Before :
DJ Barrie
Between :
X | Applicant |
- and - | |
Y | Respondent |
Edward Lamb KC (instructed by Moss Fallon) for the Applicant
Nick Goodwin KC (instructed by Vardags) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 19/20 June 2025
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 10 July 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives
I am concerned with the welfare of two children: R (aged 12) and S (aged 11). Their mother is X, whom I shall refer to as “the mother”, and their father is Y, whom I shall refer to as “the father”. I hope they will not mind this shorthand.
I am seized with the mother's application issued on 28 September 2023 for a specific issue order seeking permission to relocate internally to the Southwest and for determination as to which schools the children should attend. The father cross- applied on 16 January 2024. He seeks a joint “lives with” order and an increase in the children’s time with him to achieve an equal shared care arrangement on a 7/7 alternating pattern.
At the first hearing before me on 17 January 2024, I directed the preparation of a section 7 report by 24 April 2024. Due to delay, the court and parties agreed that an independent social worker (ISW) would be appointed in place of Cafcass, and Mx Baker was instructed as the single joint expert. I also directed the filing of witness statements and incorporated a six-week stay to allow the parties to consider the ISW report and attempt to reach agreement.
The existing arrangements were maintained namely that the children spend alternate weekends with the father from Friday to Monday, and weekly overnight contact from Thursday to Friday.
The mother’s initial application, as set out in her witness statement dated 02 February 2024, focused primarily on the perceived benefits to the children of attending boarding school. She sought permission to relocate internally to either Surrey, Sussex, or Berkshire. She cited improved quality of life, a larger home, and proximity to extended family following her remarriage to Z in February 2020 with whom she shares two children, P and Q.
The mother proposed a list of eight potential boarding schools, all located outside London. She asserted that such schools place greater emphasis on mental wellbeing and stability than London schools. She contended that boarding would best meet the
children’s emotional needs, though she acknowledged it was unlikely one school could accommodate both children’s differing needs.
The father’s witness statement dated 27 February 2024 opposed boarding and put forward three alternative pairings of day schools within London. He suggested a 7/7 shared care pattern.
The ISW report was duly filed and made the following recommendations:
In my opinion, the situation that R and S currently enjoy in respect of where they live, and the time spent with each of their parents is already essentially a shared care arrangement.
In my opinion, the children’s experience is that both Mr X and Ms Y look after them and that they have two homes. I recommend that 2 nights be added to current fortnightly arrangement, in which the children are in Mr X’s care.
In my opinion, the effect of the proposed change on the children, on Mr X’s application, would likely be minimal as they already seem to experience the arrangement as one of shared care, in which they have two homes and in which all four adults in their lives, including Mr X, Ms Y and both their partners, participate in their care.
If the parties agree this change by consent or if the court makes a joint ‘to lives with’ Order including the additional days I have recommended, I propose that the parties negotiate the details of the new schedule with the assistance of their solicitors or in mediation. They will have to continue working together as they have done in the past for several years to come – for example, when it comes to school holiday schedules, so this should start now.
For the avoidance to doubt, however, I recommend that the court make a joint ‘to lives with’ Order, reflecting the above change.
I recommend that Ms Y and Mr X split the school holidays equally but that they should also be flexible. Before either party makes firm plans, they should make enquiries with the other and endeavour to accommodate one another’s reasonable requests if possible. It might be helpful to make a general holiday plan at the start of each school year.
In my opinion, despite Ms Y’s reassurances, her proposed relocation would have a significant impact on the time the children spend with their father. If the children relocated, it would eliminate the time they spend with Mr X during the week and require a great deal of travel back and forth if they are to visit him at all at their home in London. Mr X’s work schedule already limits the number of school events and meetings he can attend, and such a move would also put in more barriers to this aspect of his participation.
