S (A Child), Re:

I am concerned with the future of a little boy whom I shall call S. He was born on 19^th October 2009 and thus he is 5 this coming Sunday.

For reasons which will become apparent, he was warded on 14^th March this year. The wardship continues for the moment although no party considers it necessary for it to continue if I make orders under the Children Act 1989, hereinafter after referred to as “the Act,” determining the future living arrangements for S.

The mother of S wants him to live with her in England. She knows that S must also have a good relationship with his father and ideally that would include seeing S face-to-face, staying with his father and having Skype contact or some similar form of internet communication three or four times a week. She is, however, very nervous of any arrangement which would permit the father to take S to Saudi Arabia, where he proposes to work again if possible, or Greece, which is the land of his birth and where many members of his family live. I shall refer to the reasons behind her nervousness later when I consider the arrangements again in the context of the wider background.

The father, in print at least, was seeking the following, (although at the start of the hearing his position changed radically, as I shall report below):

I have in paragraph 4 above set out what Miss Markham, his counsel, said in opening on 14^th October about the father’s wishes, although this set of proposals was not consistent with the impression I got from her position statement filed a day earlier which seemed to suggest that the father was conceding that S should live with his mother here but the father should be allowed generous opportunities to see his son. She took further instructions, and I rose while she did so to give ample time for it, and the father’s definitive position, (and indeed his oral evidence), is that, albeit with a heavy heart, he concedes that S should stay here with his mother and he should see him as per the proposals in paragraph 4(iii), (v) and (vi) above.

S has been made a party by order of Mr Nicholas Cusworth QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, on 31^st July of this year, and so has the advantage of a guardian pursuant to Rule 16.4 of the Family Procedure Rules. That guardian is Mrs Clark. She supports the child living here with his mother and that the father and his family should, subject to what I shall say below when I consider her evidence in more detail, have opportunities to spend time with S face-to-face and/or by Skype/internet.

So much for the outline positions in this litigation. But this court’s rulings will not be the end of litigation for this family. The father has issued divorce proceedings in Harrogate. The mother has filed a defence and a cross-petition to that petition. Both parties seek to establish the unreasonable behaviour of each other for the purposes of obtaining a decree. I am told, although I have not seen the documentation, quite rightly, that the evidence they each rely on in support of their respective petitions mirrors the allegations each makes against the other in these proceedings, for a flavour of which see below. I have invited the parties to consider the future of those proceedings and try to come to some arrangement where a divorce can be obtained on a more neutral basis, even if that means that they might have to wait for a period before a two-year separation can be established to illustrate but one comparatively neutral basis for obtaining a decree. It would, in my view, be tragic for these parties, with the vast expense, and mostly emotional expense at that, irrespective of the financial cost, if they re-litigated all these matters in that forum. It would be tragic for S also as his parents continue to war over his head.

There are also proceedings in Greece. Those proceedings appear to fall into two categories, for the father brought what I shall call family proceedings there in January or early February 2014 to determine the arrangements for S, and criminal proceedings have also been brought by the authorities against, amongst others, as I understand it, the father and at least one of his sisters as well as certain psychiatrists, and a brother of the father. See below where I talk again of this litigation.

The father, as I have indicated, was born in Greece on 26^th August 1974, making him 40 years of age. The mother was born in Croatia on 26^th March 1976 and she is thus 38. The father came to this country in September 1995, I presume on the basis that he was a citizen of the European Union. If I am wrong about that, it does not matter in the overall landscape. The mother came to this country in September 1999 with her own parents, they being asylum seekers because of the acute problems occurring in Croatia at that time. The mother was eventually granted permanent leave to remain in this country. The parents met in 2000 and married in the United Kingdom by civil ceremony on 26^th July 2001. They married on 4^th July 2009 in a religious ceremony of the Eastern Orthodox Church on the Greek island of Syros in the Cyclades where most of the father’s family live during the summer months at least, for, as I understand it, there is also a family house in Piraeus. As I have already mentioned, S was born in October of that same year.

On 30^th March 2010, the father was made redundant and he undertook an extended period of temporary work. Although having more distinguished qualifications, he turned his hand to whatever was available. In the summer of that same year, there was a family visit by him, the mother and S to Greece for about two weeks. There was a similar trip in the summer of 2011, and then, in November of that year, the father secured employment in Saudi Arabia. As I understand his evidence, initially one applies for bachelor status, which he did, and he was accredited in that status, but that meant he could not take his wife and child to live there. He began, when the regulations permitted, to pursue a different status as a married man with the intention that the family would join him there, which, as I understand it, was more or less planned to occur in February of this year. As will appear below, no such déménagement occurred. The father made a flying visit to the United Kingdom in December 2011. In January 2012, the mother and S visited Greece to see the father’s family, and the father was there for a short part of it before returning to Saudi Arabia.

In February 2012, the mother saw a Dr. Baharaki on the island of Syros. She is a psychiatrist. For reasons I shall set out later when I consider the mother’s mental health, that was the first of a number of encounters with that doctor. Two days later, on 15^th February, the mother and S returned to the United Kingdom as planned. In April of 2012, S began attending pre-school where he remained until 10^th January 2014. I shall much later in this judgment have something to say about his progress there. In June of the same year, the mother and S went back to Greece to see the father’s family. They stayed for about four weeks. The father was not present. The mother was having a bad time. She felt that she was not liked by the paternal family and was not treated properly. The paternal family have made very considerable criticisms of her behaviour at that time, but I have had to investigate neither side’s account for the purposes of this hearing. It is sufficient to record that the mother’s unhappiness was such that on 21^st July 2012 she saw another psychiatrist, Dr Mpotsis, who wrote in a short note that the mother was suffering from bipolar disorder in active phase requiring immediate hospitalisation. He set a review appointment for some two weeks later. I shall return to the issue of the mother’s mental health in due course when considering the wider landscape and more recent opinions about her. In that July, the relationship between the mother and the father’s family deteriorated very significantly. The family have alleged, amongst other things, that the mother stole €15,000 from them to go on what has been described in the papers as binge shopping. The mother stoutly denies any such allegation but that is just one allegation amongst a welter, some of them relating to her alleged care, or lack of it, of little S. On 28^th July, the mother and S returned to the United Kingdom, and between 6^th and 31^st August the father came to London. It happened to coincide with the Olympics held in London that year and, as I understand it, he and the mother spent a few days there, and the rest of the holiday in Newcastle. The father made a return visit to the United Kingdom between 14^th and 27^th October.

