R v R

This is an application by Emma R (to whom I shall refer as the Mother) for a residence order and permission to take the two children of the family to live with her in Paris on a permanent basis. The children are A (who was born on the 4^th July 2001 – 3¼ years old) and C (who was born on the 4^th October 2002 – 2 years old). Mr Edward R (to whom I shall refer as the Father) objects to the children being removed from the jurisdiction, moreover he says that there should be no order in relation to residence but, if there is, then it should be a joint residence order. Whatever order I make in relation to the children’s future place of residence, each party requires some elements of contact to be defined.

Over some 5 days in Court I have been able to watch the parties closely and I have heard a great deal of detailed evidence from both Mother/Father and a number of witnesses on behalf of each. This case has been conducted fairly, but with a great deal of passion by both sides. To my mind, it was noticeable that the children’s specific needs were often relegated from being the central issue as most of the evidence was directed to the Mother’s wishes and requirements - on the simple premise that a contented and fulfilled mother makes for a happy child. I remind myself at the outset of this judgment that it is the children’s needs that are my paramount consideration.

It is the Mother’s case that a move to Paris is essential because, inter alia:

The Father maintains that the Mother should not be permitted to live in Paris because, inter alia:

I will set out the relevant facts as I find them. For the avoidance of doubt, insofar as the matters set out in this Judgment differ from the evidence of the Mother or the Father, this is because I have preferred the evidence of the other party, another witness or because I consider that the documents produced confirm my finding of fact. I wish to note expressly that I consider that I have been in an unrivalled position to watch the demeanour of these parties and that this has revealed a great deal more than the statements so, whereas on paper, this case may have appeared finely balanced, in the final analysis having seen and heard the parties, my decision is clear and firm.

The Father was born on the 7^th January 1968 (36 years old). He is English. As a result of his own father’s endeavours, his parents are wealthy. They have homes in Manresa Road, Chelsea and at Caigers Farm, Hampshire. They also have a home in Klosters (albeit that that property was placed in the names of their 3 children). The Father has two younger sisters – namely, Lorna (who was married some two weeks ago) and Selina. The Father was educated at Eton College and took a degree from the University of East Anglia. From 1990 to 1995, he worked in Hong Kong where, it seems, he lived a somewhat louche lifestyle which involved the use of call girls and the occasional use of recreational drugs.

In 1995, he returned to London and lived in a property provided by his parents. He began work in the City as an investment manager and still works in that capacity. His basic net income is about £80,000 per annum. Last year his annual net bonus was some £33,000. He is fortunate because his father set up a trust, now worth some £2.4 million, for his benefit. Part of the value of that trust is the former matrimonial home – a ground floor / basement maisonette at No 22, Redburn Street, Chelsea. That property is currently worth some £650,000. Albeit that it was the only home in which the parties lived during the marriage, it is agreed that it is not suitable as a long term home for growing children.

The Father is described by his own mother, Virginia, as being “very gentle and thoroughly charming. He has nothing bad to say about anyone. I would go so far as to say he can be naïve and too trusting. He always regards everyone as being carefree like himself and therefore he can appear to be insensitive to others’ feelings and needs, not through any malice but because it simply would not occur to him that others did not see circumstances in the same uncomplicated way as he did”. Having seen him in the witness box I consider that this is a fairly accurate description although I consider that he is not so much naïve as rather immature. He is a much weaker character than his former spouse. Indeed, he appeared diffident in the witness box, rarely looking up or making eye contact.

I am sure that he regards his marriage as complete failure and feels guilty for his obvious failings as a Husband (of which I relate more details below). I also believe that he now accepts responsibility for his failings and is truly ashamed for some of his past behaviour. In all, I considered that he was a largely honest witness and that he is not motivated by malice in his opposition to the Mother’s wish to live in Paris. He has raised objections because he is genuinely worried about the Mother’s proposed move and its long term effect on the girls.

It is to his credit that he made few criticisms of the Mother in his oral evidence. The CAFCASS officer – Mr Mellor – made a similar observation in his report where he stated that “he articulates [his opposition] with a greater sensitivity towards the Mother in conversation than in written statements, this arises out of genuine concern for the children’s welfare in my opinion”. It is an unfortunate part of our adversarial system that litigants feel obliged to put their case at its highest and this almost inevitably leads to a detailed criticism of the other party. The Father referred to his statements as “lawyer-speak”. They were full of detailed evidence of a troubled marriage and, as he perceived it, his wife’s failings – including difficult and petulant behaviour. His witnesses made similar detailed complaints. However, in his evidence to me, whilst maintaining that there were many problems, he adopted a less harsh tone. Whilst he confirmed his concerns about her emotional life and plans to move, he was less judgmental.

I consider that he still cares for his former spouse and has unresolved emotions towards her. After the separation he wrote a letter to her which includes the following passages:

“I think your temperament, which is fiery and dominant, does not sit well with me. I am not saying that you do not have a good heart and aren’t vulnerable, most of us have and we all are to an extent. But our relationship was destructive and I am not returning to that; to be honest I cannot return to it, it scares me physically and mentally. You say that all couples have their fights and their arguments. But I do not accept that they are like what I had to go through and, if that is the case, I do not want any part of it.

I know that I thought you would change and maybe you thought the same of me. But really neither of us are going to change neither of us ever did. You have many strong qualities, good qualities, but in a relationship they did not work harmoniously. You have said recently you will do anything for me if I come back but you know deep down, you are like who you are (quite rightly!). I am not coming back on a possibility that I see as next to impossible.