In my opinion, Ms Y’s resistance to the idea of equal shared care, is seemingly at odds with her preferred option of boarding school for both children, an option that would in fact see the children spending less time at either home. And as such, they would spend significantly less time
with both of their parents. However, Ms Y would at least have the benefit of being in the local area of the school(s), and the girls would have far less of a journey to be “home” with her. Her home would inevitably become the children’s primary residence. If it was already the case that the children lived primarily with Ms Y and only spent time with Mr X, that might make sense.
In my opinion, however, this is not the experience of the children – nor is it their wish. And it is not the way the children’s school views Mr X’s participation in the children’s live either. Mr X is not just a “weekend dad” who mostly just pays for things. But Ms Y’s proposals would, in my opinion, turn him into just that. Therefore, I do not recommend that Ms Y’s application to relocate R and S to the southwest should be granted.
In my opinion, the children’s attachment relationship with their father is more important than the choice of school for either child. I do not think I am the best professional to provide definitive advice about schooling, i.e., to advise as to exactly which school provision would be best for which child. But I consider that the choices available for both children within London to be plentiful and satisfactory, especially given their father’s commitment to paying for independent schools. In my opinion, there are also likely state schools or other specialist schools that could be considered for S. I am reassured by the children’s current headmistress that she will support the family in looking widely at all available options. The headmistress agreed with me that the parents need not be confined to just the list of independent schools that is before the court for S. The children’s headmistress stated to me that the school are “waiting on this decision,” so they can move forward with assisting the family in finalising school choices for the children.
In my opinion, this is an indication that the parties should endeavour to resolve this matter as soon as possible.
In my opinion, R and S’s basic care, emotional developmental and educational needs are met to a high standard in the care of both Ms Y and Mr X, with the additional assistance of each of their partners.
In my opinion, there should be no doubt that both Mr X and Ms Y have S and R’s best interests at heart in their decision-making, their disagreements about the specific issues in question in the proceedings notwithstanding.
In my opinion, there is no evidence that the children have suffered or are at risk of harm in the care of either Ms Y or Mr X. I can positively note that R and S present as much less aware of and disturbed by the disagreements between their parents than most children I interview in similar circumstances. Both children acknowledged that they had been witness to their parents arguing in the past, for example, but this was not something they indicated had happened often. And they appeared open, casual, and relaxed with me when I met with them. Despite being aware of some of their parents’ opposing views, there
was no indication to me that the children have been placed under undue pressure by either parent.
In my opinion, the main reason, the children expressed the opinions that they did, is likely because they prefer a status quo in which they already feel comfortable and secure, and because these are in fact their genuine views on the questions at hand.
I recommend that Mr X and Ms Y should endeavour to keep all communications between them civil and free from harsh language, both in front of the children or in written or telephone communication. I recommend that Mr X and Ms Y should always inform the other where the children are when they are on holiday or any other travel. It would be helpful if they could agree times in advance that the children will phone or contact the other parent.
I recommend that Mr X and Ms Y take full responsibility themselves, for copying in the other parent on all communications with professionals regarding the children. If they receive a communication from a professional, they should either immediately forward this to the other parent or copy them into any reply.
I recommend that Mr X and Ms Y take pro-active responsibility for including each other in any communication with other parents or in relation to social or extra-curricular activities in relation to the children, including parent WhatsApp groups. If one parent receives an invitation to a group or party, or learns that the children are required to attend an event that falls within the other parents’ time, they should immediately forward all relevant information to the other parent, so that they can reply and plan.
At the Dispute Resolution Appointment on 19 June 2024, the mother confirmed a significant shift in her position: she no longer pursued relocation and agreed to consider London-based schools. She accepted that any future move would need to support a reasonable commute to both parents' homes but hoped to enjoy “quasi country living”.
I directed updated witness statements and identified the remaining live issues: (1) whether to increase the children’s time with their father in line with the ISW’s recommendation and (2) the identity of the schools each child should attend.
At the pre-trial review on 01 May 2025, DJ Cronshaw determined that the only oral evidence at the final hearing would be from Mx Baker, followed by submissions.
