S (A Child) (Relocation and Change of Residence), Re

I am concerned with a boy, S, who is now aged nearly 9.

The parties to these proceedings are S’s mother, represented by Ms Martha Gray, his father, who has acted in person, and S himself acting through Ms Kaur, a caseworker appointed by the National Youth Advocacy Service (‘NYAS’) and represented by Ms Pamela Warner.

I am grateful to both counsel for the assistance with which they provided me in a difficult case and also to the father who had the unenviable task of acting without legal representation and conducted the case courteously and skilfully.

The essential application before me is for a child arrangements order pursuant to section 8 of the Children Act 1989. The mother’s case is that it in S’s best interests to move to live with her in France. Conversely, the father says that S should continue living with him in England. Each of the parents proposes to facilitate contact with the other parent.

S is currently a ward of court, that status having been conferred on him following the conclusion earlier this year of proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (‘the 1980 Hague Convention’). No party has suggested that he should remain a ward and I will direct that he should cease to be so.

I shall deal with the background relatively briefly. The parties have filed very lengthy statements making a host of allegations about their relationship and the circumstances in which it ended which have little or no relevance to the issues I have to decide.

The mother is a Nigerian national. She has resided in France since 2016. Following her arrival in that jurisdiction she claimed asylum and was granted refugee status in 2017. She holds a residence permit and is now in a position to make an application for French nationality. She is awaiting the outcome of these proceedings before making that application as, if S moves to live with her, he can be included as part of it.

The mother currently lives in a three-bedroom apartment in Paris. She has a son from a previous relationship, X, who is now aged 18. X is now at university. He currently lives with his mother; his father is not involved in his life.

The mother, at the moment, is unemployed, having resigned her previous job in April 2025. Her oral evidence was that she resigned in order to focus on these proceedings and making herself available for S when he came to stay with her for contact. She has approximately €11,000 in savings. She considers that she has an earning capacity of approximately €40,000 gross per annum which after tax would equate to approximately €29,000.

The father is a dual British and Nigerian national. He lives in London. S lives with him and attends a local primary school about 15 minutes’ drive away.

S was born in France and, in common with his father, has British and Nigerian nationality. According to the evidence of Mr Hopsitar, the clinical psychologist instructed as a single joint expert in the proceedings, it appears likely that S has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (‘ADHD’) and there is some possibility that he may also have Autism Spectrum Disorder (‘ASD’), although based upon his observations Dr Hopsitar did not consider the latter to be likely. When asked to consider the relevance of these conditions to the mother’s proposal that S should move to live with her, he fairly acknowledged that he was not an expert on either disorder. S is currently undergoing an assessment for ADHD. A preliminary questionnaire has been completed by the father and S’s school. The full assessment is expected to take place in around May 2026 when a report will be produced. S had an appointment on 27 November 2025 for consideration to be given to his special educational needs.

The parties first met online, according to the father in 2011, through a social media platform. They had what the father describes as a long-distance relationship through that platform; I suspect that the mother more accurately describes it as a friendship. In 2014 they met in person for the first time and both agree that from that point onwards they were involved in a relationship. At one stage they were engaged to be married and the father goes to far as to say that they underwent a ceremony akin to a marriage according to local customs, although he does not assert that this ceremony is one which would be recognised as a marriage.

The parents met again in 2016, following the mother’s move to France. Shortly thereafter the mother discovered that she was pregnant.

Following S’s birth he lived with the mother and X. The father would visit every three to four months for a few days at a time. Eventually the parents’ relationship broke down, but the mother continued to ensure that S had contact with his father.

In the Summer of 2020 the parents agreed that S would come to England to stay with the father for a holiday. As was agreed by the parties by WhatsApp and in a hand-written letter, he was due to return to France by the end of August, in time to start school in September. The father, however, retained S in England.

I have not investigated in detail the circumstances which led to S’s retention. I will, however, comment upon a recording of a telephone call which was produced by the father and referred to by him during his cross-examination of the NYAS caseworker (before I disallowed his question). The recording captures part of a conversation held between the parents in August 2020. The father knew that he was making the recording, but the mother did not. Had I decided to investigate the issue of the retention in greater detail, it would have been necessary for me to consider his motive for acting surreptitiously in this way, a fact that would make any judge cautious about placing reliance upon anything which may have been said in those circumstances.

From the father’s perspective, the significance of the recording was that the mother suggested that as a consequence of her unstable circumstances she considered that S should stay with the father in the UK ‘for a while’. No fixed timeframe was mentioned, but during the conversation the mother spoke about him settling into an English school and the potential for her visit him in September 2021 (more than a year later). On one view, she appears to have contemplated something more than a short-term arrangement although she also spoke about the need to retain flexibility in the arrangements. The transcript of the recording does not suggest that a concluded agreement was reached during that conversation and I have not seen any evidence to establish that one was reached following that discussion. The steps that mother took to recover S from September 2020 onwards tend to suggest otherwise. Even if an agreement was reached, this could not possibly justify the father’s subsequent failure to facilitate any direct contact between S and his mother for nearly five years.

The father has produced an email from a third party sent in July 2020 which contains allegations that the mother had been neglecting S and leaving him in the care of his older brother (then aged 12). It is possible that the father may have had genuine concerns about the manner in which S was being looked after, but again such concerns could not begin to justify his prolonged failure to facilitate contact. The email sent in July 2020 does tend to suggest that the father’s decision to retain S may have been premeditated.