In December over the holiday season – that is Christmas and New Year – the family had a holiday together in Lanzarote with a little time spent in Newcastle. From 8^th August to 8^th September 2013, the father took S to Greece for a holiday. The father says that the mother was no longer welcome there because of her previous behaviour, some of which I have hinted at above, but that time the mother instead visited Belgrade, returning to Newcastle on 28^th August. In October 2013, it is suggested that the father told the mother that he was going to Abu Dhabi for a conference. His account is that it was a sort of social event rather than a formal conference and that he misled the mother as to its nature because she did not really approve. It is the mother’s profound suspicion, indeed, embedded belief, that in fact the father took himself off to Greece for some time during this period, something which he continues to deny. It is agreed, however, between them that he missed the fourth birthday of S on 19^th October, the father’s account being that he had no internet available to him, a somewhat surprising suggestion in the contemporary age, but there we are. S was said to be profoundly disappointed that he had no contact with his father, even by Skype, at that time. Whether or not that led to him misbehaving slightly with his father in due course, I do not know. The aetiology of the child’s behaviour is beyond the remit of this inquiry. It was, however, at this period that the father alleges that S said things to his father about the mother and her behaviour towards S which concerned him. At the end of the month of October, the paternal grandmother found herself in the United Kingdom visiting her daughter, SE, who lives in Leeds. They came over to Newcastle for two afternoons during the one week when the grandmother was here. Mother permitted such contact to occur, despite her falling out with the family. On 5^th November 2013, the papers show that the father consulted a Greek lawyer. He expressed worries about his son and the care he was receiving at the hands of his mother. In his oral evidence, the father told me that the Greek lawyer was known to him and, in fact, was the family lawyer. It was, therefore, something of a surprise to me to see in clear terms in that lawyer’s statement that there had been absolutely no connection of any kind prior to the consultation on 5^th November with either the father or, indeed, any of the paternal family. I have no doubt at all that the father’s evasive reply when this was put to him was intended to mislead me but it is difficult to see what mileage he can have from that misleading statement. I suspect, in fact, that he was simply caught out trying to paint the lily; but I shall leave that to one side for, in such cases, one proceeds on the basis of evidence establishing on the balance of probabilities factors x, y and z rather than judicial suspicion. It remains, however, something of an oddity.

On 19^th December, the father came to Newcastle for the Christmas and New Year period with the family. He was due to stay until 3^rd January. In fact, he appears to have stayed rather longer. On 12^th January 2014, he travelled with S to Greece with the mother’s consent, (for she had gone to Belgrade), but the mother’s consent was on the basis that it was for a one-week holiday. The next day, on 13^th January, the father had arranged – the papers do not reveal when, rather unhappily – for an appointment for S to be assessed by a Dr Zorzos, a child psychiatrist based in Athens. This assessment took place without the mother’s knowledge or consent. The assessment apparently lasted, according to the father’s oral evidence, some three days including all sorts of testing. Apparently, not only the father but also the paternal grandmother was there; query others in that family. In a document executed later but to which I shall refer, the father’s sister, ME as I shall call her, who lives in Greece, suggested that it was at this time, if not before, but certainly at this time that she and her mother and her brother assumed the care of S. That very same day, the father and S went to the family home on Syros. S was due to return to Newcastle on 19^th January. The mother travelled from Belgrade to London before going to Newcastle, as she had planned to do, so that she would be there to receive him but, on landing at London Heathrow, she picked up the father’s text message saying that S would not be returning for another week. It is not clear to me whether or not she knew this but on that same day, 19^th January, as she was arriving in London, the father left Greece and returned to Saudi Arabia leaving S with his family. On the next day, 20^th January, S was registered at a nursery school in Greece and attended, as I understand it, immediately. I have seen a report from that school, albeit a brief one, and I shall refer to it later.

On 21^st January, the father made an application to the Court of First Instance in Piraeus for interim custody. He asked for his suit to be heard without any notice to the mother. On 22^nd January, an interim custody application was filed at five to eleven in the morning. The court ruled that the mother should be given twelve hours’ notice of the hearing. The father’s sister, ME, that very same day later in the afternoon, applied to the duty prosecutor in Piraeus for an “involuntary hospital examination” of the mother, apparently alleging in the course of it – and I have seen a translated copy of the statement – that the mother was resident in Greece, thereby giving the authorities jurisdiction to consider the matter. The mother, knowing nothing at all of this, travelled from London via Belgrade to Greece, landing in Athens at 1600 hours. One of the father’s brothers, NE, and brother-in-law, K, met the mother at the airport and took her initially to the paternal grandfather’s home in Piraeus, ostensibly, as she was told and believed, to meet with S. He was not there. ME and the father’s brother, NE, made the statements to the authorities to which I have referred, or at least I have referred to that of ME. The statement of NE gave a supporting account to the history given by his sister. The bailiffs allegedly served notice of the interim custody hearing on the mother by leaving a copy of it at the family home in Piraeus, although the mother says that she did not receive this.

On 23^rd January at about ten in the morning, two plainclothes police officers came to the family home. The mother was taken initially to the police station and then to be examined at a psychiatric hospital in the city. The court in Piraeus heard the father’s application for an interim order at 11.30 that morning, and the court gave him interim custody until a hearing due to take place on 4^th March. The court directed that the mother be given 20 days’ notice of that next hearing in March. She was involuntarily admitted to hospital at about three o’clock in the afternoon. Initially, she was physically restrained by being strapped to a bed, and she was involuntarily administered drugs. On 23^rd January, in other words the same day, luckily the mother still having the use of a mobile phone, contacted her own family who themselves contacted the Slovenian Embassy, and a lawyer on behalf of the mother was urgently engaged to deal with the issues which had arisen. The next day, on 24^th January, following the intervention of the Embassy again, the mother was seen in hospital by a Dr. Popovich with another doctor, Dr. Perimenis. Both of them concluded that, despite the assessment and assertion the day before by the hospital doctors that the mother was suffering from some mental illness, they found no such evidence and the physical restraints were removed. The mother left hospital with the assistance of her Greek solicitor on 25^th January. The father has used terminology suggesting that she escaped, from which I infer he was considering her still to be a risk, and he relies extensively in many of his replies on the fact that this period is not investigated and he had no idea what the mother’s state was at that time. On the next day, 26^th January, the mother was examined by a further psychiatrist, Dr Giouzelis. That examination was arranged by her lawyer. He, too, concluded that the mother had no mental health issues at that time.

The father made an application to the court in Piraeus for full custody or permanent custody, as it has been called, of S. On 30^th and 31^st January, and again on 2^nd February, the mother was examined by Professor Nestoros. These examinations had been arranged by her Greek lawyer. There is a psychiatric opinion in the documents to which I shall later refer. He found no evidence of mental health issues or difficulties in the mother. On 4^th February she returned to the United Kingdom obliged, because of the interim orders, to leave S behind with the paternal family, although, of course, the father was not there, still being in Saudi Arabia. It was on that same day that S was first seen by the doctor to whom I made earlier reference, Dr Baharaki. The next day, on the 5^th, the first contact between the mother and S took place via Skype. There was subsequent, if irregular, Skype contact between them. On 11^th February there was a further Skype visit, about a week later, and that gives a flavour of the intermittent nature of it. I wonder what this boy felt at that time. On 17^th February, Dr. Baharaki confirmed (in the briefest of reports dated 19^th February) that S had been undergoing treatment for about a month for “possible neglect.” The mother, as I have indicated at least inferentially above, was not present at this appointment, nor at any of the therapies adverted to in passing. Indeed, she was not told of any such treatments, nor, indeed, of that consultation and assessment. On 17^th February, that same day, she issued her application through the Central Authority under the Hague Convention on the International Aspects of Child Abduction, hereinafter referred to as “the Hague Convention.” On the 25^th, she had another Skype session with S.