In the mother’s second witness statement dated 24 April 2025 she proposed that R attend School C, a school outside London. For S, she proposed School D (also not in London) and School E in Richmond.
The mother opposed any increase in time with the father, principally citing the impact on the children’s relationships with their younger half-siblings, S’s separation anxiety, and the stability and success of the current arrangements, which had been in place since 2017.
The father's second statement reiterated his preferences: School F for R and School G for S, with School H and School J as alternatives, the father proposed School K for R as a strong third option given it is an excellent fit for R and she is currently on a “occasional place interest” list. The father emphasised pairing of schools was deliberate to aid travel logistics and facilitate parental engagement in school events. He raised concerns about the impracticality of the mother's proposals due to distance, uncertainty around E’s facilities and SEN provision, and the inconsistency of relying on separation anxiety and family time as a basis for opposing shared care, given the original proposal for boarding.
The final hearing was listed for two days. The bundle exceeded 1000 pages, containing substantial material including parenting app. records and inter-party correspondence. While much of it was peripheral, I reviewed both the core and supplemental bundle.
I heard helpful oral evidence from Mx Baker, the ISW, who confirmed and elaborated upon their report. Mx Baker was a measured and child-focused witness, clearly familiar with the case dynamics. Although their report was now over a year old, Mx Baker was able to update their views and commended the parents for reaching agreement over holiday contact, which has been shared equally since summer 2024.
Mx Baker did not support the view that the father has been historically less involved in the overall care of the children; enquiries with the school and the children themselves confirmed otherwise. Mx Baker was struck by the parents’ improved communication and their success in shielding the children from conflict. They remarked positively on the children’s ability to express themselves freely, supported by both parents.
Mx Baker confirmed that their recommendation for increased time with the father was based on the merits of the shared care model and not dependent on school
choice. Mx Baker noted the mother’s case had evolved substantially, at times appearing contradictory: initially advocating for boarding (implying significant separations), and later opposing increased time on the basis of separation anxiety and lack of time as a family.
Mx Baker described the proposed two additional nights per fortnight as a “modest adjustment” and opined that the equal division of holidays since 2024 likely positioned the children well to adapt. They found the children’s wishes had been clearly and accurately obtained and emphasised that both parents encouraged the children to speak their minds.
Mx Baker did not feel it necessary to provide a recommendation on specific school choices, save to confirm that both schools must be London-based, reflecting the children’s strong preferences and to ensure the father’s relationship with them was not marginalised.
Decision
I am pleased that the following issues are now agreed:
There shall be a joint “lives with” order.
Holidays shall be shared equally.
February and May half-terms shall alternate.
The children shall each transition to their new school in Year 9, remaining at their current school until then.
The remaining matters for determination are:
Whether the children should spend an additional two nights per fortnight with their father, and if so, how should the additional days be managed; and
The identity of the school each child should attend.
Analysis
What began as an application focused on internal relocation and boarding school has evolved into far wider disputes, which is likely to have caused tremendous stress to
the mother and father. Despite the acrimony between the parents, I echo the sentiments of Mx Baker: it is reassuring and commendable that both parents have largely managed to shield the children from the conflict. That the children are described as happy and settled, who feel able to speak openly and clearly about their feelings is a testament to the parenting they have received.
Further, the description of the children in the evidence is a delight to read. They are clearly loved, cherished, and thriving within their blended families. They are fortunate to be surrounded by adults who, in their own ways, are each fighting for what they believe is in the children’s best interests.
For the purpose of this decision, I apply the welfare checklist in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989. There is no suggestion that either parent is unable to meet the children’s holistic needs, nor that either poses any risk of harm. Accordingly, my focus is on:
The children’s wishes and feelings, considered in light of their ages and understanding;
Their educational needs; and
The likely effect of any change in circumstances.
Wishes and Feelings
Both children have been consistent and articulate in expressing their views. R told Mx Baker that she considers herself to have “two homes” and stated: “I wouldn’t mind 7/7” and “I would like to spend more time with my dad.” S expressed similar views, saying: “I think it should be fair,” and that she wants to spend more time with her father “because it’s fair and I like being in both places.” Both children clearly wish to remain living in London, which they see as their home.
I note that R commented to Mx Baker, “Well, I would like spending more time with my dad, but if we spend a whole week with one parent, then it’s a long time to be away from the other parent, if that makes sense?”. This remark must be considered in the context of the wider evidence picture including the context in which it was made. Since then, R has experienced extended periods of holiday contact with each parent and by virtue of passage of time, increased maturity. Notably, counsel for the mother did not pursue this issue with much vigour in cross-examination, and Mx Baker did not treat the comment as indicating a settled concern or objection.
I reject the mother’s submission that the children’s wishes are “nuanced” or should be treated with caution due to the first interview taking place at the father’s home. The evidence shows both parents actively encouraged the children to speak their minds. There is no indication of pressure. Further, Mx Baker, a skilled and experienced social worker, found the children's views clear and genuinely expressed, free from any parental influence.
Educational Needs
R is a capable and thoughtful child, academically a high achiever and excels in sports. She is described as an “allrounder” and has visited and expressed enthusiasm for the father’s preferred schools. School F is London-based, R has visited twice, supported as a top choice by R’s current school, and offers the academic and extracurricular balance she requires.
S has an Education, Health and Care Plan. She is diagnosed with Hyperopia, Dyspraxia, Dyscalculia, and Dyslexia. Her needs include small class sizes, consistent support, strong SEN and pastoral provision, and access to occupational therapy. Independent travel is not advised.
In S’s updated EHCP dated September 2024 it is confirmed that S is working approximately three years below age-related expectations in mathematics and two years below in reading and comprehension. Her progress over the past year has been quite remarkable, likely due to the tailored, consistent support at her current school, which knows and nurtures her well. However, she remains in the bottom 10% when compared to her peers.
It is essential that any onward placement for S builds upon—not disrupts—this foundation. The schools proposed by the father School G or School J meet this requirement. Both are in London, have been visited and approved by S, and are supported by S’s current school. Both offer comprehensive SEN support, small class sizes and strong pastoral care. School J has confirmed having met S that they are able to meet her needs, School J have outstanding SEN support and the added advantage of endorsements from the children’s current school’s SENCO lead who visited with S and S’s Occupational Therapist.
In contrast, the mother’s proposed schools raise various concerns: School E for S is in the process of transitioning to a new site, making it impossible to be visited and would require a long and complicated commute. Commencing in year 9 as is common ground, would not be a natural point of entry at this school, there is no firm evidence that her EHCP needs could be reliably met there, given the limited number of overall pupils with ECHPs currently on their roll, sheer size of the future school and the many uncertainties and unanswered questions. The distance between the children’s schools, if I accede to the mother’s suggestions, would create an unnecessary and potentially very difficult set of logistics to manage, and it would likely make it more difficult as parents to be fully involved in the school communities and to attend events consistently.
The mother no longer pursues School D as an option for S at this final hearing. Neither parent has had the opportunity to visit the school, and in any event, the school confirmed by email on 22 May 2025 that “as things stand, we would not be able to meet S’s needs.”
I reject the mother’s argument that as a second choice School J is inappropriate due to being a Catholic school, in circumstances where she advances School C which too is a Catholic school.
Which leads me onto the mother’s first-choice school for R as set out in her final witness statement: School C. Notwithstanding that this school lies outside London and is contrary to the agreement reached at the Dispute Resolution Appointment, I am not in any event satisfied that it is the school best placed to meet R’s needs. The commute would entail a significantly extended school day, involving early starts and late finishes. These concerns, combined with the broader logistical difficulties and distance-related issues I previously identified in relation to School E, lead me to conclude that School C is not an appropriate option in circumstances where there are equally viable and suitable London based options.
School K, the mother’s first choice for R at point of final hearing, and as set out in her position statement raises similar concerns to those identified in relation to School C. It involves a long commute and lacks dedicated school transport serving the area in which the children live. Earlier in the proceedings, the mother confirmed in her witness statement that she did not consider this school suitable for R, citing various reasons — including the fact that, as the school was not yet open, rendered it impossible to obtain basic information such as the identity of the headteacher, let alone conduct with any certainty any assessment of the school’s ability to meet R’s needs.
Finally, at the time of this final hearing, neither R nor her parents have visited the school, making it difficult to assess the school’s ethos, community, and facilities and R has not been able to express a firm view.
Likely Effect of a Change
I am satisfied that the adjustment to the children’s time with their father of two additional nights per fortnight is beneficial, and clearly in line with their wishes. It reflects the evolving dynamics of this family and the progress the parents have made, including their ability to share holidays equally since 2024. Mx Baker described this as a “modest” but meaningful shift, and I agree.
An additional two days with the father is in the children’s best interests as it will allow them to spend more meaningful time with their older paternal half-brother, who despite being at boarding school will enjoy time on Fridays and on other inset days and will reduce the number of weekly handovers between parents. The children are now older and have become accustomed to spending longer, uninterrupted periods in the care of each parent. A Monday handover will provide a consistent and predictable routine, with a weekly pattern that is easy for both the children and the parents to plan for and follow, promoting stability and clarity in their day-to-day lives.
I also bear in mind Mx Baker’s observation that the mother’s proposals appeared to shift significantly over time. That she began the proceedings advocating for full-time boarding (potentially separating the children from home, family, and friends for long stretches) sits uncomfortably with her more recent reliance on arguments around separation anxiety and importance to preserve the sibling relationships. It creates a level of internal inconsistency in her case that undermines confidence in her current arguments in opposition to additional time with the father.
School
On the question of schooling, I have carefully balanced all factors. I find that both children are better served by the father's proposed schools. These options are:
For R: School F (first choice), or School K (if a place is offered) and finally School H
For S: School G (first choice), or School J (second choice)
Both children have visited the schools proposed by the father and expressed enthusiasm about attending. These schools are based in London, lie within a reasonable distance of both parents' homes, and are supported by the children's current schools as appropriate onward placements. School K is preferred over School H as it is significantly closer to both the mother’s and the father’s homes, reducing travel time and logistical difficulty. It is also easily accessible from Clapham Junction train station, making it a more practical and convenient option for the family in the longer term, for reasons I will come on to in a moment.
They are well-placed to meet the children’s individual needs. In contrast, the schools suggested by the mother raise practical and logistical difficulties, particularly for S, and I do not have the benefit of any clear endorsement from the children themselves. As touched upon, a further advantage of the father's proposed schools is their proximity to well-served mainline train station, which opens up a range of locations in which the mother may choose to live, provided she remains within a reasonable commuting distance of the selected schools.
Conclusion
Accordingly, I make the following orders:
The children shall live with both parents pursuant to a joint “lives with” order.
The children shall remain at their current school until the start of Year 9, when they will transition to one of the schools set out at above at paragraph 42.
The children shall spend an additional two nights per fortnight with their father, giving effect to a 7/7 shared care model over a fortnightly period with the handover taking place on Mondays after school or if a Bank Holiday at the usual time school ends.
The children shall continue to share all school holidays equally, with February and May half-terms alternating between the parents.
I am grateful to both parents for their cooperation in narrowing the issues and to Mx Baker for their thoughtful, balanced, and child-focused evidence. I also extend my thanks to counsel for the constructive and efficient way in which this case has been presented and managed. I hope that this decision marks the beginning of a more positive and settled chapter for the children and their parents. The mother, having been in a period of uncertainty while awaiting the outcome of these proceedings, is now able to move forward and consider, with clarity, whether and where she may wish to relocate: within the framework of this order. I wish both parents the very best in their ongoing journey of parenting their children.
DJ Barrie