After August 2020, the mother sought to persuade the father to return S, but to no avail. She wrote pleading letters to the father, but her entreaties were ignored. I have seen exchanges of messages in which the mother begged the father to bring S over just for a visit. In response, the father made excuses about S needing a passport or being unable to travel during term time. S’s right and pressing need to have a relationship with his mother were overlooked.

The mother also made reports to the police in France. Time passed during which the mother pressed the French authorities to assist her, but no concrete steps were taken to procure S’s return. Her own resources were limited and she lacked the means to obtain proper legal advice; those who did offer advice failed to draw her attention to a potential remedy under the 1980 Hague Convention. I have seen an email from a person purporting to be an expert in international child abduction who went so far as to advise the mother not to rely upon the Convention (or any other international treaty) ‘because you will probably end up spending years in court’. The mother attempted to obtain visas to enable her to travel to England to visit S, but more than once her applications were refused by the Home Office.

Eventually the mother made contact with a lawyer who gave her appropriate advice. On 11 November 2024, an application was issued for S to be returned to France on a summary basis pursuant to the 1980 Convention or alternatively the inherent jurisdiction. By then, S had been living in England for over four years.

For the purposes of the Hague Convention proceedings, a report was prepared by Ms Lillian Odze of the Cafcass High Court Team. This addressed the questions of whether S was settled in England and whether it was in his best interests to be summarily returned to France to enable longer-term decisions about his welfare to be made by the French Courts. Ms Odze had a meeting with S when he was aged 8. She found his level of understanding and maturity to be below what would be expected for a child of his age. She described the meeting as strenuous. S was often restless and sometimes left the room. He appeared not to know who his mother was, telling Ms Odze that he had ‘three mums’. He said that before living with his father he had lived ‘with my dad’s friend’. He told Ms Odze that his father loves him, but also said that nobody else did.

Ms Odze concluded that S was physically and psychologically settled in England. She said he was well-integrated at school which had put in place appropriate support. She said that he ‘has a routine which has provided him with some level of stability, continuity, predictability and security.’ She also considered that S benefits from the continuity of care he receives from his father as well as his friends and family network. She did not, however, believe that S was ‘emotionally settled’ in England. She was struck by the lack of a relationship between S and his mother and noted the absence of photographs of the mother in the father’s home (including in S’s bedroom).

Ms Odze came to the conclusion that it was in S’s best interests to be summarily returned to France. This was based upon her assessment that he was not emotionally settled and that, if he was to remain living in England ‘it is unlikely that he will have a relationship with his mother or his maternal family’. Ms Odze qualified her conclusion by making it clear that before any return a number of matters relating to his education and his needs had to be put in place. As she put it, ‘It would be hugely disadvantageous to [S] if there was a gap or a rupture in his education or in the provision of specialist/professional input given the progress [the father] and the school say [S] has made of late with his speech’.

On 14 March 2025, the Hague proceedings were listed before me for a final hearing. The mother sensibly withdrew her application for a summary return whilst making it clear that she would continue to pursue an order for S’s return under the inherent jurisdiction, following a full welfare investigation. Given the length of time S had been living in England and the information about his additional needs and the support he receives, I considered that it would have been inappropriate to order a return on a summary basis and I endorsed her decision.

On 14 March 2025, I also made an order for S to have contact with his mother in France increasing over a ten day period in April 2025 and then for three nights in May 2025. By April 2025, 4 ¾ years had elapsed since S had last seen his mother.

The mother’s application for orders under the Children Act 1989 was issued on 30 May 2025. There have been four further case management hearings, all before me. I made further orders for contact and those orders have all been complied with.

S’s contact with his mother in France has been enormously successful. He has also recently been able to spend some time with the mother in England after she secured a visa allowing her to travel here. This visa expires in April 2026. It is possible that she will be able to obtain a further visa, although this is not certain. If she is successful in obtaining French nationality, she will be able to travel to the United Kingdom for up to six months a year.

In addition to losing contact with his mother, S has faced other challenges during his life. From an early age he exhibited significant developmental delays, including delayed speech. He was non-verbal when he started living with the father in July 2020 and this continued to be the case for two or three years. The difficulties with S’s speech resulted from a tongue tie. In July 2022 he underwent surgery for this, but he has continued to find it difficult to speak clearly and make himself understood and this has undoubtedly affected his educational progress as well as his ability to develop friendships. He receives regular speech therapy and since July 2024 he has been having tuition outside school in English and maths for four hours a week.

In December 2024, the Headteacher at the primary school S attends wrote describing the challenges which S has faced at school and the progress he has made. She said:

Despite the challenges S faces, with the considerable support he receives at school it is clear that he has been making good progress. In his July 2025 end of year school report, his class teacher wrote:

I have been provided with a court bundle running to over 1,200 pages, which I have read. In this section of the judgment, I shall focus on the four witnesses who gave oral evidence.

