ms Ritson. In the passages I have quoted from Ms Ritson (paragraphs 84 to 87 of her report), she identifies the significant emotional harm these children have suffered and remain at risk of suffering attributable to the father’s behaviour. She highlights the potential “devastating consequences” for these children of this pattern of behaviour continuing and the potential “life-long negative impact” on them.

Although the father shows some empathy for his children having suffered emotional harm, he is unable to change his behaviour. For me, the account of the father’s reaction during the video contact in May 2024 was particularly telling. He appeared silent and angry on the screen. He questioned C in an unpleasant way. He left C feeling responsible for having told Ms Ritson what he had seen. He falsely presented the situation as one where he was the victim. Worryingly, his behaviour towards C mirrored in many ways his behaviour towards the mother.

I have acknowledged that there is some force in Ms Pomeroy’s criticisms of the lack of a choate relocation plan. However, I have also acknowledged that the length and uncertainty of these proceedings has made it difficult for the mother to set out that plan in its current form with any detail. She has already had to allow one job offer to lapse. There is little point, I accept, in confirming precise details of potential schools and medical services, etc, when the timing and location of any relocation remains uncertain.

My conclusions as to the viability of the mother’s plan are as follows:

The mother is a highly trained and experienced medical professional. I accept that from time-to-time suitable positions will arise in Dubai and in Abu Dhabi that will pay her around £216,000 p.a. tax free. I accept the mother’s evidence that she would not relocate until she had secured such a position. No responsible parent would. She is a highly responsible parent.

There is a well-established expatriate community in both locations. There are private schools and private medical services that cater to that community. The mother did provide evidence as to schooling with her initial application, that evidence may still be relevant should Dubai be her eventual location. I do not accept the father’s concern that the children would be exposed unduly to the Islamic faith at such schools. Undoubtedly, they will benefit from being educated about a range of faiths, but in any event the primary source of faith for these children will be as practised by their family at home. Arabic is a widely spoken language and exposure to this will only enhance the children’s education. On the mother’s salary she will be able to provide good schooling and health care for the children, alongside the cost of accommodation and childcare.

I acknowledge the mother’s uncertainty as to whether she wishes to relocate to Dubai or Abu Dhabi. They are not a great distance apart. The advantage of Abu Dhabi would be close proximity to her brother and his family, but Dubai would only be about 1.5 hours’ drive away and she does not wish to limit her options. Either location would enable the children to spend much more time with their uncle, aunt and cousins and would enable the maternal grandmother to divide her time more easily between her children. Much will depend on the job opportunities that are available to the mother and I do not see it as the court’s role to seek to put her to an election, when the practical difference between each location is limited.

The mother has no capital resources. She has spent her savings on litigation. The father is clear he has no capital resources to enable him to assist her in housing the children. It is agreed that he cannot presently have them to stay overnight. It is entirely reasonable for the mother to seek to improve her financial position. I accept that she cannot do this in the UK, even on a salary which considerably exceeds the national average. Establishing a private practice is difficult as the mother has outlined. Her role in the NHS is secure, but all-consuming. Renting accommodation in England is expensive as is childcare and there is the tax burden in the UK. Moving to the UAE gives the mother the opportunity to generate a tax-free income. The father is right that other costs may be higher, but overall the mother has the opportunity to save as she has outlined. Despite the heat, the children will enjoy a good standard of living in the UAE.

The mother’s plan is, in conclusion, entirely realistic and achievable.

The disadvantage of the mother’s plan is the potential impact it will have on the relationship between the children and their father. The father is unlikely to have recourse to litigation should the mother’s plans for contact change or otherwise remain unrealised. The current plan, should relocation be refused, is that the children will see their father supervised for a day alternate weekends and after school alternate Wednesdays. Should they move to the UAE they would need to spend time with their father during school holidays, either in the UK or in the UAE. The mother agrees to bring the children back to the UK for the purpose of contact.

Such a plan would require adjustment by the children and the parents. It would necessitate the appointment of a supervisor in the UAE as well as in England. Whilst this will not be problematic in England, the father suggests this will be harder in the UAE. The mother’s evidence is that she was readily able to find an ISW likely to be suitable in the UAE and would be able to find others, given the significant expatriate community. I accept that evidence. There may not be the range of alternatives there are here, but there will be options. Booking dates will require forward planning, but this is not unachievable. Suitable supervision can be identified in the UAE.