On 27^th February, there was another report from Dr Baharaki who claims to have been told by the mother, (when the mother saw her in 2012), that the mother had given S Benzodiazepines, and Dr Baharaki reported on the behaviour of S which she speculated might be the result of neglect or the administration of Benzodiazepines. I emphasise that the mother rejects these allegations vigorously. On 3^rd March, there was another Skype contact session. On 4^th March, the hearing I mentioned earlier took place in the courts of Piraeus. The mother was not present nor was she represented. The father was not present but was represented. The court was told that service of the notice of the hearing had been undertaken on the basis that the mother was a person of “unknown residence.” That was clearly wholly dishonest for the family knew perfectly well that she was back at her home in Newcastle, intermittently being allowed the barest minimum of Skype contacts with S. The judgment arising on that day was not handed down until 20^th March. Also on that day there was a further medical report of Mr Zorzos, the child and adolescent psychiatrist. I shall return to it. On 6^th March, there was a second report of Professor Nestoros evaluating the psychiatric treatment of the mother in Greece both in 2012 and 2014. This, again, is a matter I shall return to. And on 8^th March there was another Skype contact between mother and son.

On 13^th March, the mother made a conventional enough application in this jurisdiction for what is colloquially known as a return order. The matter came in a without notice hearing before Mrs Justice Hogg on 14^th March. She warded S. She ordered the father to return S to the jurisdiction forthwith, and for the matter to be restored to court once the boy was back. The order was not sealed until the 18^th but was served on the father that same day. It took several months to bring about the desired result of a return as will appear below. On 16^th March, there was another contact session by Skype. Thereafter, the mother travelled to Greece and lived on a sort of hand-to-mouth basis for some six months whilst the United Kingdom and the Greek proceedings continued in parallel. The mother, on 18^th March in Piraeus, filed her own application for interim custody. The next day, the father was notified of that application by the mother and of the proposed hearing two days later on 21^st March. As I have mentioned a moment ago, the 4^th March judgment was the subject of a judgment handed down at about five in the afternoon in the Greek courts and it confirmed temporary custody of the boy to his father. On 21^st March, having become aware of the decision of 4^th March, the mother abandoned her application for interim custody and decided to, and did, apply to set aside or appeal the interim order referred to above. That appeal was heard on 24^th March but there is no documentation available to describe it. The mother was present. The court ordered that the mother have daily contact with S for one hour. This was immediately thwarted by the father on 25^th March taking S to Turkey for a holiday without informing the mother. There is some dispute by him as to that sequence of events, and I shall advert to it again in due course. On 28^th March, the mother applied to have the 4^th March decision revoked. Again, on the 31^st of that month there was another hearing in Piraeus but no documentation is available to assist me as to its outcome. On 5^th April, the first contact pursuant to the above order took place at the paternal grandmother’s home. It continued to be at that venue, supervised by the paternal grandmother throughout. I shall return to this.

On 9^th April, the parties’ cross-applications were heard in Piraeus and both parents were present and represented. The court accepted that the mother had not been properly served with notice of the 4^th March hearing, and found that it could not be deduced that during the present dispute that the mother suffered from psychopathological disorders causing major danger to herself and others as had been earlier alleged, and, indeed, as had been found by the two Greek doctors who examined her on admission to the hospital earlier in the year. But the court nevertheless went on to find that: “The mother’s behaviour was not compatible with the behaviour of the average, prudent mother who must bring up her child in a peaceful environment,” and that, “Any change of environment of the child would have negative consequences.” Thus, temporary custody to the father was confirmed. Although that hearing occurred on the 9^th April and the order was made and everybody acted on the basis of that decision, the judgment was not in fact issued until 11^th June. On 16^th April, a medical opinion was obtained from Mr Zorzos. I shall speak of it later.

On 25^th April, the father applied to the United Kingdom court for a child arrangements order, a specific issue order to allow the little boy to remain in Greece permanently, a specific issue order to allow him to remain in Greece on an interim basis pending determination of the previous application, and for the return order to be stayed. On 14^th May he applied in the English courts for the matter to be transferred in totality to Greece pursuant to Article 15 of European Regulation 2201 of 2003, commonly called Brussels II Revised, but which I shall refer to hereafter as “the Regulation.” The matter came on two days later before Sir Peter Singer. He made a directions order in respect of the Article 15 application under the Regulation and listed the hearing for July. The return order was suspended without prejudice to the mother’s application. On 30^th May, the father made an application for permanent custody to the courts of Syros. It is difficult to see, unless it was to further inconvenience the mother, why the enterprise was shifted to Syros and the evidence does not, frankly, illuminate that slight puzzle, but, ultimately, it matters little. On 4^th June that application was presented to the court in Syros and the matter was set down for a full hearing on 12^th February 2015. Meanwhile, the interim arrangements were to continue according to the earlier orders. On 6^th June, the mother was served with that application for permanent custody, and it was then that she first became aware of the transfer to Syros. Again, on that same day, a forensically overly busy one for this family, the father issued his divorce petition in England.

On 11^th June, the decision of the court of Piraeus was made. On the 12^th, the date originally set for the hearing in Piraeus for permanent custody did not proceed because of the above transfer to Syros. On 24^th June, in this jurisdiction, there was a hearing before Mr Justice Keehan. Amongst other issues, he considered the grant of an injunction restraining the mother by herself, servants, agents or otherwise from publicising this case online using petitions launched by friends, with photographs and widespread publicity. I shall say something more of this publicity in due course but Mr Justice Keehan, although offered undertakings by the mother, declined to accept them because she was not in the jurisdiction. Instead, he granted orders in the terms sought restraining such publication. As I understand it, there has been no recurrence of such publication in breach of that order. If there has, it has not been drawn to my attention. On 18^th July, S had his last session with Dr Baharaki. Let me come now to England for a moment. Between 22^nd and 24^th July, there was a full-scale hearing before Mr Nicholas Cusworth QC, to whom I earlier made reference, he sitting as a deputy on these dates as well. He heard the father’s application under Article 15 of the Regulation. It is recorded in the chronology I have seen that, during the course of the hearing, the father suggested that he had evidence that it would not be in the interests of S to return to the United Kingdom because of the therapies he was undertaking. That evidence was not produced at that time. Apparently, on the second day of the hearing, the father disclosed that he had negotiated a three-month sabbatical from his job in Saudi Arabia with the possibility of a further three-month extension. Also on the second day, he suggested that S was displaying sexualised behaviour (“dry humping” as it has been called) which the father associated with the mother’s contact. On the final day of that hearing, the mother was served at court with the father’s divorce petition. I have drawn the attention of the parties already to the fact that that is improper service. I understand that she may have been re-served via her solicitors but that, too, would only be valid if they had instructions to accept service.

On 25^th July, there was a further report from Dr Baharaki. On 31^st July, the learned deputy handed down a judgment, which I have seen and to which I shall refer again, rejecting the father’s application under Article 15 of the Regulation. The return order was made afresh and the return date set for 14^th August. There was a directions hearing to be listed two weeks after the child had returned, namely on 28^th and 29^th August. At that hearing, as I have said, Mrs Clark was appointed the guardian of S. On 1^st August, the father returned to Syros from Saudi Arabia. On the 8^th, he took S to be examined by Dr. Alifieri on the island of Paros. I have seen the report. Once again, there was no consultation with the mother beforehand about this examination. One of the consequences of it, however, was that the mother missed two contacts on 8^th and 9^th August. On 12^th August, the father’s solicitors notified the mother’s by email of their intention to apply for a suspension of the return order. On 13^th August, the mother’s English solicitors received it. The application sought a suspension of the “temporary” (sic) return on the basis that it was not in the interests of S to return “presently” because of the therapies he was undertaking in Greece, and evidence was filed in support from a speech therapist and an occupational therapist. I shall come back to their reports later. However, the father clearly had reconsidered the matter for, on 13^th August at 16.52, the mother’s solicitors in England were notified by email that the father was no longer seeking a stay but did want an extension of the period leading to a return.

