Amelia (A Child: Relocation), Re

I am concerned with the welfare of Amelia, a young lady of 12 years. She was born in 2011 to Grace her mother and Vincent her father. I will refer throughout this judgment to the parents as “mother” and “father”. I do so for ease and continuity of reference. I mean no disrespect to either of the parents.

Amelia is subject to a child arrangements order made on 26 March 2018. The order made provision for Amelia to live with her mother and spend time with her father on alternate weekends during holidays and at teatimes on a regular basis.

This is the final hearing of two applications:

At this hearing, the mother has represented herself. The father has been represented by Miss Buckett of counsel. This has been a difficult hearing for both parents and the options I am faced with are stark. Both parents have conducted the hearing, in my view, with dignity and moderation. I have been greatly assisted by Miss Buckett who has put her case with considerable skill.

The parties separated eight or nine years ago, although I understand they lived together for a short period post-separation to provide Amelia with a continuity of care. In 2018, a child arrangements order was made governing the amount of time that Amelia spends with both her parents. More recently, the mother says it has become difficult for her to continue to afford to live in London but has expressed a wish to move back to Northern Europe. Throughout this time, however, and since the child arrangements order application, Amelia has spent time with her father and that time has become increasingly more flexible and free. They are the essential background facts.

Amelia’s welfare is my paramount consideration. Welfare is conceived of with reference to the welfare checklist in s.1(3) of the Children Act 1989. An order is an intervention in the right of a private and family life of Amelia and her parents and therefore, the degree of intervention must be both necessary and proportionate as required by the European Convention on Human Rights. If there is a conflict between Amelia’s rights and those of her parents, Amelia’s rights necessarily prevail. As there is a child arrangements order, the application to relocate is made pursuant to s.13 of the Act and not s.8. However, the principles remain the same.

In cases of international relocation, a long line of authorities informs the approach to be taken by the court, including Re F (A Child) (International Relocation: Welfare Analysis) [2015] EWCA Civ 882, P v P [2001] EWCA Civ 166, and Re C (Internal Relocation) [2015] EWCA Civ 1305.

In V v M (Child Arrangements Order: International Relocation) [2020] EWHC 488 (Fam) (also reported as Re K), Williams J drew together the authorities to recommend that a composite checklist is adopted and applied. These factors were laid out at [50] of his judgment:

As I have said per Re C (ibid.), the approach as between s.8 or s.13, as it is here, is analogous.

It is pertinent to know that the Court of Appeal has been clear that where the future division of a child’s time with each parent is in dispute, irrespective of a relocation proposal, the court should not resolve that dispute first before considering relocation. All issues should rather be considered as one part of a holistic evaluation of the child’s welfare (L v F [2017] EWCA Civ 2121). The guidance of Thorpe LJ in the P v P case, whilst not of elevated importance over the lodestar of Amelia’s welfare is, of course, useful. That is the law I must apply in this case.

This hearing has been conducted over two days by Microsoft Teams. The matter was case managed by District Judge Rollason last in December 2022 before being listed today and yesterday. In addition to a bundle of documents, I have heard from both parents and a Cafcass officer. Although there were some technical difficulties at the start of the hearing with Grace, both the parents, the representatives, and the witnesses were able to engage with the hearing remotely.

The positions of the parties are stark. The mother wants the court’s permission to relocate to Northern Europe along with Amelia. The father opposes this. He wants Amelia to remain in the UK with him. It is not an option that the mother stays in the UK with Amelia.

I have considered a bundle of documents stretching to 240 pages. In addition, I have considered position statements filed on behalf of both parties. The evidence includes a number of statements from both parents and a Cafcass report dated 13 December 2022. I have also heard live evidence from the mother, the father, and Karen Dunstan of Cafcass, the welfare officer. It is not possible in the course of this short judgment to refer to every strand of evidence that I have read and heard. I have read everything. I have listened intently. I have noted the evidence down faithfully. I will refer in this judgment to the evidence as I consider it to be relevant. If I do not mention a particular source of evidence or thread of evidence, that does not mean that I have not considered it and weighed it in the balance.

I have the benefit of a welfare report prepared by Karen Dunstan of Cafcass dated 13 December 2022. In that report, the welfare officer went through her enquiries which included considering the written evidence filed by the parents, an interview with both parents, enquiries with the school, and the extended family of the mother.

