A v B

JUDGE SHEDDEN: This is the final hearing of originally mother's application for child arrangement orders, providing that the children should live with her and spend time with the father, and prohibited steps orders providing that the father should be forbidden to remove the children from the mother's care. She also sought an order that X, the oldest of the two siblings, should be returned to her care, X at that time residing with the father.

In preparation for this hearing, I have read a bundle of documents, including all the pleadings and police disclosure in these proceedings, a section 7 report, and I have heard oral submissions from counsel for both parties. I have heard oral evidence from the parents and from the author of the section 7 report, a social worker employed by Northamptonshire Children's Trust.

There was a preliminary issue at the outset of the hearing, with the father seeking permission to adduce further evidence by way of a pay slip and bank statement, showing, he said, that the mother's salary had been paid into an account in her sole name during the relationship.

I refused this permission on the basis that:

I want to start by thanking counsel for their assistance over the two days of this hearing and I also want to thank the parties for the constructive way in which they have approached this hearing, notwithstanding the high emotions in what must be very difficult proceedings. It is to the credit of both parties that they have been able to agree, to a large extent, arrangements for school holidays, special occasions and so forth. They have also agreed that communications between them going forward should go through a parenting app, and as I say it is a credit to each of them that, despite this very stressful situation, those agreements have been reached on a voluntary basis.

I am going to refer to the parties throughout this judgment as to the mother and the father respectively. I know that that sounds impersonal. I do not mean any discourtesy, it just stops me from getting tangled up and saying the wrong name, so bear with me.

I have read a lot of evidence and heard a lot of evidence over the course of the last two days and it is not possible or proportionate to comment on each and every issue that has been raised. The parties should rest assured that I have all the evidence in my mind when making my decision.

At the outset of the hearing each party's primary position is that both children should live together with them, on the mother's case, spending supervised time with the father and on the father's case, spending every Wednesday and alternate weekends with the mother. However each put forward an alternative, if I was not satisfied in their primary case of a shared care arrangement, albeit with different arrangements being suggested.

I urged the parties to consider carefully whether there was scope for a voluntary agreement to be reached in the light of their secondary or tertiary positions. I note that the allegations before the court are such that where I am asked to make findings, I have no option but to conclude that one or other party has been deliberately and repeatedly untruthful in their account. The binary nature of the allegations before the court leave me with no choice but to find that one party has been misleading the court and social services and, to an extent, the police in the accounts that they have given.

I recognise the destructive impact upon the co-parenting relationship of this process but unfortunately the parties were not able to narrow the gap between them and therefore the matter proceeded on a contested basis.

By way of background, the parties in this matter are the parents of X and Y. The father is B, and the mother is A.

The current position is that X is living with the father and Y is living with the mother and each is having contact with the other parent overnight for four nights in every fortnight effectively.

The parents met more than 20 years ago. The father's position is that they briefly separated during their relationship, before resuming their relationship and continuing as a couple until 2024.

The mother does not agree that there was a period of separation and says that the relationship continued throughout until separation in 2023. That said, I note that in her oral evidence the mother conceded that the parties separated, she said, in January 2024.

The mother alleges that the relationship was characterised by domestic abuse, with allegations of financial and coercive controlling behaviour. The father denies those allegations.

X is somewhat older that Y. Both children have additional needs. X has been diagnosed with ADHD and has autistic traits. Y does not have a diagnosis as yet, given her age, but she remains non-verbal and she presents with similar traits to X at the same age. Both parents agree that it is likely that Y may also be a neurodiverse person.

The parties were never married. On either party's account they remained in the same home post-separation for several months before the mother moved to rented accommodation.

The father says that the mother moved out of the family home on 14 May, whilst the mother says that it was 20 May. The father remains living in the property. This was, during the relationship, owned in the parties' joint names but was subsequently transferred into the father's sole name, I understand, in return for a lump sum of I think £125,000.

The mother says that this was a transfer at an undervalue that she was coerced into accepting. The father says that this represented only slightly less than 50 per cent of the equity and was agreed between the parties voluntarily after the mother had received independent legal advice. To be clear, I have not been asked to make a finding of fact on this issue and I have no intention of doing so.

It is common ground that prior to separation, the mother took primary responsibility for the children's day-to-day care while the father worked full-time. That said, the father's position is that he was fully involved in looking after the children before and after work and that both parents were very much hands-on in the children's care. What is not clear is what the arrangements were for the children's care when the mother first moved out of the family home.

The mother says that both children moved with her, and that the intention was that they would live with her and spend time with the father.

The father says that there was an agreement reached that X would remain living with him, and that Y would live with the mother, with both children spending time with each parent on a regular basis. He accounts for this somewhat unusual arrangement as reflecting the additional needs of the children, with both children benefiting from some one-to-one time with a parent able, in theory at least, to focus fully on that child's needs and development, although the father raises concerns about the extent to which this has worked out as intended.

Both parties have made a number of allegations against the other during the course of these proceedings, of varying degrees of severity. Given the limited time available to me to prepare and deliver this judgment, I intend to focus upon those matters that most directly impacted upon the children and are most relevant to my decision making. I remind the parties again that I have all the evidence in my mind, including the matters that I am not setting out in detail, when making my decision.

On 29 May 2024, so on the mother's account nine days after she moved into her rented accommodation, and on the father's account 15 days later, an incident occurred in which the mother alleges that the father abducted X from her care. She says that she was at a park with both children, with Y playing on the swings and X playing football with his friends, when the father arrived at the park, enticed X into his car and drove off with X without her permission. Father says that, to the contrary, it had been agreed that he would meet the mother at the park to collect X and that the handover was pre-planned and unremarkable.

The mother says that the father later that evening called her, and told her that he would be keeping X from then on, and made threats also to take Y. The mother says that she was distraught and without funds to take legal advice, so she was unable to challenge the father's unilateral retention of X in his care.

The father denies this account. He denies having abducted X, he denies having threatened to remove Y, and he says that the agreement for X to live with him was reached voluntarily between the parties at the point of separation, reflecting X's wishes and the parties' agreed views as to the best arrangements for children.

Early in July 2024, the mother moved into a different rented property; the mother accepts that the house that she moved to is located very near to the father's place of work, as well as to the family home. During this period, it appears that the children spent some time with each parent according to a broad routine of an overnight stay each week, mid-week, I understand, with Y staying with the father on Tuesday nights, and X staying with the mother on Wednesdays. Weekends then alternated between the parents, although the exact routine is not entirely clear to me from the parents' accounts. I understand, however, that it was very similar to the current arrangements.