On 14^th August, there was a hearing before Mrs Justice Eleanor King, as she then was. She made an order for the immediate return of S which, following negotiation about flights, was directed to take place on 19^th August and, indeed, on that day, the little boy was returned to this country. On the 28^th of that month, there was a hearing before the learned deputy again, and there was an agreed schedule for the development of contact between the mother and S, although it was agreed that, because of continuing disputes between the parties over the head of S who was witness to them, the maternal grandmother was to carry out the handovers, an arrangement made by the Guardian. On that day at court directions were made for this hearing in Newcastle.

I make it clear that I am not here considering the criminal proceedings in Greece but the family proceedings relevant to the future of S. I have seen the very detailed judgment given by the learned deputy, Mr Nicholas Cusworth QC, on 24^th July and the qualifying clauses which he called “postscript” to that judgment dated 31^st July. If I may respectfully say so, that very thorough and detailed judgment repays reading before proceeding further with this one. He makes it clear that he has heard no oral evidence and that he is not purporting to come to any concluded views about that part of the history.

I have had the advantage over him of hearing the mother and the father and oral evidence from his sister, SE, although that was by my direction largely devoted to the desirability and/or practicality of contact between her, her children and S. But in giving evidence to me the father was, not surprisingly, cross-examined thoroughly by Miss Dixon, the mother’s counsel, about the proceedings in Greece and their genesis. I am thus, whilst not able to make findings in respect of some members of his family and what they may or may not have done – for example, his sister ME and one of his brothers, probably NE, who have not given oral evidence – in a position to make some findings about the father’s conduct in those proceedings.

I have taken account of the fact that at times he was in Saudi Arabia and that he, therefore, at times in his evidence, both written and in the oral evidence, sought to distance himself from some of what occurred in Greece in his absence, but, in contrast to that forensic posture, he also said in the witness box towards the end of his evidence that I should not assume that his family were malignly acting on their own account behind his back because they had, in fact, done nothing other than act upon his instructions. It is a rare assumption of responsibility on his part.

It is quite clear from his evidence that he deliberately orchestrated the family proceedings, the timing of them and the preparations for them. For example, he consulted a Greek lawyer in November the previous year, and I have adverted to the lies he told me about the relationship with that lawyer. He ignored her advice to have an assessment of S carried out in England, and I find his reason for ignoring it to be a wholly unsatisfactory one, namely that the mother would object and possibly disappear. There is no evidence to support any sort of assertion that even if she did object, she would disappear with S. He drafted in advance of 21^st January of this year, that being the date upon the document, a very lengthy statement about the mother, about S, and about the difficulties he asserted were arising for S from the mother’s alleged behaviour. He instructed his lawyers to proceed in Piraeus whilst asking for the proceedings not to be served on the mother, and orchestrated, I find, the approach of his sister, ME, and his brother, NE, to the police in Piraeus, which approach, in the light of their statements of 22^nd January, led to the mother being detained in the psychiatric hospital to which I have referred above.

To justify even those parts of his actions and those of his family which he admits, he reportedly relies on the mother’s admitted text of 19^th January this year where she threatened suicide. But such reliance by him does not stand up to scrutiny or justification when the entire sequence of their exchanges is examined, and in the light of the mother’s behaviour on her arrival in Greece, for her communications with him and others following that threat, albeit underpinned with urgency and increasing worry about the whereabouts of her son, are lucid and surprisingly, given what was happening to her, calm. In any event, some of his preparations for this litigation, as I have adverted to above, predate the 19^th January text from the mother and the threat it contained in one part of it.

I give but two further examples which, to me, establish his choreography of these events and the reality of his plan to remove S from his mother’s care. They are:

I do not make these findings about him lightly. I have no intention of, to use his own term, demonising him, but apart from the innate unfairness of what he did or orchestrated others to do in order to establish his case in Greece and thwart the mother’s ability to answer his accusations and make her own case for a return of S to England, he has repeatedly refused to recognise the harm he has inflicted on his son by deracinating the boy. See below when I return to the resolution of this case and my consideration of the welfare checklist.

Some of the allegations came from the father because of what he says he observed directly when with the mother and S. Some of the allegations about her behaviour (towards other adults and S) come from members of his family, mostly set out in their statements in the Greek family and criminal proceedings, though SE and ME, his sisters, have very recently made statements in the English proceedings.

To give a flavour of the allegations, without in any way pretending that this is a complete list, it is alleged that:

The most florid accounts of the alleged effect on S of the mother’s purported behaviours listed above, by way of illustration, perhaps comes from the two sisters, SE and ME. As I have said, they have both filed statements in these proceedings a few days ago. SE gave her oral evidence to me and she said that she had in her statement of 6^th October given an accurate account of her observations of the mother and of S. In combination, the two sisters give an account which includes, but is not limited to, the following:

At his father’s instigation, and, as I have said, without the knowledge and consent of the mother that he was presenting S to various specialists, the little boy saw a number of them. Their respective sources of information about S were the father (at times, when not in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere) and members of the paternal family. There is one document not generated by them in the bundle about S’s presentation at the school on Syros entered on 20^th January, to which I made earlier reference. It is worth setting it out in full, even though it is based on only three weeks of attendance:

“S was registered at the nursery school on 20^th January 2014. The child from the beginning looked to be seeking the company of other children and was trying to integrate and play with them. He had difficulty playing and collaborating with other children because he had not learned how to share with the result that he was pulling any toys he wanted from the hands of the other children and had a developed Ego (“but I want it”). He has an issue with boundaries and when he must follow certain rules he becomes very stressed and restless.

He is an adequately clever boy and has satisfactory knowledge for a child of his age. He is a bit behind in his prewriting activities; he does not know yet how to hold felt pens correctly and has difficulty in simply scribbling. His speech is not clear enough, which may be due to the fact that the child speaks more than one language. Usually when he’s in a hurry or when he is enthusiastic about something he repeats words (stammers).

On the whole, he is a smiling child, eager and cooperative who, however, has difficulties in collaborating and integrating in a group.”

The next report, in date order, is from Dr Baharaki dated 17^th February. As I have mentioned she is a child psychiatrist who will reappear later when I consider the mother’s mental health. The relevant part of this report reads as follows:

“S is 4 years old and manifests behaviour that is much too immature for his age with anger episodes alternating within appropriate bonding behaviours towards older people, difficulties of adaptation to the school environment, sleep disorders and difficulty in setting boundaries. Based on information from the school, it appears that he is improving.” (C130).

A brief note from Dr Baharaki dated 19^th February sets out a proposed programme of specialist intervention for S as follows:

“He needs to spend a few hours at the nursery school, 15 sessions of ergotherapy, 15 sessions of speech therapy, 15 sessions of special education per month for six months. Must be accompanied to school by a specialist.” (C139)

I find myself somewhat perplexed by the suggestion that he should be accompanied to school by a specialist. There is no explanation of that requirement nor nomination of any particular specialist, and I have no idea from the face of the document what was intended and why.