The welfare officer met the child and the parents together at the Cafcass offices. She described Amelia as an intelligent and deep-thinking girl. It was clear from this report that Amelia wanted to remain in the UK. She described having a good relationship with her dad. She said her dad shares her humour, but her mum is more mature and serious which perhaps reflects the mother’s role as the primary carer for Amelia’s living memory. Amelia described herself as half Northern European, half Central European, but says, fundamentally, she is English:

The Cafcass officer described the conversation with Amelia about her paternal family:

One additional and very important person to Amelia is Eliza, her half-sister. The Cafcass officer recorded in her report the words of Amelia:

Amelia does not want to go to Northern Europe. She told the welfare officer:

She then says:

In respect of her recommendations, the welfare officer noticed as follows:

In cross-examination, the Cafcass officer was asked about the family networks available to Amelia in Northern Europe. She said she could benefit from living in Northern Europe. The route to this conclusion was the interview with Amelia and the impact of the change of the feeling that she is English, although she embraces her Central and Northern European heritage. She also takes into account the fact she has a sister in London. The Cafcass officer acknowledged that close relationships would be impacted nevertheless if she moved to Northern Europe. Having read that report, in my view, the report could have made it clear that whichever way this goes, she will lose out. If she is in Northern Europe, she will lose out on what she is used to with the whole of her life but if she is in London, she will lose out with a relationship with her mother.

She was asked about Amelia going through puberty and menstruation. She had equal confidence that both of the parents could parent Amelia appropriately with regards to her menstruation and her development into womanhood. In essence, the Cafcass officer reflected and based her conclusions on Amelia’s wishes and feelings. Her preference was to not have a change. Amelia was happy in London. She had friends. She had a school. She said, as I have already quoted, “Why would I change something I am happy with?”

The welfare officer identified that the tension between the parents affects Amelia. She said that the wider conversation really showed that she is able to see other people’s opinions and could not just take into account her opinions but thinks about what other people think of her as well. That was evidenced in the fact that she referred to the mother as passive aggressive and then bolstered that impression by giving examples. So it is clear that the welfare officer considers Amelia’s wishes and feelings to be properly stated and understood.

The welfare officer has undertaken, in my view, a thorough enquiry of Amelia’s prima facie wishes and presented them within her assessment. I am clear that her analysis is largely, if not wholly, underpinned by that assessment of Amelia’s wishes and feelings. The welfare officer’s essential point is: why change what is not broken? This is presented in detail and based, in my view, on Amelia’s plainly expressed wish.

Although the welfare officer weighs in detail the losses experienced by Amelia if she were moved to Northern Europe, there is little comparable analysis of the loss of Amelia’s relationship with her mother if she were to remain in the UK. I accept that Eliza is very important to Amelia and, indeed, that she will pine for her father but the mother, in my judgment, represents the one thread of stability that Amelia has enjoyed in her short life. They have never lived apart. The mother has been a consistent figure through a life of change. The breakdown of her parents’ relationship and the adjustment that comes with that. Although Amelia is able to give her wishes and feelings as she may perceive them, and accept that she said what she said, Amelia is, in my judgment, unable to reflect on a loss of such significant magnitude.

The welfare officer’s task within the report was to provide a key counterbalance for the losses that would result from either possibility I am faced with, either of which, in my view, represent great change. She has failed to do this. There is, in addition, a failure to note that the conduit/the glue between Amelia and Eliza is largely the mother. Although Eliza spends time with her father and Amelia enjoys this, and no doubt would enjoy this if she lived there, I cannot escape the fact that the mother has an excellent relationship with Eliza’s own mother, and she frequently arranges for time to be spent with the girls away from the father. I reject the suggestion that a move to Northern Europe will result in the cessation of that relationship. Every thread of evidence from the past suggests that the mother takes the relationship between Amelia and Eliza seriously and will continue to promote this.

In addition, in my view, the welfare officer’s report lacks any comparative analysis of the different options. The welfare officer seems to have looked to Amelia herself to provide an evidence base of what her life would be like rather than scrutinise the statements in this case where the options for Amelia are clearly set out. The welfare officer said in her assessment:

In my view, that is inadequate. The welfare officer should have teased the considerable benefits out of the evidence and weighed them fully. The welfare officer was wrong to rely on Amelia to expose and weigh those benefits. I accept that, in evidence, the welfare officer was much less circumspect about the benefits of Northern Europe in terms of schooling and family but these, regrettably, did not appear in her analysis.