As I have already recorded, Mr Calin Hopsitar was instructed by the parties as a single joint expert. He prepared a report dated 15 October 2025 and gave oral evidence to the court. He summarised his conclusions as follows:

He further concluded:

Mr Hopsitar expanded upon his report when he came to give oral evidence. Amongst other things, his evidence (which I accept) was that:

The mother has filed six statements in these proceedings and in connection with the Hague application which preceded them. Her evidence in these statements was wide-ranging and much of it was of limited relevance to the welfare issues which I now have to decide. Although the mother is not working currently, she is clearly talented. As well as holding a degree, she has learned to speak French fluently since 2016. She previously worked at a bank, amongst other jobs she has held.

I formed the view that the mother was truthful as a witness. It was obvious to me, however, that from her perspective she has been struggling since 2020 to recover a child from whom, as a result of the father’s actions, she had become separated and largely estranged. I consider that her overwhelming desire for S to return to her care has resulted in her underestimating some of the challenges that this is likely to present both for her and for him. I do find, however, that she is highly skilled as a parent. She has brought up her older son to be a high-achieving student who is now on a path to becoming an engineer. In common with the professionals who have observed her caring for S, I also find that she is very well attuned to his emotional needs.

In her oral evidence, which I accept, the mother spoke movingly about what it has been like to rebuild her relationship with S over the past year, following his absence from her life for nearly five years. Over that prolonged period she had ‘gone through so much pain’; she had ‘many nights of tears, crying and feeling helpless’. The mother described the first period of contact as ‘a very emotional experience for myself, S and his brother. It was a day I had hoped for for so many years. S was so happy and very curious to know everybody and to spend time with us. The first night was very emotional for S… he wanted to sleep in the same bed as me and his brother’. She went on to relate that S had become anxious on his first night. He was scared that he would not see her again and articulated, based upon what he said the father had told him, that he thought the father would be sad as he was not there; the same sentiment was repeated the following day. The mother responded by arranging for S to leave a voicemail message for the father who returned the call and spoke to him; this co-operative parenting was to the credit of both parents and provided reassurance for S. The mother also described how S had formed an instant connection with his brother, the two of them playing basketball in the park.

The mother acknowledged that as S had not lived with her since he was three, she had to take time to understand his behaviour and his likes and dislikes. She observed that he is ‘a very loving and empathetic child who wants to have fun all the time’. Whereas on their videocalls, S had frequently been occupied watching television or playing games on his phone, in person he was interested in taking part in activities around the house. The mother spoke about getting to know the foods S enjoys which include fried eggs and chicken soup.

Overall, the mother considered that she had been able to reconnect with S ‘very easily’. Her view was that he needs ‘a hundred percent attention’ from adults. She said he gets angry when he says something which he is then asked to repeat; he is a child who ‘takes joy’ in knowing adults are listening to him. The mother’s view is that S needs to be corrected ‘in a nice way’ as he reacts poorly to aggression or being shouted at; he needs ‘reassurance and constant presence’. All of the mother’s evidence I have set out thus far, I accept.

The mother’s view expressed in her oral evidence – and here I consider she was being overly optimistic – is that relocating to France would not be that difficult ‘as the most difficult stage is done’. She spoke about how S says that he wants to learn French and would view this as an opportunity to discover something new. Learning the language, in her view, would be a challenge, but not a negative one: ‘the most important thing will be having family with him… he will be surrounded by people to guide him’.

In my judgment, the mother has a tendency to minimise the challenges S is likely to face upon a move to France. In part, this may be because she has not had to deal with them on a day-to-day basis. In her January 2025 statement she asserted that S does not have a developmental delay and did not acknowledge that he would face any challenges in adapting to a new school or speaking a new language. She similarly denied in that statement that S had special needs, pointing to the absence of a diagnosis to this effect. Although her thinking has shifted since then, I do consider that her desire to have S returned to her care has led her to underestimate the potential difficulties that S may face in adapting to life in a new country and to a different system of education. The latter were emphasised by his Headteacher in 2024, as I set out above.

As for the practicalities of a move, the mother explained in her oral evidence that from her enquiries she was confident that steps could be taken to obtain the necessary assessments for S within approximately 3 months. On this basis she was ‘hopeful’ that the relevant services could be put in place within six months. She said that she was confident that there exists in Paris a team of people who take the needs of children very seriously.

The mother’s preferred school for S is an international school. There are no places available for this academic year; applications for next year must be made during a window which closes in February 2026. The mother said that to boost her chances of securing a place for S, she had made an application to ‘the Mairie’ which has responsibility, amongst other things, for educational services in Paris. Her belief was that the Mairie would approach the school to ensure that S was on a priority list. The mother said that the Mairie had an obligation to ensure that every child could access education suitable for their needs. In S’s case, if no place was made available at the mother’s preferred school, this would mean finding another international school where he could be taught in English (a number of such schools exist in Paris).

Faced with the reality that there is no place currently available at her preferred school, the mother has advanced alternative proposals for S’s education in the event that he moves to live with her in Paris. Her first suggestion is that upon a relocation she would set up a tutoring programme with a focus on English and maths; English tuition would be available through the British Council free of charge and maths lessons could be obtained privately. The British Council, she said, would also be able to provide speech therapy. At the same time she would arrange appointments for S with professionals such as a psychologist to ensure that any necessary assessment was undertaken in respect of his learning needs.

The mother’s other suggestion was that she would enrol S in a private school, where the fees are just over €12,000 per annum with potential extras on top.

The mother’s evidence was that similar services exists in France for the provision of support for children with special educational needs to those available in England. She said that in France, S would benefit from something known as a Personalised Academic Plan or ‘PAP’, which on my understanding is the equivalent of an English Educational Health Care Plan or ‘EHCP’.