A further report from her is dated 27^th February. It deals in part with what the mother has allegedly said to Dr Baharaki during her consultation with that doctor about her own mental health in 2012, and about the mother giving S Benzodiazepines – I repeat, an allegation the mother emphatically denies – and it also deals with the progress that S was making. The relevant passages read as follows:

“He is also manifesting immaturity as far as gross motor skills and fine motor skills are concerned. Based on the case history, there are indications that the above could be signs of neglect or of the administration of Benzodiazepines. Further, he needs to be reassessed after work therapy and speech therapy interventions, counselling care and education and to live in a stable environment.” (C133).

A speech therapist, Ms Dimitriadou, saw him on 27^th February and in her report said, amongst other things:

“At the level of behaviour, S is a very sweet boy with the need to involve himself in two-part relationships. He is cooperative, follows – but not always – instructions, completes, upon encouragement, activities and actively participates in them. He presents difficulties in concentration, of attention, elements of hyperactivity and compulsion, even if, in the tests that interest him more, the picture becomes different.” (C135).

She refers to his speech suggesting immaturity both at the level of understanding and expression. As far as his understanding is concerned, he has difficulty accepting complicated commands and in answering questions that have to do with his recollections of listening to a short story. She refers to his speech being characterised by articulation problems, flow disruptions and oral facial muscles which are weak with diminished mobility. She refers to his cognitive level, raising questions about his fine and gross mobility, his spatial orientation, et cetera. She refers to:

“There must be taken into consideration the difficulties of emotional type as they are reflected in his play and drawing as well as the gaps that become clear at the level of psychosocial support from the family environment.”

She goes on to say this:

“By taking into consideration the age and the needs of the child as well as the fact of his exposure to three different languages, it is recommended that the child is immediately integrated in a speech therapy programme so that his linguistic skills can develop to a maximum and, more specifically, with the following targets.”

She then sets them out but I do not feel the need to further burden this already overlong section with the detail.

Dr Zorzos, a child psychiatrist, saw S and reported on 16^th July that he had:

“…come to the conclusion that he [S] presents problems in fine mobility, distraction of attention and problems of stress, sleep and aggression, a mild phonological disorder that has to do with the pronunciation of the letters s, z and x, which is not considered to be connected to the fact that S is trilingual.” (C141).

He suggests a therapeutic programme demanding continuity and consistency, et cetera, and a consistent living environment with an established daily routine.

Dr Zorzos produced a fuller report that is dated 4^th March of this year. He had available to him a number of documents, including some previous reports, and he had a lengthy interview with the father. Paragraph 6 of his report, to be found at F252, reads as follows:

“From the clinical evaluation of S, I became aware that he:

•

Had good eye contact with both his father and the examiner,

•

Does not present stereotypes or other peculiar motor behaviours,

•

Has understanding capacity within the normal levels for his age,

•

Presents small difficulties in fine mobility,

•

His level of speech development is within the normal levels for his age, taking into consideration that this is a ‘trilingual’ child that lives in the UK with parents from other countries. When speaking one language with me he completed the words that he did not know in that language with those from the other language, thereby confirming his ability to comprehend oral speech and to communicate verbally,

•

Presents a mild phonological disorder that has to do with the pronunciation of the letters ‘s’, ‘z’ and ‘x’,

•

Does not suffer from any disorder of the autistic range.”

Dr Zorzos says in paragraph 8 of F253:

“During the joint psychiatric forensic interview of parent and child:

•

S was happy,

•

Was seeking body contact with his father,

•

Was enjoying being in his father’s arms,

•

Was seeking to play with him,

•

Was playing with humour using the toys that were in my office, and

•

Was enjoying playing with his father.

•

The father was playing with young S a game of role play and symbolic play, by following and enriching the child’s play, but not intervening, respecting the initiatives of S.”

Dr Zorzos seems to have proceeded on the basis that the mother suffered from a bipolar disorder and that this might account, in part at least, for the (as observed by him) ease with which S played on his own, and queried that this illustrated periods of “emotional withdrawal” by the mother. He also proceeded on the basis that the mother might have given S Benzodiazepines and abused both alcohol and that class of drugs herself. It does not seem to me that his report on that occasion in the conclusion of it takes the matter much further.

In an undated report, an occupational therapist describes seeing S on 2^nd May and (I emphasise what follows is only part of the report) said this at D75/6:

“The occupational therapy evaluation showed difficulties in proportion to his age in most fields of development. S presented the picture of a child that had not received the necessary stimuli from his environment so as to be able to associate with children of his own age. It was particularly difficult for him to express himself. He did not know how to play games of his age and wasn’t able to communicate properly. Those skills are conquered through mimicking and education which, in his case, were not achieved.”

She refers in particular to problems with his gross movement and difficulties with controlling and coordinating his limbs, deficits in his balance. As far as fine movement is concerned, he had not achieved the stage she would have expected for a child of his age and in general had poor graphomotor skills. She found that he “frequently appears to have an attention disorder,” particularly when he was trying to focus on writing, and that the observed attention disorder becomes more intense during periods of “sentimental stress or environmental changes that force him out of his routine.” [I hope I may be forgiven for inserting a comment at this point. This finding is hardly surprising given what had been happening to him for the last few months]. She went on to say this:

“Generally, S seems to be a child with a strong need of stability. Intense changes may affect him in every aspect of his life, pushing him sometimes to express himself through previous behaviours and attitudes (i.e. regression).”

Dr Baharaki reports again on 25^th July. The source of her information appears to be the paternal grandmother. Having noted that the progress of therapies undertaken by S over the last few months had led to an improvement in him, there was said to be a “significant regression” after the reintroduction of his mother. It is frankly difficult, given the number of reports I have seen about this boy, to find any supporting evidence of this proposition amongst the reporters. The only source of it in this context appears to be the paternal grandmother who has little, if anything, good to say about her daughter-in-law.

Dr Baharaki produced her last report of 13^th August, which has been lodged in the bundle at D81 to D82. The section headed “Conclusion” reads as follows:

“● In my opinion and according to the child development specialist, the ergotherapist, the speech therapist and the nursery, S does not suffer from any congenital development disorder or other primary child psychiatric disorder.

•

The symptoms which he presented during my initial assessments may have been caused by the disrupted relations within the family (between the parents and in the extended paternal and maternal family) and the conditions under which he arrived in Syros, where he was living without the stability of either parent figure. This assumption is corroborated by the fact that his improvement fluctuated without there being some sort of stability in his environment. That is why at one point recently I requested a social report on the environment in which he is living, which is not required and which there is no time to pursue following the judgment delivered by the English court requiring S to be present in his family home in England on 14^th August 2014.”

So, as the guardian of S has postulated in her interim report and final report, the child psychiatrist, despite all the excursions and alarums of the preceding months, has concluded, it would appear, that all along, whatever was observed may well have arisen from the events of January 2014 (what I have called the deracination of S).

Dr Baharaki goes on at D82 to say this:

“During my many months association with his paternal family, in particular, and during the three meetings with his parents in Syros (two with the father and one with the mother), I observed numerous instances of manipulative behaviour on the part of the adults towards both me and the other professionals working together on S’s case, mainly for the purpose of collating expert opinions for the litigation, of contradictory statements on both sides, and of conflicting information between the two sides (paternal and maternal families), i.e. there is no reliable source of information by which to measure any improvement in S’s psycho emotional development.”