I am therefore led to the conclusion that the welfare officer’s report contains, in my judgment, a fatal poverty of analysis in respect of the losses that Amelia is likely to face either way and a comparison of the options, and does not, in my view, provide a reliable touchstone of evidence upon which I can safely rely.

The mother has filed a litany of statements within the proceedings. In her first statement of August 2023, she explained that she wished to move to Northern Europe for the following reasons:

The mother explained in her evidence that she wanted to relocate to a city in Northern Europe. Here, she would live in a three-bedroomed apartment with Amelia and her partner. She says her partner’s support in supporting the mother’s care of Amelia would be very helpful. The mother has mapped out comprehensively accommodation and schooling at an international school that would teach Amelia English, and her two other native languages, in addition to other languages, matching Amelia’s aptitude for learning languages.

The mother’s position is that regardless of my decision about Amelia, she will move to Northern Europe. She explained in oral evidence yesterday that this decision is driven by her struggling in London. She told me that she needs to live near London for work yet is faced with exorbitant costs that are now manifestly unaffordable when one factors in childcare. She told me this has affected her ability to keep her job. She told me that, in addition, their pet, a farm cat Leo has already moved to Northern Europe and will join them soon.

Miss Buckett explored a number of relevant issues in her incisive and moderate cross-examination. It was put to the mother that she discussed the court proceedings with Eliza’s mother whilst Amelia and Eliza were in another room. It was put to the mother that childcare was no longer required now that Amelia spends some time alone. I say, as I did to Miss Buckett, that I did not consider this to be an attractive point. Plainly, Amelia requires proper care and supervision at her age.

The mother gave emotive evidence about the position she was in and her reasons why she wanted to move. It was obvious to me in her evidence how much she adores her daughter and how sad that she was that she feels so unsupported. She feels, in effect, that her hand has been forced. She gave an account of the financial situation that she is now in. I did at that point stop cross-examination because I considered that this point had been adequately covered in live evidence, dealt with in submissions prepared by the mother.

When challenged on Amelia’s resilience, the mother was quick to point out that Amelia has experienced a number of transitions. A house move, a school move from primary to secondary school with the adjustment in social networks that this brings, and a transition to living in a blended family and parents with new partners. I did not get the sense from the mother, and this concords with the Cafcass analysis, that Amelia was anything other than resilient and able to combat change. This line of questioning, however, was of limited value because whatever I do in this case will necessitate some change. It is, in fact, a question of nature and degree.

It was put to the mother that there was limited experience of Amelia being taught in her mother’s language although this is not correct. The mother explained to me that Amelia is adept at being taught in the mother’s native language having been given immersive language lessons over some time. The mother was criticised in cross-examination for her decision to seek a therapist to support Amelia. It was put to her that this was a cynical act designed to undermine the Cafcass involvement in the case. The mother said, however:

She told me that she was an adopted person herself and that she wanted Amelia to understand her options and why the mother might be moving. The mother explained that she did not want Amelia to feel abandoned and she explained that she had hid the financial motivation for moving out of shame and embarrassment.

The mother made an application at the start of this hearing to introduce a report from the therapist into evidence. I did not consider that this was fair as it was not evidence that could be treated as expert evidence or treated as evidence under Part 25 to the Family Procedure Rules. There was no opportunity for the father to cross-examine the author on the report and, in fact, the court had directed a welfare report to understand, amongst other things, Amelia’s wishes and feelings.

I do not need to rely on that report when formulating a welfare analysis. I do, however, place some reliance on the fact the therapist was sought and the description of the work. Both the mother and Miss Buckett made something of this in submissions. I do not place any reliance and have placed any opinion evidence or recommendations contained within that report out of my mind.

The father considers that the mother is acting cynically. In the position statement filed by Miss Buckett, it says this:

I consider this allegation to be unfounded. Firstly, the therapist sought was an art therapist who was both HCPC and BAAT accredited. I have confidence that an accredited and regulated therapist would not allow themselves to be used in an orchestrated attempt to pressurise a child. Second, the reason for the referral describes the work being there to assist Amelia coping with emotions. This is credible against the Cafcass report being filed that plainly painted Amelia as split in her loyalties. It is obvious that Amelia was undergoing a period of anguish. Finally, Amelia’s worries about being abandoned chimed with the mother’s own life story and I have sympathy with the fact that mother, in all likelihood, would want to prevent Amelia from experiencing similar emotions of rejection and abandonment.