I don’t want you to change Emma. You are who you are and that is a good thing. But I do find it remarkable that you appear to dismiss and neglect the trouble we had together. I hope that you and I will in time find a friendship together. I actually feel very close to you – probably closer to you than most other people. We are parents to A and C. I am absolutely sure that we should not re-invent our marriage for the sake of A and C, I cannot see a bigger mistake we could make. That environment, of loathing and unhappiness, is not one that A and C should be exposed to and I am sure in the end that would be the result; which is why I think A and C are best served with us apart so our greater qualities and our love for them can flourish instead of struggle. You know that I will help you in any way you want in looking after the children and I shall try and see them as much as possible, I also hope that you will not try and turn them against me. I know from the experience of recent weeks that it is a handful looking after the children. So please instead of letting this burden get to you please share it. Having parents who are separated is fine, as long as those parents are loving toward their children and I know that you and I are. I think that A and C have a good possibility of flourishing into fine young women and hopefully one day mothers themselves. I do not buy the argument that they are scarred for life if their parents are separated not for one minute”.

The Father said that he wrote that letter without the input of lawyers. I accept that evidence, as it seems to me that the letter represents his own sentiments. Although he writes that he does not want his former wife to “change”, to my mind he was and is concerned about her ability to function unless she is able to rid her herself of a good deal of emotional baggage.

The Mother

The Mother was born on the 4^th November 1975(now 29 years old). She has an older brother called Harry (aged about 32 years old). Her father, Roderick Bloomfield [“Mr Bloomfield”] (some 70 years old) is English and has a publishing business. Her mother Pascaline Bloomfield [“Mrs Bloomfield”] (who is 63 years old) is French and is one of 4 surviving sisters (a brother having died in a tragic motor cycle accident many years ago). Her 3 sisters are called - Solange, Marie- Christine, and Chantal. They each have two children and (save for Solange) some grandchildren. The Mother is close to her cousins – in particular, her only female cousin Fabienne de la Chauviniere (whom she regards as a surrogate sister). She is also close to Fabienne’s brother, Nicholas. She has exhibited a family tree to her 1^st statement which gives a clear picture of her family.

The Mother was raised in London, where the family base was located on the western reaches of Chelsea – specifically, Redcliffe Place, where her parents still live. Her brother, Harry, was educated at Harrow, whilst the Mother was sent to the Lycee Francais, Charles de Gaulle. She says that Mrs Bloomfield’s influence and her own education meant that she always felt French (whereas her brother was always more English).

During the school holidays the children (as they then were) and Mrs Bloomfield had family holidays at their grand-parents’ home in Brittany. The Mother remembers these times as idyllic havens of happiness. She says that she forged strong bonds with her French cousins and her aunts. In fact, she says that she was closer to her cousins than she was to her own brother. She also felt particularly close to her aunts as opposed to her own mother. She has described herself as “a completely Mediterranean person”. She has certainly told people consistently over the years, that she feels more French than English.

She is described by Mrs Bloomfield as a happy child. Indeed, she considers herself to have been “the class clown”. She was, most certainly, a beautiful teenager.

When the Mother was 15 years old, she met a photographer/male model who was some 12 years older. She fell in love with him despite her parents’ objections. On her 16^th birthday she made the grand gesture of leaving home to live with him. This wilful behaviour caused her parents great distress. Although her father maintained contact, Mrs Bloomfield did not speak to her for about a year. I do not know when her first passionate relationship began to deteriorate but, apparently, it ended in violence. After some 12 months, the Mother parted from her unsuitable boyfriend and returned to her parents’ home. They took her back but, as she told Dr Brener (the expert consultant psychiatrist who has produced a report for the Court) she soon “felt controlled by them”. She met another man and her parents allowed her to travel to Los Angeles with him.

In fact, she decided to pursue a career in acting/modelling and remained in L.A. It is apparent that, by the age of 17 years, the Mother considered herself to be self reliant, although she was less emotionally grounded than she perceived. She remained in Los Angeles – where she had secured a work permit - for some 3 years. She has described this period as happy and stable. I do not have any real specific evidence about her life during that period but I am prepared to accept that she enjoyed the Californian lifestyle.

Between November 1995 and February 1996, the Mother had a modelling assignment in Taiwan. When it finished she returned to London where she met a new boyfriend. She told Dr Brener that this was a good relationship. During this time, she undertook a secretarial course, worked for a PR agency for about 2 months and did some part time modelling. Her cousin Fabienne, was based in London and the two young women saw each other on a regular basis.

In the spring of 1997 the Mother returned to L.A. Once again, there was no detailed evidence about her lifestyle during this period – she says that it was stable and fulfilling. I cannot pass any judgment on her perception.

By March 1998 she had returned to London. Although she did not tell Dr Brener the full details, it seems that she had a breakdown in March 1998. I am not aware of any particular stressor at the time. By now, she was 22 years old, she was having panic attacks and was apparently obsessed with thoughts of death. Her GP described her as presenting:

“in an acute state of crisis, tearfulness and child-like behaviour. She was clinging to her mother, and crying and feeling she could not be left.

Her trouble probably began some years age. Aged [16] she left home and went to live with her then boyfriend, much to the anxiety of her parents. Since then she has lived a half life, partly supporting herself and partly supported by them or boyfriends”.

Her GP referred her Dr George Resek (a Consultant Psychiatrist) because…

“she would like to understand why this happened and take steps to prevent a recurrence”

At this time of stress, her mother was there to care for her and took her to the GP.

I have seen Dr Resek’s notes. At his first consultation on the 16^th April 1998, he details the Mother’s report of panic attacks and of her being petrified of death. She told him that she had always had a boyfriend but had been on her own for the last 2 months and that “accelerates it”. She also reported that she got on well with her parents. She had 3 further consultations on the 24^th April, the 5^th and 13^th May. It seems that Dr Resek recommended therapy. The Mother told me that she did not take up therapeutic help, as she felt that she could not afford the expense and did not want to ask her father to support it.