The mother has put forward in her written evidence detailed proposals as to how contact would be structured. Essentially, daily contact would take place with the father for part of each of the school holidays and half terms (so six periods over the course of a year). The contact would be both in the UK and the UAE. The father has not addressed those proposals in his evidence, so there has been no opportunity for any discussion or refinement. My impression was that the father is simply unwilling to address this issue because of his fundamental opposition to the plan. I do not criticise him for this, but equally the mother has put forward a choate plan for contact. It is hard for the father to consider the prospect that the children may be permitted to relocate, as it would be for many parents. I do not accept that he cannot be available during school holidays. He has made plans, he told me, for his practices to continue functioning should he be unavailable due to any criminal conviction, and I am sure that with some planning he can be available to see his children by making similar arrangements.

I acknowledge the father’s concerns that he would effectively be precluded from litigating about his children, but litigation is not necessarily the answer to every parental disagreement. Litigation has cost these parties about £400,000, money that no doubt would have been well spent on their children. The mother’s evidence, which I accept, coupled with her actions during these proceedings, demonstrate her commitment to promoting an ongoing relationship between the children and their father. She accepts they adore him and will not thank her for preventing a relationship continuing. Both children know their father. Whilst I understand the father’s fear, I am confident this mother will continue to promote contact whether or not litigation is an option for the father. The risk of breach of those arrangements by the mother is very low in my judgement.

The father’s case inevitably emphasises the advantages of the status quo. However, the status quo represents a somewhat abnormal situation. The father’s contact has to remain supervised for the foreseeable future. Such supervision introduces an artificiality into the relationship between the children and their father. Ms K is not their aunt, she is a professional, paid to supervise the children’s contact. It also introduces a rigidity that it is impossible to monitor or enforce across months and years. It has led to the mother continuing to be subject to coercion and control and the children to emotional abuse. The mother’s plea for geographical and emotional space and time to heal for her and the children cannot be dismissed as readily as the father suggests. In the words of Mostyn J in GT v RJ this is not a ‘well-functioning status quo’.

I turn then to consider the composite welfare checklist as identified by Williams J in V v M.

The children remain unaware of the mother’s application so their wishes and feelings have to be inferred from more general comments they make about their relationship with their father and their knowledge of the UAE. It is clear from the evidence that they have expressed the view that they want to spend longer with their father and would wish to spend time with him overnight. Given their ages, they have no understanding of why they cannot have a more ‘normal’ relationship with him. C has positive memories of the UAE but has spent limited time there. It is safe to conclude both children would be apprehensive about such a significant move and the impact on their relationship with their father alongside the inevitable change of schools and loss of friends. They would probably be apprehensive about the prospect of long gaps in contact as the mother’s plan would inevitably lead to. As Ms Ritson acknowledges, this would require adjustment. I prefer her evidence to that of Ms Norvixoxo in that the adjustment required would be significant but it is overstating it to describe it as “profound”. Ms Ritson’s evidence, and that of the mother, which I accept, is that the children would most likely be excited by the prospect of relocating with the right balanced conversations, but also reassurance that they will have video calls with their father and extended periods of direct contact in school holidays.

The children’s educational needs are being met presently, and to a high standard. I accept that they would be met to an equally high standard in the UAE, although that will come with a financial cost. The children have conventional physical needs, for example for secure housing, food, clothing and warmth. It largely falls to the mother to provide for those physical needs. She is able to do so in the UK to a good standard, although it requires her to work long hours. She will be able to do so in the UAE, potentially working fewer hours.

These children have significant emotional needs, particularly C. Those needs arise from having experienced, in a graphic way, the abuse of their mother at the hands of their father and having their own experience of his frustration and temper. They need to be protected from his behaviour. They were not protected during the course of their parents’ relationship and, despite supervision, the children have been further exposed to the father’s behaviour. By this I mean not just the episodes of smacking but the father’s attempt to cast blame on C for telling Ms Ritson about this. These children will be acutely attuned to their mother’s distress. Any continued perpetration of coercion and control upon her by the father and / or his family will likely impact on the children.