Finally, I turn to the report of Dr Alifieri, a specialist paediatrician and a sub-specialist in neurodevelopment. The report is dated 8^th August of this year. The relevant findings for my purposes are as follows. She found that he had a very strong personality from the outset, and tried to control the session he had with her. She illustrates this. She says, “Overall, he is of above-average intelligence-ability compared to other children of his age.” She found that he was able, both in the practical domain as well as in his language ability. She found that he had phonological problems in Greek (“meaning the clarity of speech sound but sounds like a native language speaker”). She found him to have excellent verbal as well as visual memory skills of an above-average kind. His motor skills were average, both in gross motor and fine motor function. He was concentrating and had no attention deficit, and no social ability deficit. He was well presented and a handsome little fellow, friendly to both of his examiners, perhaps a little overconfident, but at ease. As to the suggestion that he had night terrors, she makes no comment but overall found that a specialist assessment tool used in her metier found him to be normal.

“I am not concerned about his neurodevelopmental status at present. He is a normal little boy who needs stability and nurturing.” (D86).

I have included much detail in the above paragraphs to show the development of the approach taken by the treating specialists on the basis not only of examinations and assessments of S from time to time but also, substantially, on the basis of the information supplied to and by (with the exception of one interview with the mother with Dr Baharaki) the paternal family who had a significant investment in exaggerating or possibly even fabricating, but I cannot make such a finding without hearing the evidence of the relevant adults, the purported difficulties of S. Dr Baharaki’s statement referred to in paragraph 47 above rings the clearest warning bells about their reliability as historians.

I have had the advantage of some limited evidence from the pre-school which S attended before his wrongful retention by his father in Greece this last January. They have written two brief reports about S. These appraisals could not give a more contrasting picture of this little boy from that presented by his father and other paternal relatives. They are worth setting out in full. The first is dated 31^st January of this year and reads as follows:

“S joined the setting in April 2012. Since joining the setting, S has become a popular member of the group. He has a bubbly personality and always makes people laugh! He enjoys interacting with his peers and adults alike. S is above average in all areas of the specific development with regard to the Early Years Foundation Stage. The specific areas include personal, social and emotional wellbeing, communication and language skills and physical development. S is a happy, confident boy.

S has always been collected on time from pre-school. We have never had any concerns regarding S’s home life. The mother has always been diligent, ensuring S attends pre-school and has always been an active participant with regard to S’s learning. She has always seemed to be very proud of S’s achievements at pre-school. S is always well dressed, clean and cared for. When staying for lunch, S always has a healthy packed lunch. S seems to adore his mother, and likewise his mother seems to adore S. They would both chat happily about their weekends and evenings together. We hope this information is helpful. I hope this situation can be resolved at the earliest opportunity.”

The second report from them is dated 24^th March of this year and reads thus:

“We have been asked to provide further information regarding S. I would like to re-iterate that we have never had any concerns regarding S’s wellbeing. He attended pre-school five mornings per week and was a regular member of the group. S was always clean and well dressed. He was a happy, polite boy and a joy to have around; very vocal, he loved to join in with songs, rhymes and stories. He has a great imagination and used to make us laugh a lot. His robot dance was amazing! His friends miss him dearly and ask about S a lot.

S’s mother always picked up S on time from pre-school and was interested about his day and learning. S would occasionally fall over or bump into other children accidentally, but this is very normal in pre-school children. We have not had concerns regarding S’s behaviour and he had good relationships with staff and peers. S was a very loving little boy and would help the smaller children if they were upset by giving them a toy or a hug.

When S joined the setting he was wearing a nappy; again we had no concerns (we have a duty to record any concerns we have by our governing body). There was never a concern regarding S.

His mother was the main carer of S and this was who we had all dealings with. In the 22 months I have known S, I only saw his father on a couple of occasions when he was home from working in Saudi and therefore cannot comment on S and his father’s relationship. S and his mother seem to have a great relationship and show mutual admiration for each other. With S gleefully shouting “MUMMY” in his accent when his mother picked him up, something we miss hearing. I do hope this letter will be of help to resolve the situation. We hope to have S back with his friends at the pre-school at the earliest opportunity.” (C76).

Those two reports are underpinned in part by a rolling log of the boy’s time there. In that log I find, amongst many entries which are supportive of the assessments just incorporated above, the following: “He is a wonderful character in the pre-school.” (C45).

At the start of her oral evidence, I asked the guardian to bring S alive for me. She described him, with a bright smile on her face as:

“A darling boy: boisterous, full of life, doing very well at school [she had spoken to the teacher] no different from other children of his age. He likes the outdoors, the cinema, drawing, colouring and playing on his laptop.”

He has had the occasional episode of aggression towards other pupils but this was considered to be nothing out of the ordinary in the overall landscape.

I remind myself that the school and, indeed, the guardian since August of this year, have been able to observe S over a very long period and I prefer their accounts from the snapshots seen in the treating doctors’ and specialist reports from Greece. Even if those reports were to be fully accurate, one only has to look at the final report of Dr Baharaki to put them in a proper context.

That there were some problems in Greece in the months January to August this year is, in fact, highly probable. It need only to be recalled to set those difficulties in context that:

The father relies upon the question of the mother’s mental health to justify the actions he took in the period January to August. That she has indeed suffered for periods from depression is not in doubt. Has she also been correctly diagnosed as bipolar as Dr Mpotsis (an assistant professor of psychiatry in Athens) thought her to be when he saw her in July 2012? He said this in the briefest of notes:

“[The mother] is suffering from bipolar disorder in active phase (mixed state), does not take her medication and is in need of compulsory hospitalisation in a psychiatric clinic because she might become dangerous to herself and to others. Additionally, improvement is expected from the forced psychiatric hospitalisation.”

As is clear from that briefest of reports, he does not specify what her medication is and there is no record of her ever being given an appropriate medication for a bipolar disorder by any doctor. But I leave that conundrum aside for Dr Hughes, who makes his appearance below, to consider. (C111).

Or had she even earlier in February 2012 suffered from a “conversion attack” and displayed “signs of an histrionic personality” as Dr Baharaki thought when she saw the mother at that earlier time?

Was the mother suffering from an “acute psychiatric illness,” as two doctors in Athens considered her to be on 23^rd January when they admitted against her will?

Dr Hughes is a consultant psychiatrist with many years’ experience. He has carried out a magisterial survey of many, many documents, including photocopies of the mother’s general practitioner records, over the extended period June 2000 until July of this year.

He provides a psychiatric history summary showing, amongst other things, that the mother has had periods of stress-related problems in 2005, anxiety and depression in 2008, leading to her commencing antidepressant medication. She had post-baby blues, a depressive illness starting when S was five months old, leading to the prescription of an hypnotic to improve her sleep followed by antidepressant medication which she took until the spring of 2011. Shortly thereafter, in May of that year, she had moderate depressive symptoms with fluctuations leading to the prescription of Fluoxetine. Things improved but then deteriorated when she was in Greece in February 2012 and July 2012, as is clear from the earlier entries in this judgment. Dr Baharaki gave the mother, in February 2012, Mirtazapine. On the descriptions of the mother at that time, Dr Hughes could find no evidence of a conversion attack nor of an histrionic personality (D107, paragraph 6.5). There was no evidence the mother was at that time suffering from alcohol abuse or Benzodiazepine abuse, the latter especially unlikely given that the doctor in February 2012 prescribed her one. Dr Hughes concludes that these were depressive attacks.