Fabienne was in London throughout this time. The Mother says that she felt supported by her during this difficult period. It was decided that she should go to Paris and she went to stay with Nicholasher cousin. He was just getting over a messy divorce. The Mother says that she supported him through this difficult crisis. She says that she was very happy living in Paris. The Father says that she fell out with Nicholas. I am in no position to make positive findings about this period in her life but I doubt that it was as happy as she now asserts.

In August 1999, she left Paris to go to New York, where she had enrolled in the Lee Strasbourg School of Acting. Before leaving, she visited Dr Resek once more. The notes of her visit on the 18^th August 1999 state “Saw 3x [?mths]counsellor last yr & left. Now not panicky but depr & aware of her instability. Unmet needs, low self esteem”. This particular passage was not put to the Mother, however it does show that all was not well before her move to the USA. Moreover, it was my understanding from her oral evidence that, apart from Dr Resek, she had no other therapeutic help. If the note is correct, she did see a counsellor but clearly it was for too short a period. I think it likely that this occurred because, as soon as her emotional state subsided, she did not consider that she needed any long-term help.

She says that she enjoyed her year in New York and returned to London in about July 2000. Upon her return, she met the Father. Their mutual attraction was almost instantaneous and they began a passionate affair - she has described him as “being all over me like a rash”. They were rather careless about birth control, because the Father had intimated that, if the Mother were to become pregnant, he would stand by her. This approach was lacked judgement and maturity but, no doubt, they both believed that they were deeply in love. By late September, the Mother was pregnant with their first child. The Father was delighted about the prospect of becoming a father. He proposed and the marriage plans were put in place. The parties’ parents met for dinner on two occasions before the wedding. They have not met since.

The Husband believed that the Mother was welcomed by his family despite their initial “shock”. It was suggested (on behalf of the Mother) that they considered that their son had been “trapped into marriage” and therefore resented the Mother from the outset. I do not consider that this criticism is justified. The Father was thrilled to be marrying the Mother with whom he was deeply in love. The R family accepted his choice. Likewise, the Mother thought that this marriage would give her the love and security that she craved.

Shortly before the marriage the parties went to Paris for a romantic weekend. They spent the time together. Although the Mother pointed out where various members of the family lived, she did not meet any of them or introduce the Father to them. She says that she felt if they saw one relation, then they would have to see them all. That is a possible explanation but does not show obvious closeness. It does mean that the Husband was not introduced to these family members – indeed, he has never met Aunt Marie Christine (one of the Mother’s witnesses). He says that he barely knows any of them (although he would like to) because the Mother did not have a great deal to do with them during the marriage. I think that it is significant that the Mother did not spend much time with them – either shortly before or after the wedding.

The parties married on the 19^th January 2001. The Mother was 5 months pregnant. The evidence relates perceived difficulties even on the wedding day but I am not concerned about these futile debates. Suffice it to say, both the Mother and the Father wanted their marriage to be a success. Some members of the Mother’s French family attended – her aunt Marie Christine was away and her cousin, Nicholas, did not attend because, apparently, he does not like such occasions – albeit that recently he had his own formal wedding.

They moved into 22, Redburn Street. It was in a good location but it was never going to be an ideal home for children. However, the Mother was anxious to live in Chelsea. The property was about some 15 minutes away from her parents’ home and some 5 minutes away from the R’s London base.

The Father told me that the bad rows began soon after the wedding ceremony. He says they were extreme. He stated that, when thwarted, his wife would scream, shout and throw objects about the flat. The Mother does not accept his version of events but I consider that the Father is being accurate when he asserts that they had terrible rows and the marriage had real problems from this early stage. He certainly felt under pressure as a result of the atmosphere at home

A was born on the 4^th July 2001. Everyone was delighted. She was a large baby and, I am sure, that her mother must have been exhausted by the process of her birth. Some two weeks later an event took place that was to rock this marriage to its foundations. In fact, to my mind, it never really recovered.

In mid July 2001, the Father informed the Mother, that he had been using prostitutes and feared that he might have Aids. Not surprisingly, she was devastated. It is hard to imagine a more horrific piece of news for a new mother – who would have feared not only for her own well-being but that of her child. The Father’s explanation was that he had found the pressure at home so overbearing that he had “to find some release”. His behaviour was unacceptable and uncaring. Given his wife’s emotional sensibilities it was unforgivable. The Mother already had low self-esteem and this apparent rejection undermined her further. From that date onwards, she did not feel that she could trust her husband. She was always worried where he was and what he was doing. She became obsessed with knowing his whereabouts and did not like him socialising - especially with male friends. From her perspective (and given her personality) her position is understandable. But her concern about his whereabouts and attempts to control his movements made the Father feel confined, controlled and isolated. He was determined to meet friends and did not understand her fears.

The parties found themselves descending into a vicious circle of mistrust and loathing. The Father was instrumental in causing mistrust and the Mother could not come to terms with his infidelity. Despite this, the Mother became pregnant for a second time. The Father felt that she had entrapped him on this occasion. It is curious that, although the Mother was very unhappy and fearful, she did not want this marriage to end. The Father says that he used to go to the pub for a drink after work “to steady himself” before going home. No doubt, this only made matters worse. He described home life as increasingly unbearable with violent rows. Each party has accused the other of punching them. I have not doubt that the atmosphere was volatile and rows were explosive.

I do not hold the Mother solely responsible for the problems but her reaction to the difficulties was, as I find, much more extreme than that of the Father. If he was determined to have his own way on occasions, the Mother’s response was extreme. I heard evidence of rows in the street with shouting, violence and tears. I should think that this couple were, at times, a spectacle for the neighbours. I hold them equally to blame for these incidents.

