H (Children: Relocation), Re

At the centre of this case, there are two children. I will identify them as A and B. They are four and three years old respectively. Since March 2018 the children have lived with their mother in England. They have had regular and extended contact with their father. The mother seeks court orders to secure the continuation of these current arrangements. The father applies for permission to relocate the children to the Netherlands where he now lives. The parents agree that wherever the children live, it would be ideal that the other parents should relocate to live close to the children where they can be “coparented”. In the absence of such arrangement, the parents agree that the children regularly and extensively see the parent who lives in another territory.

Ms Jennings who is the CAFCASS officer appointed to this case, found the parents to be exceptional parents and has no material concerns about either parent’s ability to parent the children to the highest standards. As such, she finds herself unable to make a positive recommendation about the children’s living arrangements. She suggests that the children should spend a significant portion of their school holidays with the parent with whom they do not live during the school term.

Each parent must prove his/her case on a balance of probabilities. S1 of the Children

I have considered the following cases:

Finally, each of the parties have a right to a fair trial pursuant to Article 6 and together with the children a right to private family life pursuant to Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950). These rights cannot be interfered with unless such interference is pursuant to a legitimate aim, necessary, proportionate and in accordance with the law.

The mother is English and works as a journalist. The father is Dutch and works in a government department. Previously he worked for an NGO. The parties met in 2010 when they both lived and worked in west Africa. In 2013 they set up a home in the Ivory Coast. The children were born in 2015 and 2016. They were both born in England and spent a short time in England before visiting Netherlands and finally returning to their home in the Ivory Coast.

In 2016 the parents’ relationship began to suffer. They were committed to resolving their difficulties. The sought help through relationship counselling that concluded in early 2017. Later in the same year their relationship came to an end, but they continued to live under the same roof.

There is a great deal of dispute between the parties about the circumstances in which the mother removed the children from their home. On the mother’s case, she was faced with threats of court proceedings by the father that he intended to issue in the Ivory Coast. The mother was fearful about the prospect of such threats coming into fruition. The father denies making such threats and states that the mother made a unilateral decision to remove the children without discussing the same with him. It is beyond dispute that on 27 March 2018, the mother informed the father that she was taking the children to the beach. Instead she took the children to the airport and left for England where the children have continued to reside. In April 2018, the mother enrolled the children at nursery. B continues to attend the same nursery. A started school in September 2019.

On 11 April 2018 the mother applied for orders securing the children’s living arrangements with her. The following day, on 12 April 2018 the father issued his application for the summary return of the children to the Ivory Coast. The court found

Thereafter the parties engaged in the Child Abduction Mediation Scheme and two separate privately funded mediation services. Regrettably, the parties’ efforts were not rewarded with a concluded agreement about their children’s future living arrangements. During 2018 and 2019 the children have spent extended period with their father in the Netherlands. Initially this was at the paternal grandparent’s home. The father relocated to the Netherland in March 2019 and latterly has obtained his own address where the children live with him during the time they spend with him. Communications between the parents have not improved and remain difficult.

I have read the papers that are within the court bundle. Additionally, I have heard the oral evidence of Ms Jennings who is the allocated CAFCASS officer of thirty years experience, the father and the mother. Having considered all of the ‘welfare checklist’, I will set out the material parts of their evidence by reference to the relevant sections of the said checklist.

As confirmed by Ms Jennings, A and B are delightful, healthy and well-adjusted children. They each have a close and positive relationship with each of their parents. They are much too young to have an informed view about the issues before the court. It is clear that they very much enjoy living in their two homes. I have little doubt that the children would wish to see as much of their parents as possible. I note that A is reported to have said to her father “I want to live with you daddy” and at other times has said to her father “I want to live with you and mummy”.

Neither child has any physical, emotional or educational needs that are beyond their age appropriate needs. These considerations are also closely connected to the parents’ capabilities to meet those needs. Subject to the foregoing, Ms Jennings observes and the parents attest to each other’s capabilities as parents together with their abilities to meet the children needs. In her reported dated 27 September 2019, Ms Jennings notes two points of concern in respect of the mother’s abilities to meet the children’s needs.

The mother stated that she has been very supportive of the children’s Dutch heritage as illustrated by her continuing commitment to contact and that she could not conceive of circumstances where she would say such things. She stated that A does say a lot of things that do not always make sense. She thought this to be entirely age appropriate without any malice. The mother accepted that the children’s removal from their home in the Ivory Coast would have caused a great deal of confusion for the children and possibly damaging to them. In agreement with Ms Jennings, she further stated that the father has not “moved on” since the children came to live in England and his views of the mother are tainted by this experience. She explained that at handover, the father tends to communicate with the mother through A. This introduces an unnecessary tension that the children are very aware of. The father did not accept this as unreasonable and sought to excuse it by stating that it had only happened on one occasion. The mother’s answers to the questions about the last two Christmas holidays also sought to excuse her behaviour,

The issue of where they are to be educated is closely connected to their cultural needs.

The children have already experienced a significant change in their circumstances. Notwithstanding these circumstances, they appear to have adjusted to those significant changes. Against this background and the children’s established connections to their home with their father, Ms Jennings does not observe any serious concerns about the father’s proposed relocation of the children to the Netherlands. She opines that the children will adjust quickly to their new school or nursery. Much like each parent, she stated that it would be ideal that the parents live in close proximity to ‘co-parent’ the children. She touched on the mother’s observation to her that she will move to the Netherlands if the children are permitted to relocate. However, she made it clear that the mother also raised her concerns about her employment and quality of her life generally in the Netherlands.