For those reasons, I reject the suggestion that the mother has behaved cynically with the instruction of a therapist. I am satisfied that it was in good faith, if not a slightly clumsy attempt to help Amelia come to terms with the magnitude of the changes she may be facing. Evidentially, of course, that does not matter for the Cafcass report. As the welfare officer noted, this therapeutic involvement postdated her assessment and, therefore, did not impact the report. I reject the argument as it seemed to be thought that this was a source of pressure in the preparation of that assessment.

The mother also denied that she had pressured Amelia. She explained that the welfare report had been left out on a coffee table in December 2023 shortly after it was received. The mother told me that she had been unwell and the report was left out carelessly. I do consider this to be very unfortunate and this has undoubtedly raised the temperature of the proceedings as Amelia was plainly nervous about going against the mother’s wishes. Even though Amelia was bound to be curious about the proceedings and the plans for her future, it was, in my very clear view, not appropriate for her to have access to the documents within the proceedings. To her credit, the mother accepts this. I was concerned at conversations reported by the welfare officer that the mother and Amelia discussed Northern Europe. Again, I accept that it is hard for the mother to delineate her own plans and experience from that of Amelia’s and that there is an inevitable degree of crossover. However, it is also plain to me from those conversations and from the mother’s own evidence that Amelia, in my view, has been overexposed to the brunt of these proceedings.

I do not find that this has been done maliciously or with any attempt to pressure Amelia as has been suggested by the father in his evidence. There is no evidence that the mother has set out to do this. I am, however, satisfied that the mother has shared and an inappropriate amount of information with Amelia about the proceedings. I do not agree with the welfare officer that this was “unkind”. I would say it was clumsy.

That aside, however, and overall, I found the mother’s evidence to be emotive and compelling. She had clearly considered each aspect of Amelia’s existence in Northern Europe with care and saw benefits for both her and Amelia together. I formed the impression that she took the relationship between Amelia and her father very seriously and she had given thought and consideration into the practicalities of that relationship.

Father has filed three statements in the proceedings and gave live evidence. The father reflects in his written evidence on the strong bonds between him and Amelia and the ties that Amelia has to London, her schooling, and her social life. It is clear that the father worries for the future of those ties. Within two paragraphs of his first statement, he expresses the view that:

Father reflects in all of his statements on the ties that keep Amelia to London. The father concludes through his statements that the mother is putting her needs above those of Amelia in making the proposals that she has.

In evidence, father told me that the arrangements from the 2018 order had broadly stayed the same, although they had become freer and less constrained. In cross-examination, the father told me he does not live with his partner Velma at present. He said they live separately but they plan to converge. He told me:

In cross-examination, the father was asked about the situation with Eliza. He explained that he was only ever allowed to see her six hours per week on a Sunday and she was not allowed to stay overnight. The father told me that the relationship between him and Eliza’s mother was at a low ebb and was fraught with tension. He agreed that the relationship was strained and that he had issued a C100 it to apply for a child arrangements order to increase the time spent with Eliza. I am concerned that resorting to litigation may be a destructive step for that relationship. Whether his request for a 4-year-old to stay at his home overnight is realistic is not a question for me but this does not give me confidence in the ability of the father to act as a glue from Eliza and Amelia’s relationship.

It was obvious through the father’s cross-examination and his evidence that his feelings about the mother are likewise fraught with tension. It is the father’s position that the mother is unfortunately motivated, in part, to reduce his relationship with Amelia and, in part, to satisfy the mother’s wishes rather than Amelia’s best interests. He was preoccupied with this ill-feeling in his evidence. I asked him about the arrangements. He said this:

This was in response, however, to a very simple and unrelated question. Likewise in his evidence he says this:

In his evidence, the father used words such as “alienation” and “isolation” to describe the situation he was in. I see absolutely no evidence that his relationship with Amelia is anything other than absolutely superb but, in spite of this, the father has attacked the mother and her choice to move abroad. He did not seem able to empathise with her position at all. When asked to describe the impact of abandonment, he brought it back to himself.