Miss Parker Q.C. (for the Mother) has asserted that her client’s reactions were justified and explicable given the Father’s infidelity and behaviour. I accept that the Father behaved in an unacceptable manner but, I am afraid, that the Mother’s conduct was, on occasion, wholly extreme. I had the benefit of watching her in the witness box. She is obviously emotional (with tears that came easily) but I also observed a wilful and determined streak when matters were put to her with which she did not agree. She is feisty and strong-minded. I have no doubt that during the marriage, when crossed, she was petulant and difficult. This behaviour was overlaid with great emotional vulnerability. The Father could not deal with the combination of difficult, aggressive, even antagonistic behaviour coupled with underlying neediness. The Father lacked insight and, increasingly, lacked understanding.

By October 2001, the Mother felt the need to see Dr Resek once more. She did not inform him of her husband’s use of prostitutes but she did tell him that she felt insecure and that she was very possessive of him. She reported that it was all very difficult and she was in tears. She also said that “3 weeks ago his father was over [nice] then- am I destr ?and I push to the limit”. She also said “I don’t want anyone to take this away from me. I am doing all for Him to be happy. I live my H’s life now – do anything for HIM and bury all of me”.

I do not consider that I need to make findings about each specific argument. Suffice it to say, I accept that they were often dreadful. The Father was insensitive and the Mother’s behaviour was, on occasion, extreme.

By way of example, I highlight the following event. In January 2002, on the day that the Mother learned that she was pregnant with C, she went to celebration for Mr R senior’s 60^th birthday at Manresa Road. A video was prepared by an uncle (it was a collage of previous films) and included the Father commenting on a previous girlfriend. The Mother became overwrought and had to leave. At home, there was a huge row. The Father left the home for some 2 weeks. He stayed at his parents’ home in Manresa Road. One evening the Mother was looking at past bank statements and saw that the Father had withdrawn a large amount of cash late at night – which she assumed was for use with prostitutes. The statements were contained in a box which normally contained her passport and that of A. She noticed they were missing. By now, it was 11pm. She was in the house alone, save for A (then aged some 6 months old) who was asleep. The Mother decided to go to Manresa Road – there and then - to recover the passports. She left A alone in the flat. When she arrived at Manresa Road, she banged on the door. The Father refused to answer. The Mother then shouted, threw a brick (she says “pebbles”) breaking a window. She hammered on the front door with her stiletto. The force used was sufficient, as I find, to leave permanent dents in the door. When this did not work, she went to her home because she knew there was a spare key to the other house. She then returned to Manresa Road – leaving A alone for a second time. She opened the door and confronted the Father (who was locked in his parents’ bedroom). An argument ensued and the neighbours were disturbed by the commotion. The parties shouted through a closed door. Eventually, the Father gave the Mother her passport but tore A’s into many pieces. He told me that he had taken the documents because he was afraid that “she would leave the country with A”. I consider that this is a significant remark because, I suspect that, even at this early stage – during the course of arguments - the Mother was indicating that she would leave the UK if the marriage did not survive.

However, much more worrying are the Mother’s impulsive actions. To leave a vulnerable baby twice in these circumstances was foolhardy in the extreme. She had no immediate need of the passports that night. I suspect that she felt that she had to acquire them at once because she felt trapped or controlled by the Father. Even when questioned in the witness box, she did not perceive that this incident was dangerous or extreme.

After this ugly event, the parties went to see Keith Stoll for marriage guidance. They had one or two visits and then stopped. In February 2002, the Father admits that he is using prostitutes once again. By this time the parties’ physical relationship had come to an end and they continued to have a number of rows. The marriage was very unhappy but neither confided in their respective family members. Their parents knew nothing of the problems. Moreover, I note that the Mother did not tell any of her French relations of the difficulties.

The Mother saw Dr Resek on the 14^th November, 11^th December, 8^th 2001 and 22^nd January, 26^th February and 5^th March 2002. She was prescribed medication and by March, she was asking for sertraline.

Each weekend the family travelled to Caigers Farm where a property, called Christmas Cottage, had been bought for them to use. The Mother did not really wish to spend every weekend “at the end of the R’s drive”. But she acquiesced with the weekend ritual. The Father and the children enjoyed the country visits a great deal. Although the Mother was made welcome by the R family, she says that she never felt part of it. I think that this was more to do with her personality than the actions of her in-laws.

On the 4^th October 2002 C was born.

Although I have not recorded it previously, the Mother was fortunate to have help with the children. She had a maternity nurse after the birth of each baby. She also had the assistance of a Philippino daily nanny called Myrna. To date, she has been a constant feature in the children’s lives. Unfortunately, it seems that she is due to leave in January (come what may). In addition, the Mother currently has the assistance of a second nanny for some 3 hours on Saturday and Sunday (when Myrna has time off). When the children see their father (on his alternate weekends) Myrna travels with them and stays at Christmas Cottage.

The marriage limped on through late 2002 and 2003. It was increasingly unhappy. The Father felt that the Mother made no effort to make friends and sought to isolate him. The Mother felt that he was too dependent on his family. The Father says that there were numerous rows. He began to realise that the marriage was unlikely to survive. The Mother says that in about June 2003, they had a conversation about the future of the marriage during which the Father agreed that, should the marriage fail, the Mother could move abroad with the children. She mentioned Los Angeles. She says that, whilst the Father did not think that California was a sensible option, he did accept that she could move to Paris. The Mother indicated that agreement was made in calm circumstances and discussed on the telephone on a number of occasions.

The Father told me that he had never agreed to the Mother moving abroad. He said that there was no calm discussion. Rather it is his case that, at the end of rows, the Mother would say that if the marriage did not work she wanted to move abroad. He would then ask her how and where she proposed to live away from London. He says that he did not agree to Los Angeles or Paris but might have indicated that he would give her plans consideration.

I consider that the Father’s account is likely to be more accurate. I suspect that, at the end of rows, the Mother would threaten him that, if the marriage did not last, then she would leave with the children. I think that she did this to make it clear to the Father that he risked losing the children if he left her. In a wish to end the rows, he might have appeared to acquiesce but this was not a positive agreement to unspecified plans. It was to mollify his angry wife.