The mother did not consider that S’s school routine would present a difficulty for her. She would ensure that any job she took afforded sufficient flexibility to be able to manage this. I accept that this is so.

The mother proposes to facilitate contact between S and the father during school holidays as well as indirect contact by video.

The mother was clear that if S lives with her she would promote his relationship with his father, pointing to the fact that she did so in the first three years of his life. She said that she believes that a child is happier when he has both his parents in his life. I accept that this sentiment was expressed sincerely. The mother also said that she would not view a relocation as entailing S’s permanent removal from the UK; for her, it would be a change involving S spending more time in France and returning to England for holidays. She made clear that this was how she would explain the change to S.

In response to questions on behalf of the guardian, the mother explained that she has been speaking English, not French, during the periods when S has been staying with her over the past year. English is the only language she speaks at home with X. She explained that she is mindful of the importance of English as an international language. It is also her first language. Although the guardian was critical of her for not speaking French to S in the context of her proposal that he should move to live with her, it is not a criticism I share. I consider the mother’s reasons for choosing to speak to S in English to be entirely rational and reasonable. Moreover, in circumstances where S does not speak French and over the past year the mother has been rebuilding their relationship, I do not consider it reasonable to have expected her to spend their limited time together trying to teach S a new language from scratch.

The father has filed four statements across the two sets of the proceedings. In common with the mother, to a significant extent these address historical matters which I have not investigated in detail. The father is a highly intelligent man who holds a doctorate in his chosen field. He currently works for a company based outside London. He would like to have worked in academia but his responsibilities to S have prevented him from doing so.

The father sets out that S has lived with him since July 2020. He attends a local school where he receives Special Educational Needs support including 1:1 classroom assistance and Speech and Language Therapy. He is undergoing a process of assessment for an EHCP. Outside school, S attends activities connected with the church, including Sunday school and music lessons. The father also funds private tuition to help S with his academic work.

The father’s case is that it is in S’s best interests to remain living with him. He proposes that S should have contact with his mother in France for half his school holidays as well as video contact a few days a week.

In his oral evidence, the father emphasised that he accepted and ‘takes seriously’ Mr Hopsitar’s recommendations about the need to prioritise S’s emotional needs. To that end, he has installed two charts at home, one of which focusses on emotions and enables S to communicate how he is feeling. He acknowledged that he is not a perfect parent. He has enrolled himself on an online course from a provider based in Canada to improve his parenting and make it more emotionally informed.

The father also emphasised that the proceedings have been going on for a long time. He said that when the proceedings are over, no matter where S ends up living, he and the mother need to focus upon giving S the best possible life: ‘let’s help the boy’.

In cross-examination by Ms Gray, the father acknowledged that for nearly five years he did not facilitate any direct contact between S and his mother. He said he had made an attempt to arrange a visit in 2022 but this was frustrated as S’s passport had expired. I reject this as an explanation: it would have been perfectly easy to renew the passport and reschedule the trip. I similarly reject his suggestion that Covid prevented the facilitation of contact. The periods when travel was impermissible were relatively short-lived. I was equally unimpressed with his explanation that S had been unable to accompany him to Paris when he travelled there for a day for work as this would have meant taking him out of school; he could easily have arranged another trip during one of S’s many weekends and holidays that passed by without him being able to see his mother. I find that the real reason for the father’s failure to arrange contact in France was his fear that the mother would refuse to return S to England (he said as much in his evidence). In so thinking, the father was assuming that the mother would adopt the same unilateral approach to parenting that he was practising. This misguided thinking is likely also to have played a part in his recent decision on 10 November 2025 to instruct S’s school that the mother was not permitted to collect him.

Between June and December 2024 the father failed to facilitate any telephone or video calls between S and his mother. In cross-examination he was taken to screenshots of the mother’s WhatsApp account showing numerous instances of calls she made over these months which went unanswered. The father claimed in his evidence that the screenshots did not tell the full story, implying that there may have been other calls or messages passing between them which were not shown. I do not accept this. As was pointed out to him, one of the features of WhatsApp is that when a message has been deleted the previous existence of the message and its deletion remain apparent on the thread. There was no evidence of any communications having been deleted. The father was forced to concede that he was not accusing the mother of deleting messages. I do not know why the father cut off all communication with the mother over that period, but it is clear evidence that he regarded the promotion of her relationship with S as a low priority.

The mother has alleged that during the period since 2020 when S has been in the father’s care, the father has physically chastised him on occasions. In support of her case she produced recordings of conversations she has had with S. Sensibly, these allegations were not pursued at the hearing save to establish that S has made complaints. It is unlikely that I would be able to findings of physical chastisement on the basis of the evidence I have read. The father makes a valid point that during the conversations relied upon by the mother, she asked leading questions which will have affected the reliability of things S may have said.