In any event, over the weekend of 10 and 11 August 2024, both children were with the father and visited a safari park. The father returned Y to the mother's care on the evening of 11 August, expecting to see her again on Tuesday 13 August. However, when he texted the mother to confirm a pick-up time on the Tuesday, the mother responded with a text message saying that she was away on holiday until the following Sunday. She wrote that, "I wanted to take X, but came with my friend and two kids, and there wasn't room in the car."

The mother accepts that this was the first that the father was told about her holiday, or about her decision to take only one of the children with her. She did not tell the father in advance that she was going, she did not make any arrangements with the father for X during that period, or share her destination or contact details whilst she was away.

The father says that X saw the text message before the father did, as X had access to the father's phone, and that he was devastated to have been left behind by the mother. The mother believes that the father deliberately showed the message to X in order to upset him and influence X against her.

The mother did not make any attempt to call or FaceTime X while she was away. She told me that she knew that the father had upset X by telling him about her holiday, and she felt it best to wait until she saw him to put things right. The mother told me in her oral evidence that she knew when she sent the message that the father would show X, so ‘went a bit lightly there’, I think were her words. In fact, she said her real reason for not taking X was because she knew that the father had brainwashed him, that X would be adamant that he wanted to come home early to see his dad, and that she was broken and needed a break.

The mother said that the father had taken X to Norfolk without Y in the past, although she conceded that this was when Y was less than two years old, and so Y would have had much less awareness of the situation. She reiterated that she had needed the break and that the father had brainwashed X.

The mother returned from holiday on 18 August. She alleges that following her return, the father drove more than once past her home and her friend's home, apparently checking to see when she was back. She accepts that she had not told him or X when she would be returning. She considers the father's behaviour to be stalking, and she reported this to the police on 19 August, albeit saying subsequently that she was not willing to give a statement and she did not want to take it further.

The father says that he does not recall whether he drove past the mother's house on this occasion. He acknowledges that he might have done so when visiting a friend or going to his place of work, but he cannot be sure. He points out that the mother moved to the village where he lives and has lived all his life, and says that it is inevitable that sometimes he will pass her home.

On 20 August, the mother texted the father, saying, ‘Sorry, it is inconvenient for you to have Y tonight. I will be in touch’. Two days later, the father replied, saying, "Hey, hope you and Y are both okay. Not sure when you'll be in touch, as you didn't say. I guess I will just wait to hear from you. Just to let you know that X and me are on holiday for a few days."

The mother responded, "Hey, Y and I are good. Hope you have a lovely time. Give X my love."

The father's evidence is that X had been profoundly upset by the mother choosing to go on holiday without him, that he cried for several days and had been effectively desolate. He says that he decided to take X away to comfort X because he was so hurt. The father took X to Majorca for six nights. He accepted that he did not tell the mother where he was going, that it was abroad, or provide his travel details. He says that he had not appreciated, absent legal advice, that he needed the mother's consent to travel abroad with X, and having booked the holiday at the last minute, he had been rather chaotic, getting packed and ready to go away at short notice.

The father expressed that, with hindsight, he recognises that he should have told the mother in advance where he was going and obtained her consent to the trip. Whilst on holiday, X FaceTimed his mother. During the call, he showed his mother the view from the balcony of the hotel and confirmed that they were in Majorca.

The mother's evidence is that she replied that she hoped that they had a good time and that she would see him when he got back. She did not ask either the father or X for any details of where he was staying, nor did she separately contact the father to ask the father for his flight details. She did not contact the paternal grandfather, with whom she is on good terms, to ask for further information.

What she did do, while the father was still away, was report the father to the police, both in relation to removing X from the jurisdiction without her consent and for historic allegations of coercive control.

The father returned from holiday on 28 August with X. On 29 August, he and X were driving to the paternal great-grandfather's funeral, where the father was due to act as a pallbearer. Whilst he was driving through Northampton, the father's car was pulled over by the police, who proceeded to arrest him pursuant to the mother's allegations. After a period waiting by the side of the road, the father was required to follow the police to the station, where he was held for around seven hours before being released without interview.

Initially, bail conditions were put in place for the father not to go to the mother's home or to contact her, but these were lifted subsequently when the police decided to take no further action in respect of any of the allegations.

In her oral evidence to me, the mother told me initially that she did not know the father was due to attend his grandfather's funeral that day. She confirmed that she was aware of the grandfather's death, but did not know about the funeral. She was asked several times about this and repeated that she did not know. She then, being asked again, said that she did not know until X told her, presumably after the event, because she had not spoken to X over the course of the holiday except for that FaceTiming. She told me that she had not asked that morning for the father to be arrested and did not know anything about it until she had a phone call from the police telling her that the father had been arrested.

On page D84 of the bundle, I have the disclosure from the police, which reads, "At 10.44 on 29 August, B has texted A today saying he is back in the country and that they are going to Hereford today to a funeral, and after that they are going to stay at his friend's house called [X] for the night in London. A has no other information about that person, but says that previously she is aware that when B had been out with him he has taken cocaine, which concerns her. B has texted her saying, "When we get home after London, would you like to have X?" A does not know what to tell him. She wants the police to arrest him. She knows he is wanted."

Quite clearly, that is directly contrary to the evidence that the mother gave me during the course of her oral evidence.

Following the father's arrest, the police called the mother to collect X from the police station, which she did. The father says that this incident had a profound effect on X. He says that X now panics when he sees a police car, that he is fearful of his father being arrested, and that he has increased anxiety. The father points to X's additional needs and says that this was a significantly harmful experience for him.

The mother accepts that for around an hour and a half after she collected X, X was very upset, but she says that he then calmed down and seemed okay. She tells me that they went shopping. She says that she bought X a new phone, although she denies buying him also an expensive headset, and she switched off his existing phone so that the father could not contact him or use the phone to locate him. She was just returning to her home from shopping when the father arrived, having been released from the police station, accompanied by his sister and his partner.

The father remained at the end of the street due to his bail conditions, while the sister and partner approached the mother's home, asking for X to return to the father's care. X saw the father and, by all accounts, became extremely upset, running around the road, screaming and crying and this is confirmed in the police disclosures I have read.

The father accepts that he shouted at X to come to him. The mother restrained X and, according to the father, told X that the father would be arrested if X went to him. The mother denied in her oral evidence having said this, although it is recorded in the police disclosure that she did so.