Despite her deep unhappiness, the Mother was very anxious for the marriage to continue. This was due to her own emotional requirements, low self-esteem and need for stability.

The final argument took place on the 16^th July 2003. The Father returned some 3 hours late from a stag night. A heated argument ensued. A was awoken by noise and the Father went downstairs to comfort her. He picked her up and a struggle ensued. Each party has accused the other of physical violence. Suffice it to say, the Father punched the mother and caused her nose to bleed. The police were called and he was taken to the police station. This was the last straw as far as the Father was concerned. He decided that this marked the end of the marriage. He was determined not to return. Despite her unhappiness and the injury that she had received, the Mother wanted her husband to resume married life.She asked him to return and when he did not answer her telephone calls or make any attempt to communicate with her, she decided to take matters into her own hands.

The Mother decided that, if the marriage appeared to have ended, she would leave London. Accordingly, without informing the Father, she arranged to travel to Los Angles with the children. She packed up all their personal belongings and left Redburn Street. The Father says that when he arrived at the former matrimonial home (for contact) he found a Teletubby video cover with “Bye, Bye” on it.

Later that day, Myrna the nanny telephoned the Father to say that the Mother and children were due to fly to LA but had been delayed because of a baggage handlers strike. They were at a hotel close to the Airport. In the light of this information, the Father and his team appeared before DJ Bradley and sought an injunction confining the Mother to England and Wales. The District Judge considered that the Mother might be going on a holiday and gave her permission to remove the children from the jurisdiction for a holiday not to exceed 3 weeks. The order was served at Heathrow.

The Mother travelled to LA where she remained for some11 days. Whilst there, the Father had her followed by private detectives. No doubt, he felt justified but his actions only served to increase the Mother’s sense of entrapment. The Mother sacked Myrna because of the information she had given the Father of the plans. Fortunately, later she re-instated Myrna.

The Mother says her trip to Los Angeles was for a holiday. She says that this is obvious because she had no means of funding her lifestyle in California. I do not think that she any clear plan when she left. However, I am sure that she still wanted the marriage to survive and I consider it likely that she wanted the Father to appreciate that he might lose the children unless he returned to her. Her actions were dramatic and ill considered.

On her return she received a polite letter from her mother-in-law. It was bland and conciliatory. Virginia R offered to “talk” and stated that she was “always here”.

The Mother’s response was a long (and at times intemperate) letter in which she wrote, inter alia:

“If Edward wants to leave a perfectly normal marriage for absolutely no reason apart from not being bothered with really trying to make it work and understanding how much work and effort it takes, then I will not pay for the consequences of his actions by having to look at our children’s faces everyday wondering why he has left us”.

Her description of the marriage being normal seems to lack any appreciation of its obvious, destructive quality.

At about this time, she also wroteto her husband in the following terms:

“Ed,

What you are doing is monstrous. We shall never, ever be friends, I give you my word on that. As for A, when she asks me where you are, I tell her that you have left us, that you have abandoned us and that you are not coming back home to see her but that she has done nothing wrong to deserve this and that daddy is not nice to do this. I will never lie to my children your selfishness is astounding. You are the nastiest, most self-centred person I have ever met. I wouldn’t turn to you if you were the last person on this PLANET”.

There has been some debate about the precise date of this letter. It was written about the time of the break-up when emotions were very raw. I do not consider that the exact date is important but the sentiments are clear. The Mother says that, in fact, she did not tell A anything. However, at that time she was so upset that I think it likely that she may have done. More importantly, the letter shows a mother, not only in deep distress, but lashing out emotionally without any proper reflection or regard to its effect on the children.

Following her return to London, the Mother found that she could not cope. She felt that her husband had “won”. She decided that he should care for the children and she simply disappeared. She spoke with her then solicitor, who took a detailed attendance note. I will not lengthen this Judgment by repeating its contents as they are self explanatory. The Mother went to stay in a hotel. She made no contact with anyone for some 5 weeks. The children were cared for by their Father and his parents at Caigers Farm. I asked the Mother if her 5 week disappearance was yet another attempt to make her husband return to her. She denied it with words but her demeanour, whilst giving this evidence in the witness-box, has convinced me that this was a good part of her reasoning. Of course, her own emotional vulnerability meant that she had insufficient coping mechanisms at this time of acute stress.

The children were cared for by the Father and his parents at Caigers Farm. The Mother did not contact any members of her immediate family. She did not contact any of her French relations. Eventually, she broke her silence by calling her mother-in-law. She travelled to Redburn Street and the children were returned to her care.

On the 13^th August 2003, she made her first application for leave to remove the children permanently from the jurisdiction to Los Angeles. Her reasons were set out in paragraph 12 and include the following “I wish to make a fresh start by moving to Los Angeles with my children. The children’s father is aware of my wish and has in the past agreed to our living apart, myself in LA and he in London and to his having unfettered contact with the children. I have lived and worked there in the past and so Los Angeles is familiar to me. I recently visited LA with my daughters to introduce them (in particular the eldest) to the area. I hope to attend acting school in LA with a view to securing acting work as a source of income. I have had small parts in films and acted in commercials previously whilst in Los Angeles.”

The application set out above has evolved into the application which is before me. It is the Mother’s case that she decided that, in the final analysis, Los Angeles was too far to enable contact to be frequent or “unfettered”. Therefore, she decided that Paris was the more appropriate place. Her reasons for choosing Paris are outlined in detail at the commencement of my Judgment but they are primarily based upon her need to live outside England in (and this has been emphasised) a supportive environment. However, I note that she did not consider a support structure was necessary when she made her initial application to go to Los Angeles. She obviously thought that she could cope alone some 6,000 miles away from London.

Since about August 2003 a pattern of contact has developed. The Father sees the children Thursday after school when they stay with him overnight at Manresa Road. He takes A to nursery next day. (Presently he is renting accommodation in Battersea which he does not consider is a suitable base for contact). On alternate weekends, he collects the children on Friday afternoon and takes them down to Caigers Farm until Sunday evening when he returns them to London.

Over the past year he has made a number of attempts to extend contact. This has included requests for contact on Tuesday evening (in addition to Thursday) and then, as an alternative to any midweek visits, contact each weekend. He has also pushed for contact to end on Monday mornings as opposed to Sunday night. Miss Parker Q.C. asserted that his requests for additional contact have, on occasion, been tactical in order to assist his case within the context of these proceedings. It is inevitable with lawyers advising, there will be tactics afoot but I am clear that this father is committed to these girls and that he enjoys the contact – as they do – for its own sake. The Father has been (and wishes to continue to be) a vital part of the children’s care.

It is to the credit of both parties that the contact has worked well. Over the past year, they have been able to co-operate successfully. The Mother has permitted the children to see members of the Father’s family – for example, the children were bridesmaids at Lorna’s recent wedding.

The Mother says that her own personal life has been miserable. She is isolated and alone. She has no friends as they all live abroad. She has not become involved in any circle of young mothers. She told me that she does not have a relationship with a man at present because she has made the reasoned decision that it is not right for her at present. Her relationship with her own family is, on her case, not close – although I note that for the past year her mother and father have been going to Redburn Road regularly each week. The Mother says that she has hidden her unhappiness from the children, but they have never seen her as she truly is because she cannot be happy whilst she is confined to London, a city in which she does not feel at home. She sees her salvation as being in Paris amongst the relatives with whom she claims a close affinity.

In her statement, she sets out a vision of the life which she considers she will have in Paris. It is stress free. It involves proximity and closeness with her French family, who she envisages will be available to assist as and when she needs them. It is an idealist picture.

She told the welfare officer

“that she was desperately unhappy. She attributes this partly to the trauma of a failed marriage, partly to being lonely, isolated and feeling trapped in London. She told [Mr Mellor], tearfully that her “babies” had “never seen [her] as [she is] … a bouncy, funny, happy person”. She said that she feels so wretched that she “can’t enjoy [her] children”. She told [Mr Mellor] how badly hurt she was by much of what went on in the marriage, and the way in which she considers herself to have been treated by her husband and his family. She feels that she is suffocated by the Rs and said that she yearns to be able to be herself and live her own life”….

“she has very few friends on London, and contrasted this with Paris where she has a large extended family with whom she said she is very close. Mrs R described herself as “living like a hostage” in London”.

I accept that the Mother is currently unhappy in London. But I do not believe that she has made a great deal of effort to establish an independent life because she has been pinning all her hopes on making an escape to Paris.

In pursuit of her application she undertook a number of important enquiries. First she established that she could live in an apartment costing some £650,000 – the funds currently on offer for her re-housing. That is accepted.

She also sought a suitable nursery school for the girls. When I first read the papers it seemed clear that places were available at the Bilingual Montessori School from January 2005. In fact, on about the 7^th October 2004 (in the run up to this Hearing) the Father contacted the school to confirm that the places were still on offer. He was told that no places had been secured for the children and the school was full. This information was not communicated immediately for, although the Father had informed his solicitor, they waited for Counsel to authorise the disclosure. To my mind, this delay was both unnecessary and unsatisfactory. In cases relating to children, disclosure of this type must be made immediately. It had an obvious impact on the case. The Mother felt that she had been ambushed and that the delay was tactical. Disclosure in children cases must not be used to unsettle the other party for some perceived forensic gain. I suspect that in this case, the delay arose from muddle or overwork but that is no excuse.

The school was having half term during the Hearing and so I permitted the Mother’s advisers to deal with the matter by letter, sent to me prior to Judgment. Suffice it to say, no place is available. It seems that the Mother was in contact with the school in March 2004. At that date, she informed her solicitor that she had registered the children for the September term (as it was expected that the Hearing would be completed in time for that date). She had been asked to pay a €1000 deposit for each child. When it was clear that the start date would be January 2005, the Mother telephoned the school and gave this information to the Headmistress. She also informed the school, that she only had a sterling account and therefore could not send a cheque in Euros. She understood the Headmistress to say that, in those circumstances, she would not insist on a cheque. The end result is that there is no place.

There are, apparently, a number of other establishments but the Mother would have to visit them to decide which was suitable. I have little doubt that some other nursery school could be found. However, I am concerned about the apparently causal manner in which the Mother set about securing the place. To conduct these important conversations over the telephone with no confirmatory note is not sensible. Not to make any enquiries herself, to confirm the precise position, is also worrying. The suggestion that a Euro cheque cannot be sent because of the circumstances outlined shows a lack of practical initiative. It is quite easy to make the necessary transfer with the assistance of any High Street bank.

To my mind, the lack of a school could be remedied but the lack of careful planning is troubling.

The Mother considers that her French family will support her. I have seen Fabienne de la Chauviniere and Marie-Christine Delaunay give evidence before me (and I deal with their evidence in short form below). Whilst they both impressed me as delightful ladies, they both work on a full time basis. They have busy lives and they will not be at her beck and call every day. At present, Marie-Christine speaks to the Mother for one hour each Sunday and Fabienne speaks as and when necessary on a more ad hoc basis.

The Mother has visited Paris without the children some 3 – 4 occasions since the separation. She has stayed with family members or in their apartments. However, there is a great deal of difference between short stays or holidays and establishing a life in Paris. She has also visited with the children. They have not been brought up to be bilingual – although, apparently, the Mother has been speaking to them in French in recent months. The Welfare officer noted that the children did not immediately recognise members of their French family from photographs.

I have come to the conclusion that the plans to go to Paris have not been worked out as carefully as they should have been. They are rather fluid because the expectation is that all will be well, once the move has been accomplished. I consider that this approach is naïve and superficial. It is proposed that if there are difficulties in France then Marie-Christine will contact the Father, but she does not know him at all. I doubt, with the background in this case, that the French family would find this easy unless the Mother gave very express instructions. I am not convinced that she would give them.

If all this were not sufficient to cause concern, I consider that the Mother has real emotional difficulties which must be addressed as a matter of urgency. In the run up to this litigation, and because the Father was raising questions about her emotional stability, the Mother made an application for permission to instruct a psychiatrist (on a joint basis). After argument, the Court gave leave and Dr Brener, Consultant Psychiatrist at the Priory Hospital saw the Mother on the 14^th and 21^st September 2004.

Dr Brener recites the History from the Mother’s perspective (this includes references to the Mother feeling trapped at various times in her life). In particular he notes the following in his written Report under the Heading:

In his oral evidence Dr Brener expanded upon the Mother’s need for therapy. He said that he considered that therapy was “essential”. He said that it should be psycho-dynamic in nature and would probably take a good deal of time. Although it was difficult to be precise, he thought that it might take at least 12 – 18 months. He said that it should start as “soon as possible”. He said that her current mechanism of dealing with problems was “to fly” and confirmed that, if she had stresses in the future, she might fly again. He said that if she was required to remain in England she would feel trapped and would initially be distressed but he felt that she could adapt. Although he considered that it would be difficult, he thought that she could develop a support network. He said that she would need support in whatever situation she found herself in to stop her feeling trapped.

This evidence obviously had an impact on the Mother’s case. The next day I was informed that the Mother accepted that she needed therapy. She felt that it should be undertaken in Paris. Her Counsel told me that the Mother had been considering the matter carefully with her own family overnight. They proposed that Mrs Bloomfield should (and would) accompany the Mother to Paris where she would live with her during the week. In her oral evidence the Mother repeated this suggestion and said that it was to assure “you all” [which she explained meant “Edward and his family” but which I think it included the Court] that she was serious about undertaking therapy. Her solicitors also supplied a list of suitably qualified psychotherapists in Paris.

Dr Brener also said “I could never put my hand on my heart that she would not be so emotionally distressed and trapped that it [i.e. a disappearance] couldn’t happen again. In a situation where there is support and where there are people she could turn to and where she could have therapy it is unlikely”.

The choice of Mrs Bloomfield, to offer the support that Dr. Brener considered was so essential, was very interesting. It was not prompted by the Father or any other evidence, it came solely from the Mother and her family. Dr Brener was not informed of this development. From my perspective, it was very important and enlightening because it showed that the Mother valued the support that she thought Mrs Bloomfield could provide. Far from the self-serving statements of the support she would obtain from French aunts and cousins, this was tangible proof that if she really needed help Mrs Bloomfield could and would provide it.

I am in no doubt that the Mother needs help to resolve her emotional problems. For the last 12 years, her life has not been rooted in firm foundations. For whatever reason, she has led a rather unsettled and peripatetic existence. She has spoken of times in her life when she has felt “trapped” or “controlled”. Her remedy has been to fly. For her own well being, she cannot allow this to continue. More importantly, for the sake of her children, she cannot allow this to continue. As they grow up, they will inevitably present problems and there will various problems which need to be resolved. This will not be possible unless the Mother has the coping mechanisms and strategies which mean that she can offer stability, security and understanding to them. At the moment, I do not believe that she has that inner stability or emotional strength. By that, I do not mean that she cannot care for the children now. But the psychiatric evidence is to the effect that she has to learn how to deal with her own emotional turmoil so that she acts wisely and rationally when times are testing.

In her evidence, the Mother told me that she would undertake therapy because it was “good to talk”. I am afraid that she may not quite understand how taxing her therapy will be. Whilst I do not doubt her present commitment in the face of her present application, I am not convinced that she will be so amenable if she achieves her goal to move to Paris. I think that she considers that she has her emotions and consequent behaviour under control. I disagree.

The Welfare Officer – Mr Mellor – wrote a careful report. He stated inter alia:

“The functioning of a parent who is the primary carer is a major determinant of good long term outcomes for children following parental separation and divorce. Mrs R feels very strongly that her future happiness lies in Paris where she expects she will enjoy support as a single parent that she cannot envisage ever being available in London. The children would benefit from having a happy and fulfilled mother that much is clear. What cannot reliably be foreseen is whether such benefit to the children is contingent upon their mother able to establish a new life them in Paris, or whether, if so required she would set about making good the situation in which she finds herself in London for the sake of the children”.

He reported also that

“Her desire to be free to take her children to live with her in Paris appears genuine, even heartfelt. I do not discern any motivation to make the move so as to exclude Mr R from the children’s lives. I do not think that she would want to deny the children in this way as she knows that they love their daddy and she loves them too much to hurt them by excluding him from their lives”.

“Mr R’s opposition which he articulates with greater sensitivity towards the Mother in conversation than in written statements arises out of genuine concern for the children’s welfare in my opinion. I do not discern any evidence of his being motivated by a desire to make the Mother’s life miserable, on the contrary he very much wishes she could find contentment, not least for the sake of his daughters”.

“Mrs R is likely to feel that she has been dealt a devastating blow if she is prevented from going to live with the children in Paris. She appears to be pinning all her future hopes on this move. I think that she is more resilient and resourceful than she perhaps realises and I find it inconceivable that with her many personal qualities she could not establish a supportive social network for herself in London if she actively sought to do so”.