The mother also raised the fact that there have been two occasions – once in 2020 and once in 2023 – when S went missing while in the father’s care, leading both times to the involvement of the police. In cross-examination, the father explained that on the first occasion, S woke up in bed and went downstairs to use the toilet. He opened the front door and walked outside whereupon the door was slammed shut by the wind. He was found within a minute or two by a neighbour who called the police. The father responded to this incident by installing a new lock on the door higher than S’s reach. On the second occasion, which occurred when S was aged 6 ½, the father lost sight of him at the local park and S proceeded to make his own way back home, some ten minutes away on foot. The father called the police. A neighbour who found him said that he was ‘looking for Daddy’. I accept the father’s evidence about what occurred on the occasions. I do not attach great significance to the incidents in the context of the decisions I have to make. Nor do I consider there is much import to the evidence that S posted a video of himself by a swimming-pool on a YouTube channel that the mother was able to view. I accept the father’s evidence that this was a private channel to which S sent his mother a link so that she could watch the video.

I do accept that the father has allowed S to play video games and watch television more often than is appropriate for a child his age. The mother’s evidence is that he would often be playing these games during her video calls to him. I accept that the father told her that he uses video games as a distraction for S when he is busy with work or other activities. This approach chimes with the evidence that he is insufficiently emotionally attuned in his parenting.

The father was asked in cross-examination about an occasion in April 2024 when S alleged at school that his father had punched him on the nose; this had led the school to make a MASH referral to the local authority. The father accepted the accuracy of a record where he was noted as saying that, as a form of discipline, he had threatened to slap S and call the police. When it was put to him that threatening to slap a child may not be emotionally intuitive, he explained that at that time S had not been confirmed as having ADHD. He also added that he was merely trying to ‘scare’ S; making the threat did not mean that he would carry it out. Those answers suggested to me that he has not yet fully understood what emotionally informed parenting entails. In fairness to the father, he did go on to say that he is still learning about positive engagement and that he is changing his approach. He was, however, unable to accept that S may have been caused distress by such threats.

On behalf of the guardian, it was suggested to the father that he has disciplined S by using the phrase ‘Go to your room, Dummy’, an expression which S was overheard by a French clinical psychologist supervising contact to have repeated ‘de façon mécanique’ (inexactly translated as ‘automatically’) while lamenting his father’s failure to read him bedtime stories. The father denied ever calling him ‘Dummy’ and, on balance, I accept that denial. This could well have been a phrase S picked up watching television.

The father’s case is that he is learning as a parent and that has changed his approach to the promotion of contact. The recent evidence suggests that he still has some way to go in this learning process. As he accepted, when the NYAS caseworker, Ms Kaur, recently asked him to agree to a period of contact between S and the mother which she was proposing to observe, he initially refused to allow this before later agreeing. The reason he gave for his initial refusal was that he had arranged certain educational activities for S (therapy and phonics) which clashed with the time proposed. I find that it remains the case that the father views S’s education as far more of a priority than his maternal relationship.

I also find that the father continues to view the mother as a parent of secondary importance to S. For the purposes of S’s ADHD assessment he was sent a multiple choice questionnaire to complete. It did not occur to him to send the mother a copy to enable the assessor to have the benefit of her perspective. His explanation for his failure to do so was that he is the parent with whom S has lived for 5 years: ‘I know more than [the mother]’; accordingly, her views could not compare with his. This may be so, but it does not justify denying her the opportunity to make her views known.

The father was asked in cross-examination by Ms Warner about the explanations he has given to S about his early life. He claimed that he had explained to S that his mother and brother live in France and that he left France when he was aged three. While I am prepared to accept that the father may have communicated this information to S, I do not consider that prior to these proceedings he took the steps necessary to ensure S had a proper understanding of his early life experiences. When S spoke to the Cafcass Officer during the Hague proceedings, he appeared to have no understanding at all about his early life or indeed who his mother even was. The father brushed this off when asked about it, venturing an explanation which I find to be wholly inadequate: he asserted that S’s ADHD has only just been discovered and that he would not expect him to understand a lot of things (‘that is [S] for you’). I also reject the father’s explanation for S’s previous inability to identify his mother as ‘an African thing’ (his suggestion being that the explanation lies in the fact S comes from a culture where it is customary for children to refer to various female relatives as ‘mum’ or ‘auntie’).

Mr Hopsitar and Ms Kaur each commented in their respective reports on the absence of photographs of the mother in the father’s home (a point first made months ago by Ms Odze). When asked about this in cross-examination (having previously been asked by those two professionals), the father gave a somewhat defiant answer: ‘absolutely’, he said; ‘it is my house. I am an African man. I do not put pictures of my exes in my house’. I found this to be an immature response which demonstrated a lack of insight on his part. Having prevented S from seeing his mother for nearly five years, it was striking that he for his own reasons he felt unable to take a relatively small step which might have mitigated the harm caused to his son by his mother’s prolonged absence from his life.

Ms Kaur prepared a detailed report for the court which is dated 10 November 2025. It includes an examination of the factors in the welfare checklist. When considering the effect which a change of circumstances would have on S, Ms Kaur said the following at paras 131to 136:

It is clear to me that Ms Kaur considers the decision facing the court to be very finely balanced (an expression she used more than once during her oral evidence). In the conclusions to her report she said the following at paras 216 to 218:

Ms Kaur listened to the evidence of the parents before giving evidence herself. Having done so, she began her evidence by explaining that she considered the best course of action was for the court to adjourn the case for a number of months to enable the mother to go through the process of finding a school for S and putting in place an appropriate package of support in the event of a relocation. Her view was that S should have the benefit of the court having considered in detail the available options for his future, and that without evidence about what a move to France would entail on the ground this could not presently be done. In the absence of clarity about how S’s educational needs would be met, Ms Kaur was unable to support the mother’s proposals whereas the position might be different if the mother had the opportunity to provide the clarity which was needed. Ms Kaur also considered that an adjournment would have the additional benefit of affording the father the opportunity to make changes to his parenting before a decision was made.