The mother took X into the house where she called the police, and when the police arrived, X was adamant that he wanted to return to the father. The police therefore facilitated this, and X returned to the father's home with him.

On 4 September, the mother attended at X's school at about 12.30 pm, saying that she needed to collect X for an appointment. The mother accepted in her oral evidence that there was no appointment, and that she in fact intended to collect X from school, so as to remove him from the father's care. The mother was clear that she had received legal advice by this stage. The father also attended at the school, just as X was being brought out of class to the mother. The father says that it was the first day of term, and that he wanted to speak with the headteacher about the events over the summer, so as to ensure that X had the support that he needed. The father said that he attempted to call the headteacher twice, and then decided to come in person to secure an appointment. He was not expecting to see the mother at the school.

The mother says that this is an unlikely coincidence, and she does not accept that this occurred. She says that the father had fitted a tracking device to her car, and went to the school because he knew that she was there. The mother relies upon a note from a garage saying that they found tape under her wheel arch the following day, as evidence to support the presence of a tracker.

When he saw the mother in reception, the father left the school and returned to his car. The incident is recorded on CCTV, the footage of which I have seen. The father says that X was crying and calling to him, asking the father to help him. Both parents called the police, the mother because she said the father was intimidating her, and the father because he saw the mother on the phone, and felt that he needed to contact the police to let them know what was happening.

The police attended, and X informed them again that he did not want to go with his mother, and he wanted to stay with his father. X stayed at school, and was later collected by the father. I have seen the police disclosure in relation to this incident.

On 5 September 2024, the mother issued this application, seeking orders against the father on a without notice basis. In her application, the mother told the court that X lived with her until early June, when the father took him without her permission. She alleged that there had been a child abduction. She sought an exemption from MIAMS on the basis that a delay would cause a risk of harm to a child, and a risk of unlawful removal of a child from the UK, or a risk of unlawful retention of a child who is currently outside the UK, or irretrievable problems in dealing with the dispute.

She sought urgent orders on the basis that the children were at serious risk of harm, that the father had already removed X, and threatened to remove Y, that she had attempted to remove X from school on 4 September, and that the father had prevented this, and that the father is abusive and regularly uses cocaine and drinks to excess.

Somewhat confusingly, the application is dated 3 September, but makes reference to the events of 4 September. It is accompanied by a C1A, expanding upon the allegations against the father, to which I will return later in this judgment.

The mother's application came before me on the papers, and I refused the request for without notice orders, noting that on the mother's case, X had been with the father since June 2024, and the mother had not issued this application until 4 September, with no explanation for the delay. I listed the case before myself on notice on 11 September.

At that hearing, both parties were present and represented. The parties were able to agree interim arrangements, with Y living with the mother, X living with the father, and both children spending time with each other and with the other parent for an overnight stay during the week and for alternate weekends.

The mother sought a non-molestation order as part of her Children Act application. I refused to make such an order without a proper application supported by evidence. I gave directions for Cafcass to file their safeguarding letter by 4 October, and I listed the matter before myself for a FHDRA on 21 November.

The safeguarding letter produced by Cafcass records that the local authority had been involved with the family since 4 September on a child in need plan. The mother was alleging domestic violence and substance abuse by the father. The father denied those allegations and raised concerns that the mother had lashed out at X and split his lip, and that X was allowed to ride his bike around town by himself without adequate supervision.

The father has produced a screenshot of a photograph sent from X's phone to the father, showing an injury to his lip with a text message reading, "Mum done it, she pushed me." The text was dated in April 2024. The mother's evidence is that the father accessed X's phone to fabricate the photograph and text message, so as to manufacture evidence against her. The mother further raised concerns with the local authority that the father had been sharing adult information with X, for example encouraging X to look for men's clothing around her house and asking her about getting a job.

Cafcass recommended that the parents file a statement regarding domestic abuse for the court to consider whether fact-finding was needed, that the father should undertake drug and alcohol testing, and that the local authority should complete a section 7 report.

At the FHDRA, the mother again sought X's return to her care, which I refused on the basis that it would be destabilising for the children to change the arrangements on an interim basis before the court had the benefit of a section 7 report. I accepted an undertaking from the father not to use cocaine before or during contact, albeit that the father denied using cocaine in any event, and I ordered drug and alcohol testing of the father. The father had already privately undertaken such testing, but not from a recognised provider or pursuant to a court order, and I directed a section 7 report to be completed by NCT by 27 February and listed a DRA before me on 18 March.

The parties were to file position statements two weeks before the hearing, and I recorded that it was not necessary or proportionate for the court to conduct a fact-finding hearing, given that both parties had agreed interim arrangements which involved frequent and regular overnight stays for the children with both parents. Arrangements for the Christmas period were agreed on a voluntary basis.

In November 2024, issues arose in respect of two matters around the same time. On 11 November, the social worker spoke to X about the father's allegation that the mother had pushed X and split his lip. The social worker expressed concern that there were some inconsistencies in the account given by X and the father over what had happened.

On 11 November also, the mother tried to call the social worker, and on 12 November, the father reported that X had told her that the father's partner had smashed a TV, smashed X's phone, and hit the father in X's presence.

The social worker's evidence was that at that stage she logged the mother's report but did not discuss it with X or with the father. It was not until 1 December, over two weeks later, that the father emailed the social worker, raising that X had told him that the mother had asked X to lie about the TV and the phone.

Ten days later, on her return from annual leave, the social worker visited the school to discuss this with X. When the social worker mentioned having had an email from his dad, X immediately commented on the phone and the TV issue, and said that his mother had asked him to lie. The account of this meeting is set out from paragraphs 5.35 to 5.39 of the section 7 report, and the social worker seems to suggest that this meeting was evidence that the father had been having adult conversations with X, about which she expressed concerns.

The section 7 report was completed as directed, and recommended a shared care arrangement. The view of the social worker was that the interim arrangements were working well, and should remain in place but with some slight changes, so as to achieve an arrangement where the children were together all the time, and in the care of each parent for half of the time.

The author of the report did raise concerns that X was using adult language, which might suggest, she said, that the father had been sharing adult conversations with him, which the father denied. At the DRA, neither parent agreed with the local authority's recommendations, with each parent seeking an order that both children should live with them and spend time with the other. I therefore gave directions for the filing of final witness statements, police disclosure and further local authority disclosure, and I listed this matter before myself for this hearing, which has taken place on 10 and 12 June.