The mother explained that it had been the parties’ intention to relocate to Europe. Her comments to Ms Jennings where stated in the moment. She further stated that her employment prospects are very limited in the Netherlands and she does not speak Dutch. She would take any job possible, however unrewarding, if it means being close to her children but explained that this will come at a great sacrifice to her established career and quality of life where she has no friends or support in the Netherlands. Notwithstanding the lack of any direct evidence, the father sought to maintain a position that the mother could readily find suitable employment as a journalist. He invited the mother to reconsider the opportunity to co-parent in the Netherlands. He explained with great dignity and appropriate emotion that there is a material difference between the children visiting him and the children living with him. The latter would involve rushing in the morning to get to school and the normal daily challenges that are absent during the holiday periods. It is those challenges, he explained, that builds relationships and affirms his equal footing in the children’s minds.

He raised understandable objection to the mother’s use of the term “holiday” when visiting their father which in his view introduces a sense of impermanence to the children’s lives in the Netherlands and capable of undermining their relationship with him and their cultural needs. He further stated that whilst a relocation to the Netherlands will be a material change for the children, the benefits of such a change overwhelmingly outweigh a short period of adjustment by the children. During visits, he is willing to open his home to the mother and for the children to have both parents in their lives. A relocation will have the added benefit of meeting the children’s cultural needs that would otherwise suffer.

Both parents agreed with Ms Jennings’ recommendation that more than half of school holidays should be used to increase the time spent with the parent with whom they do not live with in terms time. Miss Jennings also shared the father’s concerns that when the children are living with their father, the contact with the mother should be more limited and less than daily. She expressed her concern that to continue such a high level of contact can make the children miss their mother, become homesick that can provoke anxieties and be unsettling for the children. Both parents agreed that this should be more limited. The mother further added that she would hope that this could be a more fluid arrangement that responds to the children’s needs and the parents plans for the day. In this regard, she did not believe that it would be beneficial for the children or the parents to a have a rigid structure in place.

I found the mother and the father to be charming, intelligent and focused on their children’s welfare. They each have a great deal to offer their children and in their own individual ways are exceptional parents. Their evidence and their conduct must be assessed in the context of the breakdown of their relationship which has in my judgment become the main barrier to these parents jointly making decisions about the children’s welfare. I have little doubt that the failed attempts at resuscitating their relationship followed by the children’s wrongful removal from their home and their father in the

There is no direct evidence that can assist me in gauging the employment opportunities that are available to the parents in both jurisdictions or the impact on their quality of life. I note that father has friends in the UK and is fluent in English. On balance, I accept his evidence that living in certain parts of England can be much more expensive than where he currently resides. The mother had clearly considered the prospects of working and living in the Netherlands. She does not speak Dutch and I accept her evidence that her employment opportunities as an English speaking journalist are very limited.

The English language is internationally more prevalent than Dutch. Through many television programmes, films, books and social media, an international version of the English language has become significantly more familiar than Dutch. If the children relocate to the Netherlands it is likely that they will continue to learn and use English. I accept that the current school proposed by the father has limited lesson in English. The children’s exposure to the English culture will be more restricted and limited to the time they will be seeing their mother. Should the children remain living in England, their exposure to the Dutch culture will be limited to the time that they are living with their father. However, to learn and maintain their Dutch language, inevitably requires a greater effort by the parents and the children. Whilst this maybe further ameliorated by seeing their father regularly, it is beyond argument that the preservation of their Dutch heritage will be more limited.

I have carefully considered the father’s concerns about the mother’s ability to maintain and promote a positive relationship between him and the children. Whilst there were concerning features in the mother’s approach to the last Christmas holiday and the notes of concerns raised by Miss Jennings, in my assessment of the mother’s evidence in the context of the totality of the evidence before me, I am certain that the mother will promote a positive relationship between the children and their father. I found her to be entirely child centred and searching for better ways of promoting the children’s needs. She was very open to suggestions and reflected on her past decisions. This was perhaps best illustrated by her approach to the daily contact with the children when they are in the father’s care. She clearly reflected on Ms Jennings’ advice and recommendation and was quick to recognise an alternative and a better way in which to approach this issue. I found the father to be more structured and rigid in his approach. However, I am

The children are very young and this may be the most opportune moment to make decisions about their living arrangements. I am sure that Ms Jennings is correct in stating that children will soon adapt to living in the Netherlands. It is clear that they have adapted very well to living in England where they have resided for the last nineteen months. This coupled with the parents’ obvious abilities to provide excellent care for their children, I have no doubt that they will thrive and flourish wherever they live in the care of either or both of their parents.

The concepts of reward and punishment may find a great deal of focus when families discuss the circumstances that have brought them into the court arena. However, when considering the welfare of a child, there is usually very little room for such considerations. The focus is not to reward or to punish a parent, rather to find a solution that best meets the welfare needs of the subject child. Therefore, whilst it is not surprising that the father may feel that to allow the children to live in England with their mother would be “rewarding her” for the wrongful removal of the children, such consideration have no room in the balancing exercise that the court is tasked with.

This is a finely balanced case that has seen a very experienced CFCASS officer unbale to make a firm recommendation about in which country the children should live. The evidence of the parents’ capabilities and child focussed approach is overwhelmingly clear. I am certain that these children will have a close and enduring relationship with both of their parents. Having considered the totality of the evidence before me as applied to the ‘welfare checklist’, I find a lack of cogent evidence or justification for the court to interfere with the children’s living arrangements. Accordingly, I dismiss the father’s application for permission to relocate the children to the Netherlands. I am satisfied that the children’s living arrangement with their parents should be recognised by a ‘joint live with order’ so that there can be no doubt that the children will continue to live both of their parents.

Going forward, as accepted by the mother the Christmas holidays should alternate between the parents which must commence by no later than 23 December each year and not conclude until 29 December of the same year. The second half will be spent with the other parent. The children will live with the father for the first half of the