At the outset of the case, I had rejected an application for an adjournment made by the mother and ‘not opposed’ by Ms Kaur. Ms Kaur’s renewed adjournment application was advanced on a similar basis to the one which I had rejected, but this time it was opposed by both parents who had been through the inevitably gruelling experience of giving evidence. I rejected the renewed application for reasons I gave in a short judgment. I did not consider it fair on the parents, or more importantly on S, to delay making a decision in circumstances where the parties have been litigating for over a year. I was also unconvinced that adjourning the case would necessarily provide the degree of clarity sought by Ms Kaur.

My rejection of the adjournment application placed Ms Kaur in a difficult position. Without the clarity she sought about what a move would entail, she felt bound to support a continuation of the status quo, but my clear sense was that she did so with considerable misgivings.

In cross-examination on behalf of the mother, Ms Kaur described the contrast in the abilities of the parents as ‘stark’. The father’s main deficit as a parent was in his ability to meet S’s emotional needs. Having heard his evidence, it remained her view that he lacked meaningful insight into S’s needs and that he would ‘struggle’ to meet them. She later spoke of the father’s failure to acknowledge S’s need for a relationship with his mother. For over four and a half years he had not promoted this. As recently as November 2025, he had failed to prioritise the mother when she was in England wanting to spend time with S.

By contrast, Ms Kaur had no concerns about the mother’s parenting; her concern about her proposals related to the uncertain position regarding schooling in France. She described her observations of the mother and S together as ‘very comfortable and easy going’. The mother was ‘able to get into [S]’s mind and understand him’ and was ‘very intuitive in the way she interacts [with S]’. Ms Kaur said that S ‘regresses to being a baby’ when he is with his mother, which she regarded as positive. With his mother, he ‘allows himself to be vulnerable in the knowledge that he will be cared for’. She said that S ‘is able to feel that there is someone who understands [him], who will listen to [him], who will take an interest in [him] and assure him at the same time’. This was ‘a lovely interaction to watch’. S’s relationship with his mother was ‘free-flowing’. These were observations she had been able to make across the three periods of contact she had witnessed, remotely and in person.

Ms Gray pressed Ms Kaur to agree with the proposition that were she to be satisfied about the proposed educational arrangements she would have no difficulty in recommending that S live with his mother in France. Ms Kaur was unable to be quite so categorical but did say it was something to which she would have to give ‘serious consideration’.

In response to questions from the father, Ms Kaur acknowledged that S’s emotional needs were not the only factor she had to consider in making her recommendations. Others included his physical, health and educational needs as well as his relationships with other people. A move carried risks such as the potential for disruption. She felt that in France there existed ‘significant challenges’ in delivering the holistic care which S needs, but at the same time there are deficits in the care provided by the father which makes the decision a difficult one. She considered S to be a child who was struggling emotionally. He wants to live with both parents. He has a ‘longing’ for a relationship with his mother who can provide him with things he does not have in his relationship with his father in England.

Ms Kaur agreed with the proposition that a failure to meet S’s emotional needs at home could have an impact on his ability to progress academically at school.

I can deal briefly with the submissions made on behalf of the parties as they reflected the evidence which each of them had given.

On behalf of the mother, Ms Gray emphasised the point made by Mr Hopsitar as to the need to give priority to S’s emotional needs; only the mother was in a position to meet these. This recommendation should be preferred to the more cautious approach adopted by Ms Kaur. The mother had identified a range of schooling options and it was going too far to expect her to have obtained a confirmed place, given the way the system operates in France. Ms Gray submitted that the mother is deeply committed to securing the best possible education and support for S. She understands the SEN process in France and is able to navigate it. The process for obtaining support in France is much quicker than in England.

The father submitted that the case has always turned on one central question: what is best to secure S’s welfare, stability and progress. All the evidence, he said, points to one outcome: remaining in England, where he is settled and had been progressing since 2020. He emphasised that he loves S just as much as the mother does. He accepted that he is not a perfect parent and said that raising him has not been easy. However, he has been committed and consistent and remains willing to learn, having acted already on some of the recommendations to develop his emotional attunement. If S moved to France he would not receive the support he needs.

The father also submitted that it would be unfair to allocate more than 50% of S’s holidays to the mother as this would relegate his role to that of a term-time parent and deprive him of the ability to spend time with his son in a more relaxed environment. He also invited the court to make an order under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 (‘the 1989 Act’) as a means of promoting S’s emotional stability.

On behalf of the guardian it was submitted that there was much to commend in what each of the parents had said in their submissions. Ms Kaur had found it difficult to arrive at a recommendation. On balance she had sided in favour of what is known over the risks and uncertainty of a move.

In reaching my decision, S’s welfare is my paramount consideration. It is necessary to have regard to all of the factors in the welfare checklist, which I do. It is unnecessary to set these out in detail. The presumption in section 1(2A) of the 1989 Act applies; both parents accept that the other should be involved in S’s life.