I was conscious of the very tight timetables involved in completing this hearing in two days. Both parents had been restricted in cross-examination. It was intended that the father would have two hours to cross-examine the mother on the morning of the first day, whereas in fact, due to a preliminary issue, this was closer to one hour and 45 minutes, and the father was cross-examined between 2 pm and 3.50 pm in the afternoon of the first day.

I thank the advocates on both sides for their focused approach, which has allowed us to complete a case with many issues on a tight timescale, thus avoiding unnecessary delay for children.

Before me today, it is the mother's case that both children should live with her and spend time with the father in a supervised setting. She describes the father as a devious and dangerous individual who poses a risk to the children as a result of his manipulation of them and emotional abuse. As a secondary position, the mother seeks in order that the children live with her and spend alternate weekends and one night a week with the father, and as a tertiary position, she seeks the shared care arrangement in line with the recommendations of the section 7 report, albeit with some tweaking.

The father's position is that both children should live with him and spend alternate weekends and every Wednesday with the mother. He says that the mother has repeatedly fabricated false allegations against him and in doing so has caused real emotional harm to X as a result of witnessing his father's arrest and missing a family funeral. He says that the mother is not able to promote the children's relationship with him and that she is likely to continue to put forward a false narrative about him to the children. The father raises further concerns that the mother has failed to attend various appointments relating to X's health and education, showing that she does not, he says, prioritise his developmental needs, and that she has failed proactively to address Y's needs. He says, for example, that Y has only just gone on the waiting list now for a SALT referral, despite being non-verbal still at the age of three.

The father considers that he is better able to meet the children's emotional, educational and health needs, and in the alternative he would accept the existing arrangement continuing as a final order.

Before I move on to consider the law that I must apply in this case, I would make clear that, notwithstanding the findings that I will go on to make in this judgment, I am absolutely sure that both of these parents love X and Y very much indeed. Both children sound like lovely children, they are both described in very warm and glowing terms by the social worker, and both parents are rightly proud of these children. I repeat again that it is a credit to both parents that they have been able to agree so much of the details of the arrangements today voluntarily, and I want to emphasise that as well.

The orders that are sought are child arrangement orders under section 8 of the Children Act 1989. When considering whether to make these orders, the children's welfare should be my paramount consideration. I should assume, unless the contrary is shown, that the involvement of each parent in the life of the children will further the child's welfare. In considering the child's welfare, I shall have regard in particular to the factors set out at section 1(3) of the Children Act, commonly referred to as the welfare checklist. Finally, I shall not make the order, or any of the orders sought, unless I consider that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all.

Insofar as I am being asked to make findings of fact, the principles to be applied are as follows. The burden of proof lies throughout with the person making the allegation. In this case, both the mother and the father make allegations against each other, on which they seek adjudications.

It is not for either parent to prove a negative. There is no pseudo burden on either to establish the probability of explanations for matters which raise suspicion.

The standard of proof is the civil standard, the balance of probabilities. The law operates a binary system, so if a fact is shown to be more likely than not to have happened, then it happened, and if it is shown not to cross that threshold, then it is treated as not having happened. This principle must be applied, it is reasonably said, with common sense.

Sometimes the burden of proof will come to the judge's rescue. The party with the burden of showing that something took place will not have satisfied her that it did, but generally speaking, a judge ought to be able to make up her mind where the truth lies without needing to rely upon the burden of proof. The court can have regard to the inherent probabilities of events or occurrences.

Findings of fact must be based on evidence, including inference that can be properly drawn from the evidence, and not on suspicion or speculation. It is for the party seeking to prove the allegation to adduce proper evidence of what it seeks to prove.

The court must consider and take into account all the evidence available. My role here is to survey the evidence on a wide canvas, considering each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence. I must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence, and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to a conclusion whether the case put forward by the person making the allegation has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof.

The evidence of the parties themselves is of the utmost importance. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability.

It is, of course, not uncommon for witnesses to tell lies in the course of a fact-finding investigation and a court hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress. I am conscious that the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything.

Although I am not making findings on the allegations of historic domestic abuse, nonetheless at all times I must follow the principles and guidance of Practice Direction 12J of the Family Procedure Rules.

Before I come to the evidence in respect of matters of disputed fact, I wish to address the mother's without notice application because it is of some significance in my view. In particular, I need to consider the information that she provided to the court in support of that application. To be clear, this is a comment not on the contested evidence but on the mother's own account and the primary evidence available in the court bundle.

I do not propose to read out the entire of the C1A filed by the Mother, but key elements include the following, an allegation that reads, "Early June 2024, the mother had moved with the children to the rental property on 20 May. Shortly after, the mother had taken the children to play in the local park. Father tracked down their location on X's phone and pulled up on the road next to the park. He enticed X over to him and then drove off with him. Following the event, he said that X would be staying with him full-time."

In the mother's evidence, she told me that X had been with her for the weekend of 27 and 28 May and had been due to go to his father on the evening of 28 May. She agreed that the father's return from a weekend in London celebrating his birthday had been delayed, and that she therefore agreed to keep X for an extra night. She agreed that the next morning, 29 May, X was distressed and started calling his dad soon after 6 am, asking to go home. She agreed that he called his father repeatedly during the course of the morning repeating this.

She agreed that it was always the intention that X would go to his father's home that day. She told me that she expected X to be collected from her home that evening, but did not know when.

She then told me that she was at the park with both children, and the father arrived. He was on his phone and X was also speaking on his mobile, so she assumed they were speaking to each other. X got in the car and left with the father.

There were then various calls between the parents during the evening, the contents of which are disputed.

The mother's case, therefore, taken at its highest, is that the father spoke directly with X to find out he was in the park and collected him a few hours earlier than she had expected, and from the park rather than her home. At all times it had been agreed and intended that X should be returned to the father's care that day.

The mother had omitted entirely in her application to mention that X was actually due to return to the father that day, that she expected and agreed that he should do so, and that at most her case was that the father had collected X a few hours earlier than she had anticipated.

In the various hearings before me, and in position statements filed on behalf of the mother, this incident has repeatedly been referred to as an abduction of X by the father. Given the mother's own evidence, this is clearly not the case, even taking the mother's evidence at its highest.

The mother set out a further allegation that the father took X to Menorca, I think it was in fact Majorca that she says Menorca in her documents, without her permission as follows. "25 August 2024, the mother received a call from X and noted that he appeared to be on holiday. It transpired that he was in Menorca. The father had removed him from the country without informing mother."