What is his fear? His fear is that the relationship between him and Amelia would be ruined, but Amelia has an excellent relationship with him. This simply would not have happened as Amelia has grown up with relatively infrequent contact without the support of the mother. It is inherently unlikely, in my judgment, that the mother has been anything other than highly supportive of the relationship between Amelia and her father. Amelia adores her father. She speaks very highly of him. She aligns herself to his humour and his personality. It is simply not true to suggest that there is any track record of alienation in this case or isolation. Amelia knows her father and is in regular touch with him through a number of media. I see no reason why this will not continue. I reject the suggestion as made in evidence that the father’s relationship will be fractured. I am of the view that this may be more infrequent but of no less quality. In fact, Amelia is more likely to have the father’s undivided attention during bouts of contact than at the moment.

Having heard the father’s evidence and having reflected upon the ability of the mother to promote the relationship between Amelia and her father, I wish I could say the same about the father. In my view, however, the father’s ill-feeling and mistrust towards the mother shone through his evidence. In my view, this has clouded his objectivity and he was unable to realise the advantages of Northern Europe or, indeed, recognise any of them. He thought the only advantage was about a relationship with mother. He then said he wanted to provide a balanced view before speaking negatively and bringing it back to him but he has, in my view, allowed his own negative view of the mother to cloud a proper assessment of the advantages of moving to Northern Europe. That the father could not bring himself to do this in his evidence, in my judgment, speaks volumes.

I am particularly troubled by the father’s contention that the mother is motivated by her own and not Amelia’s interests, as if these two things can be surgically extracted from the other. Amelia and mother’s interests, in my view, are inextricably linked. Amelia’s welfare should be viewed as relational. The mother is Amelia’s primary carer and her only primary carer in living memory. Amelia’s well-being is undoubtedly affected by the capacity of that primary carer. The parents separated eight to nine years ago and lived apart sometime after that. I find the father’s view that the situation can simply be artificially extracted to be completely unrealistic.

I found his evidence to be sincere and compelling but, sadly, shortsighted. I have no doubt that he loves his daughter. I have absolutely no doubt that he wants desperately to remain living in the same country as her but I am concerned that this ill-feeling towards the mother affects my essential ability to have confidence in his ability to promote the role of the mother. My overriding feeling after listening to his evidence is that he was angry with the mother, that he remains ill-feeling about mother, and that is a powerful intoxicant.

I turn to the welfare checklist. In doing so, I have regard to the questions and challenges laid down by Williams J.

I accept that Amelia’s clearly expressed views, wishes, and feelings are that she remains in the UK. I accept that she loves both her parents very much and finds the situation where she is being asked to choose to be invidious. Amelia appears irritated by her mother and her wish to move abroad, and is able to engage in these questions. The welfare officer rationalised this in her evidence:

I have to consider, however, whether these are authentic and informed wishes. I am not satisfied, for the reason I have already expressed, that Amelia can or has properly engaged with the magnitude of the question she was being asked, i.e. separation from the only primary carer she has in living memory. I respect her desire for the status quo and I understand this completely but I am simply not persuaded that Amelia has articulated or been challenged on what, in my view, would be a potentially catastrophic loss of her only living memory carer from her everyday life. Wishes and feelings are not determinative anyway but, for that reason, I am cautious when I rely on what Amelia tells the Cafcass officer.

Both parents can meet Amelia’s physical needs. Amelia’s educational needs are being met in London at present. They could also be met in a city in Northern Europe. Her educational needs are significant. By that I mean she is a bright girl. She speaks three languages. She requires a level and quality of education that can stimulate her very obviously significant intellect.

In terms of her emotional needs, she needs, in my view, the consistency that stability brings to her. The mother has provided that throughout her whole life. Save and except for overexposure to information about this case, there is little, in fact nothing, that can be said to criticise the mother’s ability to meet Amelia’s needs.

The father is an unknown. He can meet Amelia’s emotional needs in the short-term and their interactions and bond are of good quality but I have no base of evidence to draw upon when assessing the father’s ability to recognise and support Amelia’s emotional needs on a day-to-day basis. Indeed, and very concerningly, when I asked the father to consider the question of abandonment and how Amelia might experience that, I do not consider the father was able to engage in that at all.