S has expressed a clear wish to live with both of his parents, but this is impossible to achieve. In any event, he is a young child previously found to be immature for his age. His wishes do not carry decisive weight. They do lend support to the proposition that he needs to have the fullest possible relationship with his parents, bearing in mind the constraints of geography.

There is a significant degree of overlap between several of the other factors in the welfare checklist. In simple terms, the choice I face can be summarised as follows:

As I have already recorded, between August 2020 and March 2025, S had very little contact with his mother. He did not see her face-to-face at all. His communication was all via video and beset by difficulties. I accept the mother’s evidence that there have been periods when the father has blocked the mother from having any form of contact at all, including between June and December 2024. There was also a time when the mother did not know where S was living.

The father’s failure to promote adequate contact, apart from being cruel to the mother, has caused S harm. For the first three and a half years of his life he had lived with his mother and his brother in France; his mother had been his primary attachment figure. The rupturing of this relationship (and to a lesser extent his relationship with his brother) is likely to have caused him to feel abandoned and made him insecure. It also deprived S of the emotional warmth he needed at a crucial stage of his development. The impact of this deprivation, in my judgment, is likely to have been aggravated by the other challenges he faced. The fact that he was largely non-verbal until his operation in 2022 and his ongoing difficulties with his speech have made it harder to socialise and make friends, which is likely to have increased his feelings of isolation.

The father loves S and deserves considerable credit for the sacrifices he has made to assist him in his struggles with education. The professionals have identified, however, that he lacks the ability to provide S with the type of emotionally-attuned parenting necessary to meet his emotional needs; I agree with Mr Hopsitar’s opinion that this parenting gap is likely to have been especially significant for S given his ‘profile’. I also agree with Mr Hopsitar’s view that S’s emotional needs require to be given priority. In my judgment, the risks of failing to do so are substantial. Some of these risks were identified by Mr Hopsitar in his evidence (as I have summarised above). I also consider, in common with Ms Kaur, that a failure to meet S’s emotional needs at home is likely to affect his performance at school; this, in my view, could further damage his self-confidence and lead to poor behavioural choices.

I accept the mother’s case that S is living in an environment where he has experienced his father’s negative feelings towards her. Between June and December 2024, for reasons not adequately explained, the father stopped facilitating indirect contact between S and his mother. When the contact resumed in December, S made comments to his mother which suggest that he was aware of his father’s hostility (7.12.24: ‘don’t talk to me, he says he is angry’; 14.12.24: ‘dad am not talking to mummy’; 15.12.24: ‘I don’t’ want to see you’; 22.12.24: ‘don’t call me’). The father was dismissive of the suggestion that he ought to have a photograph of S’s mother in the home, a point first made by Ms Odze in her February 2025 report. The father’s accommodation is relatively small and it is likely, in my judgment, that S is acutely aware of his father’s presence in the home when he speaks to his mother even if his father is not in the room. This hinders his ability to speak freely with his mother and creates a sense of tension around the video calls, when these should be an enjoyable experience for him.

I do not find that the father is wholly lacking in his ability to meet S’s emotional needs. His love for his son is clear to me. S spoke to Ms Kaur about his enjoyment of receiving hugs from his father. I also commend the father for the steps he has taken to improve his parenting, including setting up charts at home and enrolling on courses. I additionally consider that S is likely to benefit from the structure his father has brought to his routine and to appreciate his father’s involvement in his life on a practical level. These are important aspects of parenting for which the father may not have been given sufficient credit; they are demonstrations of the father’s love for S. Despite these qualities which the father undoubtedly has, in my judgment the evidence as a whole clearly demonstrates that the mother is the parent who is far better equipped to meet S’s emotional needs. I consider that the previous rupture in their relationship has led to S feeling a sense of longing (identified by Ms Kaur) to receive the warm parenting with which the mother provides him; it is a need which has to be prioritised and which the father is incapable of fulfilling.

If the mother was living in England, my decision would be relatively straightforward. The hypothetical solution which, in my view, would best meet S’s needs would entail him living primarily with his mother while continuing to attend the same school and also living with his father on a significant number of nights during term time and for half his holidays. This option is not available to me as the mother has no right to reside here.

A move to live with the mother in France will inevitably entail disruption for S. Even though, as I find, the mother - through her determination and resourcefulness - is likely to be able to find S a place at an English-speaking school and to obtain appropriate support for him, from S’s perspective a move will be more challenging than she appreciates. He will need to become accustomed to new teachers and therapists and to a new system of education, especially when he is currently working some three years behind where he should be at his age. While S may be taught in English, the French language is bound to be a significant feature of his life and his inability to speak French will create difficulties for him and may lead him to feel isolated from his peers, at least initially. He does not find it easy to make friends and having to join a school where friendships will already have been established will undoubtedly be challenging.

In common with the guardian, I too consider this case to be very finely balanced. Having weighed up the different options, I have come to the conclusion that the risks of failing to prioritise S’s emotional needs are greater than the risks arising from the disruption of a move. I was struck by the description provided by Ms Kaur of the high-quality calm and relaxed parenting which the mother is able to provide S. In my view, it is in S’s interests to be able to experience that on a day-to-day basis. She can provide him with a degree of consistent emotional support which the father is unable to give him. This will go a long way towards mitigating the challenges that a move will present him. The adverse effects caused by the disruption of a move are, in my judgment, likely to be short-term. They need to be balanced against the clear long-term benefits S will gain from living primarily with the parent who is best able to meet his emotional needs and promote his relationship with the other parent.