There is no doubt that the mother’s proposal would represent a significant change of circumstances for these children. I do not underestimate the cultural difference between life in England and life in the UAE. It is not just about the weather, although that is a factor. Despite the expatriate community and the significant attempts made to ‘westernise’ life there, this remains a country with different legal and moral codes and underpinned by a different religious framework. However, I do not consider the mother to underestimate or downplay the differences. After all, her brother has lived there for a considerable period of time and is bringing up his family there. The mother’s plan is, as I have said, realistic and is as choate as it can be in the circumstances.

Front and centre of the father’s opposition to relocation is the impact this will have on the time he is able to spend with the children. I do not underestimate that. Whilst the mother’s proposal enables the father to spend more concentrated time with the children during holidays, it is not the same as the more frequent time they currently spend with him. The difficulty, however, with the father’s case is that he does not put forward any development of that relationship over the months and possibly years ahead. He asks that the current somewhat artificial arrangement should remain fixed in time until such a point as he decides to address the significant findings made against him. I have never accepted the father’s contention that he cannot address those findings. He could do but instead asserts his privilege against self-incrimination. It is not fair to ask the children and their mother to put their lives on hold until such time as he takes a different course.

The mother’s proposal represents a change to the relationship between the children and their father but not a cessation of that relationship. They will see their father during school holidays. They can maintain a relationship with him though indirect contact. The change proposed does not necessarily or inevitably mean that this relationship will be damaged. These are children who have a bond with their father and will always do so.

There will be positives to the move, to counterbalance any potential negative impact on the children’s relationship with their father. The children will see much more of their maternal uncle, aunt and cousins. They are close in age to their cousins and this will afford them the opportunity to build lifelong relationships with them. Significantly, it will enable the mother to achieve a degree of empowerment and purpose and to begin to achieve some sense of healing from the abuse perpetrated by the father. There is nothing wrong with the mother’s wish to secure a better financial future for herself and her children and equally nothing wrong with her wish to creates some geographical and emotional space from the perpetrator of abuse on her and time to heal, as she describes. Allowing her to relocate will have a positive impact on her and consequentially on the children. Refusing permission will have a negative impact. She will cope and will do her best to shield the children from her disappointment, but it will mean that she remains more directly within the father’s sphere of influence and control.

These children are 9 and 4. They are both boys. They have been emotionally harmed. The father’s continued behaviour towards them and their mother risks inculcating in these children a belief that arguments can resolved through physical violence and/or that it is an acceptable consequence of arguments that a woman can be hurt. In this context the father shows no insight into the impact of his behaviour on his sons. It was insensitive of him, in the particular circumstances of the case, to buy F a punchbag toy without considering what impact that may have on a mother actively trying to correct the poor example these boys have been set by their father.

There is a risk of harm to these children in the potential severance of their relationship with their father. I am satisfied that the mother recognises this. Despite his faults, and the harm he has caused the mother and the children, the mother recognises that these children have a bond with their father which needs to be maintained and nurtured. These children know their father and will always know him. The mother’s proposals for contact are realistic and achievable with the co-operation of the father. I agree with Ms Ritson that this is a mother who will put her children first at every juncture.

The current arrangement carries with it a continuing risk of significant harm to the children as outlined by Ms Ritson. In short, it is not really working. It is not a ‘well-functioning status quo’. As Ms Ritson says, and I agree, there is a current imbalance of power and co-parenting is not possible until the father has restored trust. It is not a question of punishing the father, as Ms Pomeroy suggests, it is simply an acknowledgment of the fact that it is the father’s behaviour that has brought about where we are today. The father does not really accept the need for limitation of and supervision of his time with the children. He blames the mother for refusing to engage in co-parenting without any appreciation of why that might be. He pushes the boundaries whenever the opportunity arises and in my judgement is likely to continue to do so. No supervision can be 100% effective. This father is not always a positive influence on his children. The existence of the proceeding in D Country represents leverage to coerce the mother into allowing him the more ‘normal’ relationship he refers to in his written evidence and strongly aspires to.

Ms Ritson has set out in her evidence in clear and forthright terms the risk of harm to these children in the future. She is right to do so. The current arrangements are unable to protect them fully from the father’s behaviour. They remain at risk of emotional and physical harm. I endorse Ms Ritson’s concern about a potentially devastating lifelong impact on these children. In my judgement something needs to change.