In her oral evidence, the mother accepted that the father had sent her a message saying they were going on holiday before they left. Therefore, it is not the case that it ‘transpired’ that he was on holiday. She knew that they were going on holiday. She accepted that she had not asked any questions about where they were going or for how long, and had replied to the father's message that they should have a good time.

She accepted that the father facilitated indirect contact while X was away, that X spoke openly about where they were, and that she raised no concerns with either X or the father about being abroad at the time. She accepted that the father returned after six nights. She informed the police that the father immediately contacted her, seeking to arrange for her to spend time with X upon his return.

She accepted that at no point did she ask the father where he was staying or ask for travel details. She accepted that she did not ask for these from the paternal grandfather, with whom she is on good terms. At no time did the father refuse to provide travel information when asked, suggest that he would not be returning, or suggest that this was anything other than a normal summer holiday in Europe, which indeed it proved to be. At no time did the mother express any concern or opposition to the holiday to the father. None of this information appears in the C1A.

The mother justified her urgent application and her request for a without notice order on the basis that she alleged that the father had threatened to remove Y as well as X from her care.

In her oral evidence, the mother told me that this threat was made on the evening of 29 May, after what I will call the park incident. The mother did not say anywhere in her application for an urgent without notice order that this threat had been made on her own account some three months earlier, and that frequent and regular overnight contact had been taking place between Y and the father since then, and that at no time since then had the father retained or threatened to retain Y in his care.

The mother said in her C1A application that the father had only allowed her "occasional contact with X" after he unilaterally removed X from her care. In her oral evidence, however, she said, "I saw those kids loads." She accepted that she had X in her care every Wednesday night and at the weekends.

It appears that the first significant break in contact was when the mother went on holiday for a week without X, that period then of course being followed by the father going on holiday with X the following week. She told the police on 29 August that the father had, the morning after returning to the UK, texted her asking her if she wanted to see X.

There are further text messages in the bundle between the paternal grandfather and the mother, even after the father's arrest, which show the father still trying to instigate and arrange contact between X and the mother, and the mother in fact on that occasion refusing this contact. Again, none of this information appears in the mother's application forms.

It is my conclusion that the mother's C100 and C1A are one of the most egregious examples that I can recall of a litigant providing partial and misleading information to the court on an application for a without notice order. It is, if ever one was needed, a perfect illustration of why this court is so cautious about granting without notice orders in Children Act proceedings. There is of course a duty upon any litigant to share full information with the court on any application for a without notice order.

I note that the mother was legally represented when she made her application. She would naturally have been advised of that duty, and I can only assume that the solicitors were unaware of the circumstances being withheld from the court. It is, I have to say, deeply concerning. The picture painted in the mother's application bears little or no relation to the evidence that she herself gave to the court this week, along with the primary evidence that is available in the bundle.

I turn then to the evidence before the court, and in particular the disputes of fact upon which I make findings. I made clear at the outset of this hearing that I would not be making findings on historical allegations that predate the party's separation. That was recorded in my order at the DRA, and was not opposed by either party at that stage.

It is, however, necessary for me to make findings on the events that occurred between 14 May and 4 September of last year. On the mother's account, these allegations are critical to her case, that a prohibited steps order is required to prevent the father removing the children from her care, and to support her argument that X should move to live with her and have supervised contact only with the father.

They are equally critical to the father's case if I find, as he invites me to do, that the mother has deliberately misled the court, the police and social services, fabricating allegations against him and causing X at least significant harm as a result. If so, then those findings will form a significant element of any analysis that I may make of the welfare needs of each of these children.

Before I turn to a detailed analysis of the evidence on the disputed issues, I must form a clear view of the evidence of each of the parents and the credibility of them.

I heard evidence from the mother first. It was striking from that evidence that the mother continues to hold very considerable bitterness towards the father. She missed no opportunity, for example, to mention her view that the father had had an affair with his current partner before the parties separated, despite that being wholly irrelevant to the issues that I had to decide.

She repeatedly accused the father of throwing her out of her home, although she was not able, when asked, to explain what she was actually saying he had done, beyond outlining a dispute about home contents.

I was also, I am afraid, struck that the mother was not able to demonstrate insight into the impact upon the children, and especially upon X, of the situations that arose over the course of last summer, nor to take any responsibility for the part her behaviour might have played in that impact. By way of example, she referred to the father upsetting X by telling him that she had gone away on holiday without him and blamed the father entirely for X's hurt, without in any way acknowledging that her decision not to take X on holiday might have been the underlying, and indeed main, cause of X's feelings.

She also did not reflect at all upon whether she could have handled the communication with X in a different way, which might have been less hurtful for him, for example telling him herself about the holiday in advance in terms that he might have found more understandable. She blamed the father entirely for the situation, and took no responsibility herself for a decision which, on the face of it, would inevitably have been really hurtful for X.

As another example, on 29 August, the mother acknowledged that X had cried for an hour and a half after he was collected from the police station, but suggested that after that he was fine. The mother did not seem to have insight into the likelihood that this was a traumatic experience for X or that it might have had any long-term impact upon him. She did not reflect at all that she may have made the situation worse for X by taking away his phone from him, so that he could not contact or be contacted by his dad in circumstances when X would, in all likelihood, have been terribly worried about his father. I do not feel that the mother demonstrated any real consideration of what this experience would have been like for X.

Finally, I did not, I am afraid, find that the mother was a reliable witness in respect of disputed facts. I will deal with specific allegations separately, but I note that there were a number of occasions when the mother acknowledged in her evidence having lied to other people. For example, she accepted that she had lied to the school about the appointment on 4 September, and she accepted that she had lied to the father about having been stopped by the police for driving without insurance. Her explanation was simply that "I had my reasons". The impression that I gained was that the mother was comfortable with lying, if she felt that it would assist her.

On several relatively trivial points, the mother's evidence changed during the course of her oral evidence. For example, she told me that she did not know that the father had taken the children to a safari park. She then, when challenged, accepted that she had known.

She told me that she had not received the proceeds of premium bonds that the father had bought in her name, but then conceded that he had transferred the money from the bonds to her account when they split up. She told me that she did not have £20,000 in savings when they separated, but later in her evidence she said that she did in fact have that money. None of these points are material to my decision making, but the impression that I formed was that the mother was not giving straight answers, even on irrelevant issues.