Amelia’s emotional needs are also met by her wider family. The mother’s parents are an hour or so away from the mother’s home city in Northern Europe which would be accessible easily. They are in their 80s. Amelia loves them dearly. The father’s parents are in Central Europe. The father loves them dearly and so does Amelia. She loves visiting them. Grandparents play a huge part in a child’s emotional and social development. The father’s parents are always, however, and would remain, a flight away. It seems to me that there is an advantage to have at least one set of grandparents within a short distance.

The father has raised questions about the mother’s ability to promote him in Amelia’s life. I do not consider this to be an issue. As I have explained, that her bond with her father is so strong is that testament to the mother’s ability to support this relationship. On the contrary, however, I consider that the mother’s relationship with Amelia would be harmed by her staying with the father. I do not consider at present that the father has shown an ability to extract his own ill-feeling from his evidence and, in all likelihood, therefore his parenting. I consider that there is a very real risk that the father may allow this ill-feeling to permeate his interactions with Amelia.

Whatever I do in this case there will be a change. Amelia will either move to Northern Europe and have her ties to education and family strained or broken, or she will move in with her father and have her most significant relationship strained. She will have to contend with either parent with the challenge of a further partner. She will have to adjust to a new style and form of parenting and home environment.

It has been said that Northern Europe is untested. How will she settle into school? How will she settle into a flat? How will she settle into an environment that is not her own? However, likewise, the father’s care is, to some extent, untested. How will she settle into his full-time care? How will she cope with the loss of a day-to-day figure in her life? Can the father be trusted to support that therapeutically and appropriately? How will she adjust to a new partner? Will she see Eliza less given that the mother, and not the father, is, in my view, the real conduit, with the father’s time with Eliza limited practically and by his poor relationship with her own mother? Her housing will change. She will have to adjust to new accommodation. I do not consider that either of the options are unsuitable. Her schooling will change. The quality of schooling is equivalent but, of course, she will lose her friends if she moves to Northern Europe or certainly those friendships will become harder to maintain. However, I note both parents’ description of Amelia as adaptable and resilient. She can and will, in my view, absorb change. She can socialise with ease and make friends. Her capacity to do that is well-established as she has just moved schools.

How realistic is the plan in being implemented as conceived? Very realistic. In fact, there is certainty from the mother’s plan as to living, schooling, and wraparound care. The mother has proposed, in my view, a realistic and well thought through plan in terms of Amelia’s existence. Likewise, Amelia’s schooling and living arrangements in London are a certain but there is a lack of wraparound care which places an extra burden on the father and his partner and a limited support network of other adults who have other children and busy lives. There will, in my view, be a very positive effect on the mother’s ability to provide Amelia with the enduring quality of care that she requires in Northern Europe. I cannot say the same about the father in the UK. This is not to say that I do not think the father would manage but, likewise, the mother’s proposal is by far the most attractive option.

The impact on the left behind parent if Amelia moves to Northern Europe will be significant but this can be ameliorated, in my view, with regular, good quality contact and free and direct contact with the father and his family on WhatsApp and video call. This can be done in a way that is culturally sensitive, including by conversing in the father and Amelia’s shared language. As Amelia gets older and wants to spend more time with her friends and less with her family, this will also allow her to maintain vital ties with her father and enjoy a social life at the same time.

The impact on the mother of the loss of Amelia will, in contrast, be devastating. This may affect the relationship between the mother and Amelia as Amelia gets older and her ability to provide care to Amelia at the moment and meet her needs, or even, frankly, engage in the relationship in the short-term. There is a risk that all those things, in my view, could be compromised. That would be completely antithetical to Amelia’s welfare.

In respect of the loss of contact with the father, although this will reduce in frequency, it will increase, I hope, in quality. There will be more regular contact. The father’s wider family are in Central Europe and not in the UK and therefore, as I have said, they remain they remain a flight away. So, there will be little to no impact on Amelia’s ability to maintain relationships with her grandparents. However, in Northern Europe, she will gain a maternal family just a short distance away. She will benefit from regular and incidental contact with her treasured grandparents and her wider family.

The only relevant factor here is that Amelia is a young lady. She is starting her period. Both the mother and father, in my view, are able to support this, encourage good hygiene, and assist Amelia in starting on this journey to womanhood.