I acknowledge, of course, that risks remain whether the contact takes place in England or the UAE or during holidays or term time. However, relocation would bring the following positive benefits to the children whether directly or through the positive impact on the mother:

This mother is fully capable of meeting the needs of her children and has always been able to do so despite the attempts by the father and his family to criticise and undermine her. This cannot more simply or effectively be stated than by Ms Ritson’s words that this is a mother that will always put her children first.

Any assessment of the capability of the father is more complex. He has the ability to meet the physical needs of his children and is able to impress others with his charm and warmth over a short period of time. However, he is prone to show frustration and temper including through physical violence. He shows little understanding of the impact of his behaviour on others, of the harm he has caused to the mother or his children or of the emotional needs of his children. He remains significantly under the control of his family and is unable to assert his autonomy from them. The patterns of his behaviour, as identified by the mother during the course of their relationship, have continued since their separation. He has not even begun to consider or reflect upon his past behaviour but has instead focussed on his privilege against self-incrimination, his portrayal of himself as a victim and his push, by whatever means are available to him, for a more ‘normal’ relationship with his children.

Alongside granting or refusing permission to relocate as sought by the mother, the court has the power to make child arrangements orders regulating the time spent by the children with their father and setting any conditions, such a supervision, upon that time. Whilst I acknowledge, as I have said, that any order I make may well not be enforceable in the UAE, there is still likely to be value in making such an order to provide a degree of certainty and limit the opportunity for dispute over those arrangements. For reasons which I have considered to be understandable, the father has not really addressed his mind to what those arrangements might look like. There will need to be an opportunity for the finer details of the arrangements to be considered by the parties and, if necessary, determined by the court.

Looking at the matter holistically there are essentially two options. First, maintaining the existing arrangement with the children living with their mother in England and spending supervised time with their father on a regular basis. Second, granting the mother permission to relocate with the children to the UAE. In that event, the children’s primary carer would remain their mother but the spending time arrangements with their father would change so that he would see the children less frequently and during the school holidays, again supervised.

The first option would very much be the preference of the father. It would enable him to preserve the existing arrangements pending such time, whether in September 2026 or some other date, when he takes steps to address the findings made by the court in July 2022. It will enable him to continue to press, in the meantime, for a greater involvement in the children’s lives. It will enable him to litigate against the mother (with the permission of the court during the currency of the agreed s.91(14) order) should the child arrangements not be satisfactory in his view. The first option would also likely represent the ascertainable wishes and feeling of the children who love their father, would be concerned about seeing him less frequently, and would be apprehensive about the enormity of a move to a foreign jurisdiction.

The second option would represent a significant change for the children, in circumstances where, as I have said, change needs to happen. It would enable the mother to break free from the father’s coercive control and that of his family. It would enable her to exert some empowerment and control over her own life. It would represent a break to the ongoing cycle of emotional harm being caused to the children. It would give geographical and emotional space and time to heal. It would enable the mother to plan for her financial future and that of her children and to fund representation in the criminal proceedings in D Country. It would enable the children to build and develop their relationships with their uncle, aunt and cousins. It would enable the maternal grandmother to share her time more equally between her children’s families. It would give the father time and space to think, reflect and reset, without asking the mother and his children to wait whilst he does so.

Importantly, the second option will still allow the children to maintain their relationship with their father. The mother is committed to this and I accept that commitment, as Ms Ritson did. The father does not need to rely on litigation to ensure the continuation of that relationship. His right to family life with his children and their right to family life with him will be protected. The mother’s plan is realistic and considered and includes contact between the children and their father. She can be trusted to make good on that plan.

Accordingly, having balanced the relevant matters and the alternative outcomes, I have decided to grant the mother’s relocation application. The welfare needs of both children are better met by permitting relocation than by refusing that order so that they remain living within this jurisdiction. Consideration of the detailed child arrangements order to be put in place will need to be adjourned to allow the father to come to terms with my decision and either accept the mother’s proposals or put forward his own proposals. Ms Tribe’s views may need to be considered on the drafting of the order. This time will enable the mother to pursue and secure a job offer which will then bring clarity as to whether the exact destination will be Dubai or Abu Dhabi. I envisage the matter returning to court, if necessary, in about 4 to 6 weeks for the making of final orders.

In the short-term, pending the mother’s relocation, contact should continue to be supervised by Ms K. She should provide full notes of that contact, at the father’s expense. She should be sent a copy of this judgment.

That is my judgment.