I was also satisfied that the mother had actively lied to the court on a number of more serious occasions that were relevant. One example of this was the statement in her written evidence that the father would pay a salary to her, but that she did not know where the money was paid. This is in the context of the mother making repeated allegations, even in her final evidence, after the decision that there would be no fact-finding hearing, of financial control. She accepted in her oral evidence that in fact it had been paid into her own bank account, which she must have known and did not explain.

Another example is where she told me that she did not know where or when the father's family funeral was taking place. Then she said that she did not know until X told her later, but it was clear from the police disclosure that she had informed the police that day that the father had himself texted her to tell her that it was the funeral that day. The mother had actually told the police about the funeral and reiterated that she wanted the father arrested. This was entirely contrary to the mother's oral evidence to me.

Another example is the incident on 4 September. In the police disclosure, it records that the mother reported that the father was standing outside the door trying to intimidate her. The report starts at 12.17, so the call to them must have started by then. At 12.19, she says, "He is just trying to get into the school to take the kids." She then says he is just standing outside, that he is standing out front being intimidating. In her oral evidence to me, the mother said that the father stood outside the door smiling at her and trying to intimidate her.

I have seen the CCTV footage of this incident. The incident lasts less than a minute, so substantially less time than the call to the police. The mother confirmed that she was sitting off camera opposite the main doors. The father can be seen walking in, he does a double take and then walks up to the main desk. He speaks to someone there for a few seconds, then walks out of the door. He pauses and talks to someone as he is going through the door, off screen, not looking towards the mother. He then moves away from the door, takes out his phone, turns away and walks away.

The mother's account bears no relation to what I can see happened. The father does not look at the mother through the door, smiling. He walks in and has left entirely in barely more than a minute, and at no stage does he approach the mother or appear to look towards her other than that first double take. There was nothing in his conduct that was aggressive or inappropriate that can be seen in the CCTV footage, and nothing that would explain why the mother would feel the need to call the police at all. I can only conclude that the mother's report to the police and her evidence to this court about what happened was simply untrue.

I pause to remind myself of the Lucas direction that I gave myself earlier. The fact that I may be satisfied that the mother has lied on some matters does not mean that she has lied about everything. It is essential that I look at the evidence as a whole and consider carefully how each piece of evidence relates to each other piece of evidence when making findings of fact.

Before I turn to that evidence, I must also form a view as to the father's evidence. He was, by contrast, consistent and clear in his oral evidence. He made concessions where appropriate, for example in relation to an inconsistency in his witness statement, and he seemed to be answering questions directly and frankly. The father also, I felt, demonstrated a much greater insight into the effect of the events of the last year upon X. He told me, for example, in detail how X had been affected by witnessing the father's arrest and by the mother's decision to go on holiday without him.

The father was also able to reflect upon and acknowledge mistakes that he himself had made, for example sending an antagonistic text message to the mother regarding her holiday, not having told the mother where he was staying when he went away, and calling to X to come to him during the incident on the mother's street on 29 August. The father expressed remorse for all three of these matters.

I felt that the father was both able to demonstrate greater insight and to reflect more upon his own conduct during his evidence.

I turn now to the findings of fact that I need to make, and it seems to me that I need to address the following. Where was X living prior to the incident on 29 May? Did the father abduct X from the park or was it a pre-arranged handover? Was there an agreement for contact with arrangements thereafter or were the arrangements imposed upon the mother by the father? Did the father deliberately share the mother's message about the holiday with X with the purpose of upsetting him? Did the father track the mother to X's school on 4 September? Did the mother push X in April 2024 causing him a split lip or did the father use X's phone to fabricate the message relating to this? Did the mother tell X to lie about the father's partner smashing the phone or TV or did X genuinely report this to the mother and did the father involve X in adult conversations or try to influence him in how he reported his wishes and feelings to the social worker?

I do not propose to make findings on whether Y sustained a dog bite. There is simply not enough evidence for the court to determine either way how an injury to her hand was caused. I do not propose to make findings in respect to the father's holiday, insofar as the facts about the holiday itself are not really in dispute about where he went or when, or that he did not have the mother's consent. The issue for me is not the factual matrix surrounding the holiday, but whether the mother behaved reasonably in reporting this to the police. I do not propose to make findings in relation to financial issues between the parties and I also do not propose to make findings in relation to the father cutting X's hair on the basis that that is simply not an issue with which the court needs to be concerned.

In respect of the living arrangements prior to 29 May, my first comment is to note that on the mother's case, X was living with both parents up until 20 May. We are therefore talking about a period of nine days. During that time, it is clear from both parties' evidence that X spent some time with mum and some with dad. I do not accept, therefore, that over a period of nine days of what appears to have been shared care, that it is sufficient to have built up a status quo in either direction, that the child lived with either parent as a permanent relationship. This was still very much the early days following the separation.

I find that the mother's statement in her C100 and the C1A, that X lived with her up until early June, was misleading and did not reflect the early days arrangements in the post-separation period.

I do not accept the mother's evidence in relation to the park incident that took place on 29 May for a number of reasons. Firstly, the account that she gave in her initial applications to this court and her allegations of child abduction are wholly inconsistent with her evidence that she has given to me that she had always expected and intended that X should be collected by his dad that day. She has, I find, omitted this information from her application to the court deliberately in order to paint a picture of abduction that bears no relation to her own case, taken at its highest.

I further find the mother's subsequent conduct to be inconsistent with an alleged abduction. The mother said in her statement that she did not take legal advice at the time because she had no funds to pay solicitors, but she told me in evidence that the father had just transferred to her the sum of £15,000 and that she already had £20,000 in her account. She was further expecting an additional sum of £125,000 to be paid imminently. The explanation of lack of funds therefore simply does not ring true.

The mother did not call the police nor did she make a report to social services and I accept that she may have had reasons why she felt that she did not want to do so. However, I also see no sign from the mother's evidence that she tried, for example, to contact the paternal grandfather and ask him what on earth was going on. There are no messages to the father asking what had just happened. She did not say, "Why did you just pick him up from the park? I thought you were coming later."

Her behaviour is inconsistent with what she says happened, but is entirely consistent with the father's account that this was a pre-planned and unremarkable handover. In those circumstances, I prefer the evidence of the father to the mother, and I find that this was a planned handover which occurred uneventfully and was not on any level an abduction.