I have thought carefully about whether S’s needs could be met by remaining living primarily with the father and spending the majority of his holidays with his mother as well as daily video contact. The father does not support daily contact. If the contact were to take place with this degree of frequency he is likely to find it intrusive (I do not criticise him for this) and the experience is unlikely to be a fulfilling one for S, who already experiences tension as a result of his father’s lack of support for his maternal relationship. I also consider that the father makes a fair point when he said that allocating the substantial majority of holidays to the mother risks relegating to his role that of a term-time parent and fundamentally affecting his relationship with S. Most fundamentally, I find that the father continues to lack a proper appreciation of the significance for S that his mother plays in his life. Without that appreciation, he will be unable to promote the relationship to the extent that S needs.

I consider that moving to live with the mother may benefit S’s relationship with his father in ways the father does not currently appreciate. He will be relieved of the day-to-day responsibility for maintaining S’s routine. He will spend time with S less frequently but their times together will be special and this may allow their relationship to reset. S will miss his father when he is not with him, but he feels secure about his father’s love for him in a way he presently does not about his mother.

Although I find that it is in S’s interest to move to live with his mother, I do not consider that the move should take place in the middle of his academic year. One reason for this relates to the uncertainty of the schooling position. I find the mother’s proposal to enrol him in a private school to be unrealistic. These parents cannot afford private education. It would be contrary to S’s interests if he had to change schools again because the fees could not be met. I similarly consider it to be contrary to S’s interests for him to spend the next two terms being educated by a combination of private tutors and such classes as the British Council or other organisations are able to offer. The social aspect of schooling is an important part of his educational development which this proposal would not meet. It would also mean subjecting S to two educational changes, which would be contrary to his interests.

In my judgment, it is in S’s best interests to move to live with his mother in France in a way that is properly planned. He should complete his current academic year in England. The aim should be for him to start at school in France in late August or early September 2026, when he will be able to join a new school at the beginning of the academic year. In the meantime, both parents should be involved in the process of finding the best school to meet S’s needs in or around Paris. The mother has conducted all of the investigations thus far. It will help S enormously if the father can also become involved in the process, so that he can witness his parents working supportively and collaboratively. Each of them has said that this is what they wish to do in future. If possible, both parents should attend a meeting with the Mairie in Paris to discuss schooling options for S. The father should also visit some of the schools being considered and participate in the process of establishing the additional support he will need and receive.

In the meantime, the parties should continue with the process of assessment in relation to ADHD which is underway in England. It may now be too late, but if possible the mother should be able to complete the questionnaire already completed by the father so that she has some input into the process. The parties should also take steps to ensure that between now and next September S can receive some age-appropriate tuition in French.

I am confident that, between them, these parents will be able to find a school which is right for S in France. As a precaution, however, I propose to list the matter for a further hearing to review the progress of the transition to France to and to resolve any issues which may have arisen.

Between now and the start of the next school year, S should stay with his mother in France (i) for half of his Christmas holidays (Christmas Day to be spent with the mother on the basis that it will alternate thereafter), (ii) for 6 nights at the start of the February and May half-terms, (iii) for half of the Easter holidays (Easter Sunday to be with the father on the basis of an alternating pattern thereafter), and (iv) for the second half of the school summer holidays.

Following the move to France, the pattern will essentially reverse: S will spend half of the Christmas, Easter and Summer holidays with the father. The All Saints’ Day holiday in October and November runs for two weeks and should be split equally. The Winter February/March holiday is also two weeks’ long and should be split equally. There is a short holiday for Ascension Day (5 nights) which S should spend with the father.

The costs of travel for the above should be shared. At the start of each holiday, the parent with whom S is primarily living will be responsible for travelling with him to meet the other parent. The position will be reversed at the end of each holiday.

Indirect contact by video should take place at least four times a week; more frequently if S wishes it.

Between now and 24 April 2026, when the mother’s visa expires, it would benefit S if she can come over for a few days each month during term time to spend the weekend with him and perhaps become involved in his school routine. The order should make provision for this to be able to occur as well as the reverse for the father following the move to France. I expect the mother to use her best endeavours to obtain a further visa when the present one expires so as to enable her to continue to make visits to England and to travel here to facilitate S’s time with his father following the move to France. If she is unable to travel personally, she should name an alternative person to travel with S until such time as he can travel unaccompanied. Once she obtains French nationality, there will be no issue about her ability to come to England.

Over the next few months S may need to travel to France to visit schools or more generally to be there to facilitate the school enrolment process. The order should provide for him to do this, if necessary taking days out of school to do so.

Although from August or September 2026 S will be living mainly with his mother, it is important for him to perceive that each of his homes has equal status. In my view it is in his interests for the arrangements I have determined to be embodied in a shared ‘lives with’ order.

I do not consider this is an appropriate case to make a section 91(14) order. Such orders should only ever be made with ‘great care’, as I recently noted in Re A and T (Children) (Appeal: Duration of Section 91(14) Order) [2025] EWHC 3052 (Fam), a case in which I set out the relevant legal principles which it is unnecessary now for me to repeat. Neither party has litigated inappropriately. There is a need to maintain judicial oversight over the transition to France. Following the move to France, S will become habitually resident there and jurisdiction will lie with the French courts.