On her return to England, the mother immediately sought out help from her general practitioner. She was prescribed Sertraline. The documents available relating to that period in July 2012 include statements from the paternal family, but they do not establish any history that would account for a diagnosis that the mother suffered from mania. Dr Mpotsis did not describe anything to account for his diagnosis of a bipolar disorder, nor is such a diagnosis consistent, says Dr Hughes, with the prescription by Professor Mpotsis of antidepressants, contraindicated for anybody suffering from a bipolar disorder. That same professor also prescribed the mother Benzodiazepine, once again a bizarre prescription if, indeed, she was found to be addicted to or abusing them. On her return to England, the mother again consulted her general practitioner and was medicated again on Fluoxetine changing to Citalopram in August 2013.

Of the period 9^th January of this year to the 23^rd, Dr Hughes records this:

“It was on 19^th January 2014 that the mother described a worsening in her symptoms with extreme fear when after a period of difficult interactions with her husband that he informed her that her son was not to meet her as had been arranged. She believed that her husband may be keeping their son in Greece. She did state that she was going to end her life, however this statement was not followed with any planning, action or subsequent report of anything that would have hastened such an eventuality, but in fact she travelled to Greece hoping to return her son. She travelled without incident in airports, on planes, through security arrangements without incident or suspicion of those vigilant around her (it is my experience that people demonstrating severe signs of mental illness are identified by border and flight staff and it is not uncommon for such to present unwell to people at emergency psychiatric services or police).” (D109, paragraph 6.9)

I respectfully agree with that diagnosis insofar as a layman can.

On the basis of the account of her involuntary incarceration in a psychiatric unit on the order of the Greek court, Dr Hughes can find no evidence that she was suffering from mania or even a mixed affected state. He is not, in his survey, just reliant on the briefest of notes prepared by the two examining doctors. He has had the advantage of being able to read a lengthy document prepared by the hospital on their behalf and bearing in mind the interests of those two doctors who are facing inquiries within the criminal jurisdiction. Thus, he was able to see their account, insofar as they gave one, of what led them to come to their conclusion. He reminds himself that she was seen by a Dr Renshaw, by her family and her Greek advocate and the Slovenian Embassy. I have referred to Dr Popovich already who examined the mother on 24^th January and she could find “absolutely no symptoms of psychiatric illness.” The relevant passage of her brief report, to be found at E49, reads thus:

“Throughout the duration of our discussion, the patient was co-operative, calm, fully orientated with where she was and what time it was. She gave us a full history regarding her life over the past few years, about her marriage, her relationship with her husband, her child and her in-laws. From the psychiatric clinical assessment of her mental functions which took place on 24^th January 2014, absolutely no symptom of psychiatric illness emerged (her feelings were normal and within natural fluctuations, her behaviour was calm and within limits, the content and coherence of her thought were normal, her judgment was correct and there were no disorders noticeable in her understanding).”

This opinion was proffered following a detailed examination of the mother and the taking of a history, as is evident from the document provided. Subsequent examinations of her by Dr Giouzelis and Professor Nestoros confirmed Dr Popovich’s assessment and diagnosis. The Greek court, as I mentioned earlier in the history of this case, has subsequently preferred the evidence of the above doctors over that of the two hospital doctors who forcibly admitted the mother.

On her return to this country, the mother saw her general practitioner again and no evidence of psychiatric illness was found. She is not currently on any medication for depression or any other psychiatric state.

She takes a painkiller intermittently, analgaesia only, for carpel tunnel syndrome.

In April 2013, she had a termination of pregnancy. The father did not know of that before it occurred. There is a dispute I need not resolve about when he did learn of it for he had hitherto understood it, he tells me, to have been a miscarriage, not a termination. Now he has found out, it has, he says, upset him profoundly and fatally damaged his trust in the mother. Whenever he did find out the precise nature of the medical intervention, it is hardly likely to improve the mutual mistrust these parents have in each other.

The mother admits to being a social drinker. There is no objective evidence from sources who might be expected to observe excess consumption of such alcohol consumption by her save for the paternal family. There is not a scrap of evidence, as I understand it, in any of the medical records, something which would be likely if, indeed, she is addicted to excessive drinking as that family state.

Her mental state examination (Dr Hughes spending three and a half hours with her rather than his usual one hour plus) revealed no evidence of psychiatric disorder, including depression, though there is a possibility that she will in the future experience further episodes (D116).

She may need pharmacological help in the future. Counselling with a professional is advisable and though she told me that she is open to the idea, she is also anxious that such counselling might be used against her in the future as a piece of forensic weaponry rather than as an assistance to her.

In conclusion, Dr Hughes finds, and I summarise:

Insofar as a layman can, I accept his opinions on these matters. He was the subject of very proper and searching cross-examination. I heard nothing which undermined his written views. Indeed, the more he spoke, the more compelling his overall assessment became. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not make detailed findings about the two doctors’ culpability (or otherwise) who examined the mother on 23^rd January in Athens, nor about the other doctors to whom I have referred in the above survey. I have not heard from those Greek doctors and therapists, nor seen any details of their working notes, and have no requirement to do so. Any action in relation to them is entirely a matter for the Greek authorities if they choose to look into these issues, but having the undoubted advantage of the written and oral evidence of Dr Hughes, I am, I find, in a position to reach the above-recorded conclusions on this subject.

Having heard the mother at length, I am also confident that if there is a recurrence of her depressive symptoms, she will seek the necessary help. As I have said, I would hope she would also avail herself of counselling as Dr Hughes recommends, but that must be a matter for her.

It is clear the father does not accept that the risk of a recurrence is as low as Dr Hughes opines. Nor does he accept in reality the opinions of the three doctors who gave the mother a clean bill of mental health in January and February this year. He fears, in contemplating a recurrence, that S will be deleteriously affected by it. He sees no reason to question the accounts of his family about the mother’s alleged behaviours, and he chooses to ignore the objective evidence of the English schools, et cetera, as to his son’s state currently and in the past.

Given all of that, it is hard to rationalise his working arrangements since November 2011, and his leaving S in the care of the mother throughout until January 2014. It is equally hard to rationalise those views and the proposals, realistic as they in fact are on the question of with whom S shall live henceforth, which the father now makes for the daily care of S.

He is a proud man who finds it hard to back down. It may be that he cannot publically concede the deficiencies of his case, including both his and his family’s allegations, but I cannot put it higher than that and make no findings on that issue.

I have already made it clear, by brief example only, that I find the father’s evidence in many ways unreliable, shifting and at times plainly dishonest, having given myself a very clear Lucas warning. The only possible conclusion I can reach about the events of January this year to August are that he has been dishonest about them and that he cannot, at the moment, be trusted. This includes, but is not limited to, not being able to trust him to return S to the mother should he be permitted to take S out of the jurisdiction. Maybe, if and when trust is re-established between him and the mother, if it ever is, that will change, but as the evidence stands, I cannot trust him to take a holiday in Europe. In reality, what he wants is a holiday in Greece which he proposes to take next summer if given permission.