Was there an agreement for contact arrangements thereafter or were the arrangements imposed upon the mother? The mother's case is that the father unilaterally imposed a contact routine upon her in relation to X and simply told her that X would be living with him. The father says that this was always agreed and intended, and that the arrangements had been worked out by the parents together. There is no primary evidence either way in terms of documents in the bundle. There are no signed agreement or shared text messages that will help me with this. I have only the accounts of each of the parties. I do note, however, that the mother refers in her C1A to the father only allowing her occasional contact during this period, which is clearly not consistent with what was actually happening, given that the mother agreed in her oral evidence that the schedule the father exhibited to his statement was an accurate record of the arrangements at the time. I find that the mother sought to mislead the court about what level of contact was taking place at the time of her C1A, and it seems to me that she has said different things to the court at different times about that contact.

It is therefore difficult to place reliance on her evidence on this issue. On balance, I prefer the evidence of the father, and I accept his account that the arrangements were agreed between the parties.

Did the father deliberately share the mother's message about the holiday with X to upset him? There is no evidence to support the mother's assertion that the father did this deliberately beyond a text message that the father sent saying that she should explain her decision to X as he will be heartbroken in the future tense. The father acknowledges that he sent this text message in anger, effectively as a guilt trip, as he felt that the mother should reflect upon how her behaviour would affect X. The mother argues that the father should not or would not have allowed X to access his phone and that the sharing of the message was deliberate manipulation of X. The social worker also criticises the father for allowing X to access his message.

I do not consider that this is a fair criticism. Any parent will know that children in the digital age are very likely to want to play with their parents' devices. Many children know their parents' passcodes for their phones, and use them to access the internet and to play games. When a text message is received, it flashes up on the screen, and the child who is using the phone at the time can see it. This is not unusual in households up and down the country, in my experience. Children send and receive messages through their parents' phones, and this is modern life.

I accept the father's evidence that X would use the father's phone at times, and that on this occasion he saw the message before the father did. It seems to me that the far more salient point is that the mother's decision making to leave X at home while she was away was the cause of X's hurt, and not the father's failure to stop X accessing his text messages.

Did the father track the mother to X's school on 4 September? I do not find that the father tracked the mother to X's school. The father has given a clear and reasonable explanation for his attendance at the school that day, which is supported by his phone records and by a letter from the school confirming the father's account. The mother's only evidence in support of her allegation that he had fitted a tracking device was that a garage supposedly found tape on her wheel arch. If true, that does not mean that the father put the tape there. I am not in a position to make a finding about who might have put tape on the mother's wheel arch. Who knows how it got there, but there is no evidence at all that it was the father. I find that this allegation was false.

Did the mother push X in April 2024, causing him a split lip, or did the father use X's phone to fabricate the message relating to this? The father did not witness what he alleges to be an incident that occurred between the mother and X. He relies upon a text message sent by X and X's subsequent account of what happened. The mother says that the text messages have been fabricated to manufacture evidence against her, and that there was no incident in April 2024. I find the suggestion that the father fabricated this text message to be inherently implausible. It was sent in April 2024, before the mother had moved out of the family home and some five months before proceedings were issued. It clearly shows that X did have a split lip. I do not know how the mother is suggesting that the father could have fabricated that picture or why he would have done so back in April.

I also note that while X has not been consistent in the details of the account that he has given of what happened, he has been consistent that the split lip occurred and that his mother was involved. I accept that the text that he sent to the father was genuine. I note that X has been inconsistent in his account, telling different people that he fell against a chair, a table, or was hit. I am mindful particularly of X's age and his additional needs. I am not confident that I can be clear enough from X's account to say what probably happened on that day.

However, I am satisfied from X's account, and particularly from the text message that he sent the father, that X did split his lip, and that this was more likely than not due to some kind of altercation with the mother, given his comment at the time that mum did it and she pushed me.

Did the mother tell X to lie about the father's partner smashing a phone or a TV, and did X genuinely report this to the mother? I note on this allegation particularly the social worker's evidence that she did not tell the father or X about the mother's email on 12 November and that the father contacted her unprompted on 1 December to raise the issue of X being told to lie. It is difficult to know why the father would have done that weeks later if X had not said something to the father about it. I also note that X himself reported that his mother had told him to lie.

On balance, taking these points and my wider findings in relation to credibility, I prefer the evidence of the father to that of the mother and I am satisfied that X was told to lie by the mother on this occasion.

Did the father involve X in adult conversations or try to influence him in how he reported his wishes and feelings to the social worker? This is the allegation that the mother is relying upon now as being the most significant in terms of her argument as to why contact between the children and the father should be supervised and it is a concern that has been raised repeatedly by the social worker. It is said that X used language that was adult in his discussions with the social worker and then was unable to explain what the words that he had used meant.

I queried this with the social worker as the words referred to are words that, in my experience, are well within the range of a 10-year-old's vocabulary or indeed a much younger child. The words complained of were ‘appropriate’, ‘responsible’ and ‘quality time’. I simply do not accept the evidence of the social worker on this point. This vocabulary is mainstream and particularly the words ‘appropriate’ and ‘responsible’ are often used to much younger children to raise their awareness of boundaries and behaviour. I do not accept that X using this language is sufficiently unusual as to give rise to a finding of exposure to adult conversations.

I do not find the fact that X could not then explain what the words meant telling. It is one thing for a child to use a word in context, another to be able to offer a definition under pressure of questioning, particularly given X's special educational needs. I am simply not persuaded that these words are cause for concern.

As for the phrase "quality time", this is one which is bandied about in the context of child arrangements quite often. The father says that the mother used it in front of X on one occasion that he witnessed and that X on that occasion repeated it. Again, I do not find this to be evidence of adult conversations by the father. I do not find that the father has involved X in adult conversations or tried to influence him in discussions with the social worker.

I will turn very briefly to the evidence of the social worker that I heard this morning. Both parents in fact seek to depart from her recommendations, which is for a shared care arrangement with the children moving between their parents' homes daily. Each parent argues that the children should live with them, with the mother seeking supervised contact with the father and the father seeking an order for alternate weekends and every Wednesday spent with the mother.

I am aware that the court requires cogent reasons to depart from the recommendations of an expert witness in a section 7 report. Unfortunately, I have to agree with the Mr Duncan that the evidence of the social worker was troubling. In one instance, for example, she told me that her note of a conversation with X had left out a critical piece of information, an allegation that ‘dad said mum was bad’, and her explanation for this was that she did not want to increase the acrimony between the parties. The social worker was reporting to the court and it is inconceivable that such an important piece of evidence should be excluded on such a basis.

It is also clear that the section 7 report, which records X moving from consistently saying that he wanted to live with father to now saying that he wants to live with both parents, does not reflect what is written in the social worker's case notes which have been disclosed. Those case notes say in terms, X wants to live with father, and sets out a schedule for overnight stays which match the current arrangements. The section 7 report simply does not report what is written on the notes. It is totally inconsistent in how that note is reported, which fundamentally undermines my ability to rely upon it.

There is a dispute between the social worker about when and how the social worker gathered father's views for their report. The father says that she did not meet with him one-to-one to discuss the report and the social worker says that she did, but she was unable to tell me when. When pushed, she told me that it was at the beginning of December, but that cannot be right given her earlier evidence that she did not speak to the father around that time and indeed that she was away on annual leave at the beginning of December.

I am not making a finding that the social worker is deliberately misleading the court, but I am not left with any clarity about what enquiries in fact were made by her in preparation of her piece of work. It is possible, for example, that the social worker has conflated work done under the child in need plan with work on the section 7 report.

Given the wider concerns that I have about inaccurate information or reporting within the section 7 document, I am troubled by the evidence of the social worker. I am further troubled that there does not seem to be any consideration, either in the report itself or in her oral evidence, of how findings on the disputed allegations might be relevant to child arrangements.

Although the social worker acknowledged that if I found the allegations made by the mother were false, and that if X had been told by the mother to lie about allegations, that would be harmful for him, that did not give rise to any reconsideration or reflection upon her recommendations. I was not left with any sense that the social worker had really grappled with the issues that I needed to determine, or given full consideration to the implications of any findings that I might make. As a result, I do not feel that her evidence assists me in the light of the findings that I have made.

Turning then to the issues that I must determine, and keeping firmly in mind the paramountcy of the children's welfare, my considerations are as follows.

X has been clear and consistent in expressing his wish to live with the father, twice to the police, repeatedly to the social worker, and I accept that those are his genuine wishes. The mother raises concern that X is negative about her, but not about the father. I fear that I agree with the father that this is more likely to be a response to the events of the last year than as a result of any manipulation by the father.

Y is is non-verbal. She is not able to articulate her views. I take it that she would want to have a safe and positive relationship with both parents.

Both children need a stable and secure family life where they can pass freely between their parents' homes without anxiety or tension. They need both parents to support them educationally and emotionally to make the most of the opportunities around them and to feel comfortable and relaxed in their home with each of their parents. Critically, they both need to be protected from unresolved conflict between their parents and from the impact upon them of any allegations that have been raised between the parties.

I am particularly mindful that both of these children appear to have special educational needs with requirements for additional health and educational support. They need both parents to be able to engage fully with that support and they need consistent routines to enable them to thrive.

In terms of the effect of any change in their circumstances, X has already been through a period of considerable instability following his parents' separation. He has been exposed to a number of extremely distressing situations which will have had the effect of making him feel more anxious about the long-term arrangements. It seems to me essential that he is now provided with as much stability and predictability in his arrangements as possible.

Y has lived with her mother all of her life. Although she is used to spending time with the father overnight every Tuesday and for alternate weekends, a change in her living arrangements is likely to impact upon her significantly, especially given her likely special educational needs and would need to be justified by a real welfare concern to justify the disruption to her routine.

X has been diagnosed with ADHD and autistic traits, meaning that he may be more likely than another child to experience harmful disruption or upsetting events that he struggles to process.

Y has not yet been diagnosed but she is non-verbal and both parents anticipate that she will be found to be neurodivergent.

I find it more likely than not that X will already have suffered harm as a result of the events of the last year and in particular as a result of allegations that the mother has made against the father that were unfounded. He has suffered disruption to his routine and he has been exposed to his father's arrest and then to two further incidents of police involvement when he was asked to choose between his parents. There is a real risk of harm continuing to X if the parents are not now able to draw a line under these proceedings and if there are further ongoing allegations being raised.

I am told that Y has not been impacted in the same way due to her young age. To an extent I accept that this is likely to be true, although she was presumably present when X was running around the road screaming and the police attended on 29 August. She will have been aware of X's distress which may well also have been distressing for her.

I have made findings that the mother has made a number of allegations against the father, including of substance abuse, child abduction and emotional abuse, which are untrue. I am concerned that if these allegations continue, this will expose the children to continuing harm.

I am satisfied that both parents are fully capable of meeting the physical and educational needs of the children. My greatest concern is in relation to the mother's ability to meet the children's emotional needs by promoting contact between the children and the father. I note that whilst the father continued to offer and promote contact between X and the mother, even in the most difficult of circumstances, the mother cancelled contact unilaterally between the father and Y on a number of occasions. I further consider that the mother's allegations against the father in these proceedings were made with the intention of placing restrictions on the father's time with the children.

The mother's primary position before me today is that the children should have supervised contact with the father only. This position was entirely without merit, in my view, and was clearly never going to be in their best interests. Such an arrangement would have undoubtedly been extremely distressing for X and was without justification.

I am very concerned that the mother will continue to undermine the father's relationship with the children going forward and that she may seek to withhold time with the children if she considers it expedient to do so.

By contrast, I am confident that the father will continue to promote contact with the mother if the children live with him but I fear that the mother will not do the same if the children live with her.

In terms of the range of powers available to me, this is clearly a case where orders are needed and I have powers to make child arrangements orders either as a live with order or a shared care order. I am satisfied that a prohibited steps order is not appropriate in this case and that application is dismissed. There is no history of child abduction and the parties have largely complied with the orders that have been made in this case since proceedings began.

Turning then to my decision, the order that I will make is that both children should live with the father and spend time with the mother every Wednesday night and on alternate weekends from Friday after school until Monday morning. The school holidays should be divided equally. I recognise that this involves a significant change for Y and I am fully mindful of the impact upon her but I am satisfied that this is the only way that the court can protect her relationship with both parents in the future. It is key to her emotional and psychological development that that relationship is protected.

The order that I am making is in line with X's wishes and feelings and, again, I am satisfied that it is the best way to provide stability and reliable contact with both parents going forward.

There are two issues that I was asked to deal with at the outset of this hearing in relation to the passports. Given that I am making a live with order in favour of the father, I am going to direct that the father should hold the children's passports.

In respect of notice to be given of any holiday abroad, I think that what is a reasonable expectation is that four weeks' notice should be given of any proposed holiday and there should be a minimum of two weeks. Anything less than two weeks is not adequate and four weeks should be the normal expectation. Two weeks should be the exception, rather than the rule.