Despite all that the Mother said to him, Mr Mellor did not support a move to Paris. This was articulated on the basis that it would disrupt contact. I do not rely upon the conclusion of his report to support my decision because this case is about much more than the loss of contact which (if it had to be) could be managed. However, Mr Mellor gave very careful oral evidence and he is a shrewd judge of human beings. He accepted (as Dr Brener had) that the Mother had the right to be happy and contented. He also confirmed that her care of the children was likely to affected by her own mood. He confirmed her current belief that she will be happy in Paris where she feels that she has a better support network. He accepted her wish appeared genuine. Despite all this, he was not to be shifted from his recommendation.

I have no doubt that the Mother wants to move to Paris and perceives that it will remedy her present unhappiness. But I do not accept that she fully understands the emotional difficulties under which she functions at present. Mr Mellor was asked about his views on contact. He confirmed that he held the traditional view that contact at alternate weekends usually worked well. He also thought that mid week contact might be disruptive.

Like so many cases the parties felt that it was important to marshal a number of supporters. Of course, it is always of interest to see the cast of characters, but in the final analysis it is the parties and experts who will inevitably (and rightly) have the most influence on the outcome of my decision.

For the sake of good order, I will outline my findings in relation to each witness. The brevity of my remarks is no discourtesy to anyone. I found each witness was doing their best to be truthful and helpful.

The finances. The Mother asserts that she has felt under financial pressure since the separation. I have been supplied with a schedule setting out allegation and counter allegation. From this it seems tolerably clear that, on separation, the Father was paying the Mother some £1,300 per month plus the running costs of Redburn Street plus the cost of the nanny. That sum was patently insufficient. In addition, he did pay £7,500 of the Mother’s legal fees to Payne Hicks Beach (her original solicitors) in July 2004 and some of her current solicitor’s accounts. A number of congestion charge bills (and related fines) were also paid by him but, it is asserted, then deducted from her maintenance. Eventually by May 2004, the maintenance had increased to £3,500 per month. The Father did not disclose his annual bonus and a small pay rise (total some £35,000) as early as he should have done. This is to be deprecated. Complaint has also been made that he agreed to pay some £40,000 towards the Mother’s costs but deducted some £15,000 of that sum to pay Myrna’s tax and national insurance. I have not been directly concerned with financial matters but I have made it clear that I do not consider that finances should prove an obstacle to the Mother and children’s needs in this case. I so state because, apart from his own assets of about £400,000 (basically his share in the Klosters flat), the Father has a trust fund worth some £2.4 million (inclusive of the value of the former matrimonial home).

In addition, Mr Simon R has set up a grandchildren’s trust worth some £3 million. A and C are beneficiaries of that settlement. I am told that it has been set up for education – but I suspect that it is a conventional maintenance and accumulation settlement. I made it clear to Mrs Virginia R that her family would have to think creatively if these grandchildren and their mother have particular needs. I hope that this message will be heeded. As I told the parties, I am happy to assist by holding an FDR or dealing with the final hearing in this case. It seems to me that whatever the outcome, the finances need to be dealt with in the High Court (preferably by me) as a matter of urgency.

I have been referred to a number of Authorities by the parties. Whilst, the children’s needs are my paramount consideration, I must also take fully into account all the features set out in the Welfare Check List as it appears in section 1 (3) of The Children Act 1989. I have no need to recite that section verbatim, because that section is so well known to all in this Court.

Of course the Authority that sets out the Court’s approach in this type of case is Poel v Poel [1970] 1 WLR 1469 and Sachs LJs statement:

Miss Parker Q.C. also points to the case of Payne v Payne 2001 1 FLR 1052. In particular she lays emphasis on the passage at paragraph 19 of the Judgment of Thorpe LJ, in which he states

“He adopted the same approach in the unreported case of Moodey v Field (13 February 1981) when he said:

‘The question therefore in each case is, is the proposed move a reasonable one from the point of view of the adults involved? If the answer is yes, then leave should only be refused if it is clearly shown beyond any doubt that the interests of the children and the interests of the custodial parent are incompatible.’”

I also bear in mind the passage at page 1060 (g) in which Thorpe LJ states:

“ In summary a review of the decisions of this court over the course of the last 30 years demonstrates that relocation cases have been consistently decided upon the application of the following two propositions:

	(a)	the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration; and
	(b)	refusing the primary carer’s reasonable proposals for the relocation of her family life is likely to impact detrimentally on
		the welfare of her dependent children. Therefore her application to relocate will be granted unless the court concludes that it is incompatible with the welfare of the children”

I take fully into Account Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR. At page 1065 Thorpe LJ states:

“However there is a danger that if the regard which the court pays to the reasonable proposals of the primary carer were elevated into a legal presumption then there would be an obvious risk of the breach of the respondent’s rights not only under Art 8 but also his rights under Art 6 to a fair trial. To guard against the risk of too perfunctory an investigation resulting from too ready an assumption that the mother’s proposals are necessarily compatible with the child’s welfare I would suggest the following discipline as a prelude to conclusion:

	(a)	Pose the question: is the mother’s application genuine in the sense that it is not motivated by some selfish desire to exclude the father from the child’s life? Then ask is the mother’s application realistic, by which I mean founded on practical proposals both well researched and investigated? If the application fails either of these tests refusal will inevitably follow.
	(b)	If however the application passes these tests then there must be a careful appraisal of the father’s opposition: is it motivated by genuine concern for the future of the child’s welfare or is it
		driven by some ulterior motive? What would be the extent of the detriment to him and his future relationship with the child were the application granted? To what extent would that be offset by extension of the child’s relationships with the maternal family and homeland?
	(c)	What would be the impact on the mother, either as the single parent or as a new wife, of a refusal of her realistic proposal?
	(d)	The outcome of the second and third appraisals must then be brought into an overriding review of the child’s welfare as the paramount consideration, directed by the statutory checklist insofar as appropriate.