How secure is the relationship now and how likely is it to endure and thrive if the child moves? The relationship between Amelia and her father is very secure. It is entrenched and I have every confidence it will endure if she moves to Northern Europe. Amelia sees a lot of herself in the father. She loves his company and enjoys his humour. As I have said, they communicate through a variety of media and I have no reason to consider that this will not continue. This has blossomed in spite of the fact that she has been living with her mother. I am satisfied, for the reasons I have explained already, that this could not have happened without the support of the mother. Cafcass says very clearly she loves both of her parents but if she were in Northern Europe and chatter about the father continued, this would grind her down. However, I reject that. There is absolutely no evidence of this happening in the past. In fact, the relationship could not be better.

The relationship between Amelia and her mother is excellent. Amelia sees the mother as a more mature and strict parent which may be because she does the majority of the day-to-day parenting. I am concerned, as I have said, however, by the father’s attitude towards the mother and the likelihood, as I see it, that the father would allow this conflict to permeate into his parenting. In my view, this may damage the mother and Amelia’s relationship.

The relationship with Eliza is very important. As I have explained, I consider the mother and not the father to be the reason for this. The mother has an excellent relationship with Eliza’s mother, and they arrange visits and incidental contact. That is not in any way to diminish the father but his relationship with Eliza is constrained and controlled. For the reasons I have expressed, I consider the mother is the conduit and therefore the glue and can perhaps improve over time. I have no doubt that this will continue if Amelia moves to Northern Europe.

In terms of harm from change, the welfare officer said in her evidence:

However, I have already explained when considering change I reject this analysis. The history of change for Amelia suggests she is resilient and able to withstand change. She can blossom in periods of change. The changes she faces applies to both parents equally and this is one further aspect in which I found the Cafcass analysis to be lacking.

The relationship between Amelia and her grandparents will extend and develop. This cannot be said of the paternal grandparents who will remain a flight away, although the option that Amelia remains in the UK would not improve that either, and, in my view, Central Europe is no more or less accessible from a nearby Northern European airport as it is from a London airport.

How realistic are the proposals for maintaining contact? In my view, the proposals for maintaining contact with the father are realistic. The father is able to visit Northern Europe and there are well thought out plans for Amelia to visit the UK. She will be supported by the mother in doing this. The mother will be financially freer and better off to financially support contact and trips abroad.

In terms of other harm, I have already identified the risk of being exposed to conflict if she lives with her father. Amelia was described as being worried about the impact of the move on her mother and this, paired with an exposure to further conflict, would, in my view, be destructive to Amelia’s welfare.

That Amelia is so resilient and well-mannered is testament to the parenting ability of both the parents. There are no welfare issues in terms of either of their parenting. There is no evidence that the mother or father cannot meet Amelia’s needs. The mother has done this well. Cafcass expressed the view that I accept, that the father would do this capably.

Is the application to relocate wholly, or in part, motivated by a desire to exclude or limit the left behind parent’s role? In my view, it is not. It is clear that the mother is worried about desolation. She is genuine. Her position is that she would go regardless and that says to me that she views this as a necessity. I have explained why I consider the father’s position to be unfounded that the mother is intent on harming the relationship between him and Amelia. The mother has been a support for this relationship, and it is right that that is recognised fully in this judgment.

Is the left behind parent’s opposition to the move genuine, or is it motivated by some desire? The father’s opposition is not malign. It is genuine. He loves his daughter. He is angry with the mother but he has allowed this to permeate his decision-making. However, in my view, his opposition to a move is not out of a desire to control. It is not malign. It is pure and simple sadness.

Will the parent be better able to care for the child in a new country rather than England? What role can the left behind parent play in the future? The father can play a full role in Amelia’s life. I have outlined how this can be done. I have outlined my conclusions and reasons as to why the mother will be able to provide Amelia with a better level of security, stability, and care in Northern Europe.

I have to make an order. The parents do not agree and so I have to give effect to my welfare analysis. I can make a direction that the mother obtains a mirror order in the country in Northern Europe, a signatory, of course, to the 1996 Hague Convention and so reciprocal enforcement will be no issue. I have no doubt that this order will be respected in that jurisdiction.

Tying these threads together, it is, in my judgment, overwhelmingly in Amelia’s welfare interests to move to Northern Europe with her mother. The balance falls firmly and wholly on that side. The losses she suffers can be well compensated and I am satisfied that she will continue to thrive in her mother’s capable care. There must be regular contact between father and Amelia. This must be direct and indirect.

My order is therefore as follows:

For the reasons I have outlined, that is my judgment.