Most egregious of all is his blind refusal to take any responsibility for the unquestioned significant harm he did to S between January and August of this year, and for the likely consequences for S’s development, that is emotional development, and ability to trust others as he grows into adulthood.

The father and certainly SE are positively and, I find, perversely proud to this day of what they did, displaying a lamentable lack of insight.

I am surprised to find in paragraph 22 of counsel’s closing submissions an assertion on his behalf that the father has at all times obeyed the orders of a court. I remind myself that in the summer of this year, when the mother was permitted by the Greek court to have an extended number of hours per contact with him, it was immediately thwarted by the father taking S to Turkey for a holiday. This was flagrant. Even on the basis put by him in evidence, if I have understood it correctly, that he was already in Turkey when the order was made, he nevertheless failed, on being notified of it, to return to Greece until it suited him.

Having reflected upon it and considered the submissions of counsel, I have come to the conclusion that the issuing of an Annex 2 certificate, pursuant to the provisions of the Regulation, is insufficient protection for S to permit of foreign travel.

It proved very easy for the paternal family to mislead the Greek court as to its jurisdiction, as they appear to have done; and also as to the habitual residence of the child. It took months to rectify this. Even then, having decided that the habitual residence of S was England before the wrongful retention by the father, they did not declare that they had no jurisdiction as is required by Article 17 of the Regulation, nor did they accept that they had no powers, taking account of Articles 8 and 10 of the Regulation, to make more than interim measures pursuant to Article 20 of it.

Even the Greek Central Authority has apparently declined to step in despite all of the above. It is hard for me to discern why not, though I should not venture criticism since they have not had the opportunity to explain their position to me.

I do not regard the surrender by the father of his and the passport of S and/or his Saudi Arabian visa as sufficient protection either. Sadly, experience in this Division illustrates all too frequently and clearly how comparatively easy it is to obtain duplicates.

Nor do I regard these expressions by the father and SE that the mother should have an equal part in the life of S as definitive of their real views, for one only has to look back at the miserable history of maternal contact (and the inhibitions put upon it by the Greek court and the family) to see the reality of how they defined equality during that period.

As a further insult to S as well as to the mother, her contact with S was at times videoed on the instruction of the father, no doubt to garner evidence for their case. This, too, is a dispiriting sign.

As a step towards his education about the consequences for a child of actions such as this father’s, I require the father to attend an SPIP. The mother is volunteering to so attend and I order that she shall do so also.

The father is about to go back to Saudi Arabia and will, in all probability, be there for some weeks, if not months, before he returns to this jurisdiction. He will, of course, on the agreed proposals of the parents have Skype three or four times a week with the boy. Nevertheless, S’s father will be disappearing yet again and his mother will move back into the family home. Another change. What is S to make of all this, given the number of unannounced changes he underwent this year, let alone in previous ones? He will take a lot of preparing. For my part, I hope it is successful.

I found her to be the more accurate witness of the two parents by a large margin but even she does not come out of this well on two points in particular. The first is as to the widespread internet publicity about the case I referred to earlier, suppressed only by order of Mr Justice Keehan. Even if she did not do anything other than encourage them to pursue this publicity, she appears, for whatever reason, to have paid little attention to the consequences of exposing S to this kind of publicity. The second issue is her tendency, which I accept based on the evidence of the guardian, that she talks wholly inappropriately in front of S about marital and financial problems, to name but two areas of their lives. This, too, must stop. Apart from those matters I find her to be a truthful and compelling witness, especially when she made it clear that whatever her problems of trust with the father and his family, she would do her best to arrange contact of a kind we shall come to later when I consider with counsel the precise nature and extent of it, and that she would not interfere with the continuance of that contact, albeit on an amended basis from what has gone before.

Although I have not yet said so, and although I do not intend to go slavishly through each and every term of the welfare checklist, I have no doubt at all that the father’s conceded position and the mother’s dearest wish to raise this boy in this country is entirely appropriate and entirely consistent with his welfare interests. There is a large measure of agreement between the parents (and the guardian approves) as to the nature of contacts which will ensue. In summary, the father is to have lengthy periods of staying contact, as it used to be called before 22^nd April of this year with the statutory amendments made at that time, three times a year at the major festivals and long holidays, and Skype three or four times a week in the early evening. There should be alternating half terms. The little boy can stay at the former matrimonial home, which will then be his permanent home, and the mother would leave to go and stay with her parents who live very nearby during staying contact visits if no other suitable venue can be found. That arrangement must take account, of course, of the risk that S might receive a mixed message from these practicalities. The mother will keep the father informed of all major events, including medical treatments, et cetera, in the life of S.

The mother has made proposals for the paternal family to have Skype sessions. For example, he and his cousins could speak fortnightly on, for example, the Sunday early evening.

As to the paternal grandparents (even though the mother has, not surprisingly, a very poor relationship with them), Skype four times a year is contemplated by the mother. The paternal grandmother can also, when visiting SE at her home in Leeds, make the occasional afternoon visit to S at his home in Newcastle.

I shall consider the detail of these proposals with counsel at the conclusion of this judgment but I have no doubt that while some of the above may be made orders, some are more properly recitals, leaving to the mother a degree of latitude as to whether or not contact takes place depending on the relevant considerations determining the welfare of S, but in saying “contact” in this paragraph, I am referring to wider members of the family, the father’s contact being the subject of rather clearer definition.

It is not a matter for me to order the guardian to make a child in need referral to the Local Authority, something that she told me she had contemplated, but as her evidence progressed, her preference changed to a request to this court to make a family assistance order pursuant to the provisions of section 16 of the Act. I entirely agree with her revised position that the making of one is appropriate, and I so make one. There is no need for the Local Authority to supply the court with a report in consequence of this order. What is needed is some support for the mother, and for S if required, through the not necessarily minor shoals and shallows which lie immediately ahead. The order shall be for a period of one year.

I would hope that each party feels able to withdraw from the family proceedings currently afoot in Greece and have them dismissed or withdrawn. In the event that it is useful to the Greek courts, and needful to them to know what has occurred here, I shall hear submissions as to whether or not this judgment and the Article 15 resolution judgment of the learned deputy, Mr Nicholas Cusworth QC, should be sent to the Greek courts and, if so, how.

As to the mother’s participation in the Greek criminal proceedings, I shall also hear argument bearing in mind that she may have duties under Greek domestic law to pursue or assist in the pursuit by the authorities of the existing complaint and/or give evidence.

I have already made my views clear about the future of the divorce suits. If it is thought useful for this judgment to lie on that file also, I shall hear argument.

I shall prohibit the father from making any applications for S to the United Kingdom Border Agency or to the Greek authorities or to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for passports or travel documents or visas on behalf of the boy and that this discrete order, to be drawn on a separate form, shall bear also by way of recital respectful requests to the above agencies’ and nation States not to provide any such documentation to him. I, of course, cannot bind the approach of either the English agency or either of those nation States, but I would invite them to consider that it is needful for this provision to be made. There shall be permission to serve this discrete order on those countries and/or the United Kingdom Border Agency.

I am very grateful to counsel for having drawn up an agreed note of the law. For the avoidance of doubt, I have directed myself in the terms of: