BA (A Father) v AA (A Mother)

These proceedings concern the future arrangements of a child (“C”) who is approaching her seventh birthday. Though C was not present during the hearing before me, she is the most important person that I must think about. I am conscious that her future understanding of what steps this Court decides in respect of important elements of her upbringing and welfare will be explained in my judgment.

This is the judgment of a Final Hearing following a fact-finding judgment of HHJ Kushner dated 27 April 2023. A subsequent Final Hearing judgment making provision for Father to enjoy direct contact with C was set aside by Sir Jonathan Cohen sitting in the Family Division of the High Court: AA v BA [2024] EWHC 2233 (Fam).

Father is represented by Ms Emma Taylor and Mother by Ms Shazia Haider-Shah.

The parents were married in November 2012. They separated in October 2021 consequent to Mother and C leaving the family home. A decreenisi was issued in July 2023. Judgment is awaited in financial remedy proceedings. In August this year, Father issued civil proceedings against Mother in respect of £64,000 he contends was stolen from him.

Father has not had face-to-face contact with C since the autumn of 2021. He has at various times since enjoyed indirect contact with C, including FaceTime video calls, but such contact was ended by the Court following his remand into custody earlier this year and has not resumed since his release from prison in June. The parties agree that Father has not enjoyed any contact with C for approximately eight months.

At this hearing I was asked to determine several questions concerning the welfare and upbringing of C.

Father seeks:

The Father’s application for a prohibited steps order was withdrawn on instruction by Ms Taylor at the commencement of her closing submissions.

Mother seeks:

A hearing bundle running to 1,084 pages was filed with the Court and a small number of documents were subsequently filed. I have received position statements from the parties, as well as a Section 7 report with addendum prepared by a Cafcass Officer. There is toxicology evidence in respect of Father, dated 12 August 2024. Additionally, a report and opinion from a jointly instructed expert, Mr Dorian Day, dated 28 June 2025, has been filed. It is concerned with issues arising in respect of Mother’s application to internationally relocate.

Mother and Father attended all three days of the hearing. A Cafcass Officer, Ms Revonnia Gwewera, attended on the first day.

Father attended on the first morning with an unidentified person, whom he referred to as a McKenzie Friend, and who he wished to help him with his papers. Father was permitted time to take advice from Ms Taylor, and I was informed that a McKenzie friend application was not pursued. The friend remained outside of the court room.

At the outset of the hearing, Ms Taylor applied for an adjournment on behalf of Father. The application was foreshadowed by Father’s most recent position statement. There were two limbs to the application. The first was Father’s wish to be represented by his preferred counsel who previously represented him at some, but not all, earlier hearings. Father was firmly of the view that continuity of representation was essential in order for his case to be properly presented before the Court.

I refused this limb of the adjournment application. Notice of hearing was sent to the parties on 5 August 2022, and Father has enjoyed sufficient time to arrange his legal representation. Though preferred counsel represented Father at the Fact-Finding hearing before HHJ Kushner in April 2023, she did not subsequently represent him before the High Court. Ms Taylor was ready to proceed, as was Mother’s counsel. It was not proportionate and in the interests of justice for a further adjournment of this hearing, in proceedings that commenced in January 2022 and concern the welfare and future upbringing of a child, on the basis of a party wishing to be represented by preferred counsel.

The second limb of the application was for time to secure a further addendum to the Section 7 report. Father contended that he had been unable to engage in the preparation of the addendum as Ms Gwewera did not contact him whilst he was on remand. Consequently, he considered the report to have failed to capture his voice. He was concerned that the Court been not provided with a clear picture of his current relationship, particularly with the role he enjoys in the life of the eight-year-old daughter of his partner who resides with him. Accompanying the request for an adjournment was a request that, if granted, a different Cafcass Officer complete the further addendum, to permit a “proper assessment” of him.

The application was refused. There had been delay on Father’s part in informing his solicitors that he was on remand, and it was late in the process when Ms Gwewera became aware of this fact. Though ultimately unsuccessful, she had made efforts to contact him through HM Prison Service. Following the filing of the addendum on 5 May 2025 Father enjoyed the opportunity of advancing the request for a further addendum at the Further Direction Hearing before HHJ McKinnell, sitting as a section 9 judge, on 7 July 2025, but took no steps to do so. In any event, fairness would be met by additional time being afforded to Father when examining Ms Gwewera at the hearing.

Accordingly, having refused the adjournment application the hearing proceeded to oral evidence and submissions.

On the evening of the second day, Father sent three separate emails to the Court marked for my attention. At the time he remained on oath as his evidence had not concluded. I am informed that the emails were not sent to any member of his or Mother’s legal teams. I have not read the emails. At the outset of the third morning, I notified counsel as to the existence of the emails and observing that Father remained on oath, I permitted Ms Taylor time to provide advice and to take instructions at the conclusion of his evidence, with the ability to recall her client if considered necessary. After taking instructions, Ms Taylor subsequently confirmed that (1) there was no requirement for me to read the emails, (2) no requirement that they be forwarded to Mother’s legal representatives, and (3) no requirement to recall Father to give further evidence.

I take this opportunity to thank Ms Taylor and Ms Haider-Shah for the careful and skilful conduct of their respective cases in this matter and for the invaluable aid they provided to the Court.

Section 1(1) Children Act 1989 applies in this matter. C’s welfare must be the Court’s paramount consideration and the Court’s welfare assessment must be informed by an analysis of the factors in the welfare checklist under section 1(3) of the 1989 Act.

Section 1(2A) provides a presumption in favour of both parents being involved in C’s life, unless that is proved to be contrary to C’s welfare. That involvement need not be equal and may be direct or indirect (section 1(2B)).

The welfare checklist in section 1(3) sets out the various welfare checklist headings that may be relevant to a particular case.

In Re H (A Child: Domestic Abuse) [2024] EWCA Civ 326; [2024] 2 FLR 622 the Court of Appeal endorsed the judgment of MacDonald J in D v. E (Termination of Parental Responsibility) [2021] EWFC 37, [2022] 1 FLR 582, namely that the welfare of the child not only remains paramount but the child’s best interests take precedence over any other consideration. Whilst there is a positive obligation to try to promote contact it is not absolute. Excessive weight should not be placed on short-term problems, and the Court must take a medium and long-term view of matters. Contact should only be terminated in exceptional circumstances and where there are cogent reasons for so doing, and as a last resort. A Court is required to consider if it has taken all necessary steps to facilitate contact as can reasonably be demanded in the circumstances of the case.

Any order I make must be reasonable, necessary and proportionate. C and her parents have rights protected under article 8 ECHR as incorporated domestically by the Human Rights Act 1998. I also remind myself of the no order principle.

The Court of Appeal confirmed in Re E (Relocation: Removal from Jurisdiction) [2012] EWCA Civ 1893 that a judge can depart from the recommendation of Cafcass if the report is not balanced.

When considering the Section 7 report and addendum filed in these proceedings, I am mindful that the case must be looked at in the round.

Pursuant to PD12J, the Court must take into account a number of factors when considering whether to make a child arrangements order when domestic abuse has occurred.

Paragraphs 35 to 39 of the Practice Direction:

“35.

When deciding the issue of child arrangements the court should ensure that any order for contact will not expose the child to an unmanageable risk of harm and will be in the best interests of the child.

36.

(1) In the light of -

(a)

any findings of fact,

(b)

admissions; or

(c)

domestic abuse having otherwise been established,

the court should apply the individual matters in the welfare checklist with reference to the domestic abuse which has occurred and any expert risk assessment obtained.

(2)

In particular, the court should in every case consider any harm -

(a)

which the child as a victim of domestic abuse, and the parent with whom the child is living, has suffered as a consequence of that domestic abuse; and

(b)

which the child and the parent with whom the child is living is at risk of suffering, if a child arrangements order is made.

(3)

The court should make an order for contact only if it is satisfied-

(a)

that the physical and emotional safety of the child and the parent with whom the child is living can, as far as possible, be secured before during and after contact; and

(b)

that the parent with whom the child is living will not be subjected to further domestic abuse by the other parent.

37.

In every case where a finding or admission of domestic abuse is made, or where domestic abuse is otherwise established, the court should consider the conduct of both parents towards each other and towards the child and the impact of the same. In particular, the court should consider –

(a)

the effect of the domestic abuse on the child and on the arrangements for where the child is living;

(b)

the effect of the domestic abuse on the child and its effect on the child's relationship with the parents;

(c)

whether the parent is motivated by a desire to promote the best interests of the child or is using the process to continue a form of domestic abuse against the other parent;

(d)

the likely behaviour during contact of the parent against whom findings are made and its effect on the child; and

(e)

the capacity of the parents to appreciate the effect of past domestic abuse and the potential for future domestic abuse.

...

38.

Where any domestic abuse has occurred but the court, having considered any expert risk assessment and having applied the welfare checklist, nonetheless considers that direct contact is safe and beneficial for the child, the court should consider what, if any, directions or conditions are required to enable the order to be carried into effect and in particular should consider –

(a)

whether or not contact should be supervised, and if so, where and by whom;

(b)

whether to impose any conditions to be complied with by the party in whose favour the order for contact has been made and if so, the nature of those conditions, for example by way of seeking intervention (subject to any necessary consent);

(c)

whether such contact should be for a specified period or should contain provisions which are to have effect for a specified period; and

(d)

whether it will be necessary, in the child's best interests, to review the operation of the order; if so the court should set a date for the review consistent with the timetable for the child, and must give directions to ensure that at the review the court has full information about the operation of the order.

...

39.

Where the court does not consider direct contact to be appropriate, it must consider whether it is safe and beneficial for the child to make an order for indirect contact.”

The definition of “domestic abuse” is in paragraph 2A of PD12J. Behaviour is “abusive” if it consists of, inter alia, violent or threatening behaviour; controlling or coercive behaviour; or psychological, emotional or other abuse. It does not matter whether the behaviour consists of a single incident or a course of conduct.

‘Coercive and controlling behaviour’ is defined in paragraph 3 as:

“’Coercive behaviour’ means an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten the victim.

‘Controlling behaviour’ means an act or pattern of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour.”

The same provision defines “harm” as:

“Ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development including, for example, impairment suffered from being a victim of domestic abuse or from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another, by domestic abuse or otherwise.”

The findings of HHJ Kushner establish that Father was the perpetrator of domestic abuse and that both Mother and C are victims of that abuse.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognises a child as a victim of domestic abuse if they see, hear, or experience the effects of domestic abuse and are related to, or cared for by an adult with parental responsibility who is the person being abused or the perpetrator of the abuse. The 2021 Act, incorporated into PD12J, expands the definition of domestic abuse beyond domestic violence, but the balancing act described above is a distillation of the task set for the Court by PD12J.

In assessing credibility, I have regard to Re A (A Child) [2020] EWCA Civ 1230; [2021] 1 FLR 815. Oral evidence in family cases is very important to help a judge form a view as to what has happened, and as to the credibility and reliability of each witness. However, the court is to be mindful of the fallibility of memory and the pressures of giving evidence. The relative significance of oral and contemporaneous evidence will vary from case to case. I must assess all the evidence in a manner suited to the case before me and not inappropriately elevate one kind of evidence over another.

I am mindful that hearsay evidence is admissible in family proceedings.

If I conclude that a witness has lied about one matter, it does not follow that they have lied about everything. A witness may lie for many reasons, for example, out of shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress, good reason or other established reason for the person to have lied.

Where I consider a lie or lies to be relevant to welfare, I remind myself of the guidance in Re K (Children: Placement Orders) [2020] EWCA Civ 1503; [2021] 2 FLR 275, at [29]:

“29.

The next general matter concerns the significance of lies. The correct approach to lies in relation to fact-finding is well known and the Judge appropriately gave himself a Lucas direction in that context. Here the more pertinent matter for our purpose concerns lies in the context of welfare. Lies, however disgraceful and dispiriting, must be strictly assessed for their likely effect on the child, and the same can be said for disobedience to authority. In some cases, the conclusion will simply be that the child unfortunately has dishonest or disobedient parents. In others, parental dishonesty and inability to co-operate with authority may decisively affect the welfare assessment. But in all cases the link between lies and welfare must be spelled out.”

The paradigm case concerned with international relocation remains Re F (A Child) (International Relocation Case) [2015] EWCA Civ 882, [2017] 1 FLR 979. That, together with the earlier authorities, makes clear the approach under section 8 of the 1989 Act should be as follows:

I note the stricture in Re F, at [27], that the effect of previous guidance in cases such as Payne v. Payne [2001] EWCA Civ 166; [2001] Fam 473 may be misleading, unless viewed in their proper context, which is no more than it may assist a judge to identify potentially relevant issues.

In V v. M (Child Arrangements Order: International Relocation) [2020] EWHC 488; [2020] 2 FLR 387, Williams J considered the legal principles in Re Fand set out how the essential principle of proportionality should be considered, at [44] to [50].

My essential task when considering Mother’s application to relocate with C is to weigh up two competing options as to the country in which C should reside and the parental care framework in which the child will live. As observed by Williams J, at [44], this requires a comparative evaluation of the options available. Such evaluation may be by a balance sheet, but of course I am to be wary of then following a map without contours, which of course can result in a misleading picture and the arrival at an unexpected and probably wrong end point.

When considering proportionality, in reality and when considering the welfare checklist, and in undertaking the holistic evaluation, I necessarily have to take into account the potential infringement of the child’s right to a relationship with the left behind parent and indeed other aspects of the child’s protected Article 8 rights. I will therefore have to build into my holistic evaluation a degree of consideration or proportionality and in that way the proportionality issue feeds into the ultimate paramount welfare outcome. When assessing the “peaks and valleys” of the “map”, I take into account:

The Court of Appeal recently confirmed in Re O (Domestic Abuse: International Relocation) [2025] EWCA Civ 888, at [80], [82] and [94], that when considering an application to relocate overseas, in cases of domestic abuse the Court should consider, pursuant to section 1(3)(e) of the 1989 Act:

As to section 91(14) orders, the relevant legal considerations are as set out in sections 91(14) and 91A of the Children Act 1989, and as set out in PD12Q.

Previous case law considering such orders, particularly the leading case of Re P (A Minor) (Residence Order: Childs Welfare) [1999] 3 WLR 1164, may still be relevant as paragraph 2.8 of PD12Q makes clear but are to be viewed through the lens of the changes wrought by Parliament in enacting section 91A.

The parents’ relationship commenced in the summer of 2011 and moved swiftly to cohabitation. There was a religious marriage overseas and then in November 2012 a civil marriage was held in this country. This was Mother’s first marriage, and Father’s second. He has three children from his first marriage, one of whom is a minor.

Difficulties arose early in the parties’ marriage and HHJ Kushner found that Mother’s heart went out of it relatively early, but it continued with C being born in 2018. I consider it important to record for C’s benefit that she was a child wanted by both parents.

Mother left the marriage in 2021. Since that time, C has resided with Mother. Father states that he has formed a new relationship and resides with his fiancée and her daughter at his parents’ home.

On 24 January 2022, Father filed an application seeking contact with C three times a week via FaceTime, and for C to stay with him on alternate weekends.

Deputy District Judge Willink issued a non-molestation order on 15 February 2022. Both parties attended the remote hearing and agreed to the order on the basis that Father made no admissions in relation to Mother’s allegations, and the Court making no findings of facts against him. The order ran to 15 February 2023.

On 16 May 2023, Father was sentenced at a Magistrates’ Court to a community order with an unpaid work requirement and a rehabilitation activity requirement having previously pleaded guilty to having breached the non-molestation order on several occasions between 15 February and 27 March 2023. Additionally, he was made subject to a restraining order under the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 running until 15 May 2025.

A Fact-Finding Hearing was held before HHJ Kushner from 24 to 27 April 2023 with oral judgment at the conclusion of the hearing. On the last day of the hearing, HHJ Kushner made a non-molestation order in favour of Mother expiring on 27 April 2024.

By an order of HHJ Kushner, dated 30 May 2023, contact was permitted between Father and C initially once a week by FaceTime and then from 24 July 2023 twice a week by the same means of communication. Video contact was also ordered between C and her paternal grandparents at least once a month. C’s half-brother was permitted to join with Father’s or paternal grandparents’ contact time. Father confirms that C’s half-brother has never engaged in joining contact time.

At a Dispute Resolution Appointment on 29 September 2023, the Court ordered direct contact between Father and C. The order was swiftly stayed by Russell J and subsequently set aside by the Sir Jonathan Cohen sitting in the High Court on 15 August 2024.

On 30 September 2024, HHJ Hildyard KC ordered interim FaceTime contact to continue between Father and C twice weekly, on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

FaceTime contact between Father and C was reduced to once a week by HHJ Newport on 22 October 2024. Mother was to call Father on Tuesdays at a time pre-arranged by solicitors with Father to send a short, recorded video message to C via solicitors no later than the Friday of the preceding week, which Mother was to play to C. No recorded message was ever sent by Father.

On 11 December 2024, Mother filed an application for a specific issue order. She seeks to relocate with C to Dubai. On 5 February 2025, HHJ Newport directed that the relocation application be considered at the same time as the final hearing in the child arrangements order application.

Father was arrested on 6 February 2025 and remanded in custody in respect of allegations in relation to kidnapping and false imprisonment. When Mother became aware of Father’s incarceration is a matter of dispute in these proceedings.

On 3 April 2025, Mother applied to discharge the order that Father have indirect contact with C because he had not engaged for the previous eight weeks.

Following a hearing on 28 April 2025, HHJ McKinnell, sitting as a section 9 Judge, suspended the order made for indirect contact between Father and C.

The prosecution of Father was not pursued, and he was released from custody on 4 June 2025.

A Schedule of Findings is before me. By her fact-finding judgment of April 2023, HHJ Kushner found several allegations made by Mother against Father were not proved. Consequently, I treat the complaints as not having occurred.

Father accepted on admission that from October 2018 he called Mother “a cunt”, “worthless”, “useless”, “mother fucker”, “sister fucker”, “bastard”, “bitch”, “petty bitch”, “slag” and “whore”.

HHJ Kushner records at [69]-[70] of her judgment:

“69.

... [Father] by his own admission, first of all, is being very clear what the language he uses when in drink, and as I said, it is a dis-inhibitor. He also has acknowledged that he uses the words mother fucker very regularly, and that is part of his vocabulary.

70.

[Mother] points to October 2018 onwards, that he has called her a cunt, worthless, useless, mother fucker, sister fucker, bastard, bitch, petty bitch, slag, and whore and I am absolutely clear, and I make this finding, that he has used those and regularly. It is insulting, it is demeaning, and he must start to understand that although it might reel off the tongue as far as he is concerned, and it might well be that is not important as far as he is concerned, it is a vile form of abuse, it is demeaning, and I am quite sure that it undermined [Mother’s] confidence in that regard.”

HHJ Kushner found that from October 2018 onward Father regularly said abusive words to both Mother and C and that it was insulting and demeaning to do so.

Words directed by Father to C were “not normal”, “mother fucker”, “brat child”, “sister fucker” and “bastard”.

I observe [71] of the judgment:

“71.

I am also clear that as it is part of his vocabulary, that he probably used those words in the direction of the child, rather less than he used them in respect of the mother, but they were there ...”

I consider it appropriate to note observations made by HHJ Kushner at [54], [55] and [58] of her fact-finding judgment in respect of telephone calls from Father to Mother:

“54.

... I have seen many transcripts of telephone calls which show the depth of [Father’s] anger and I have to say that the phone calls that I have seen transcribed post-separation are quite vile in what he has said. It is not just simply [...] poor behaviour, they are vile and highly abusive ...”

55.

I understand that [...] alcohol is a dis-inhibitor and I do not think that even now he understands the extent of his behaviour. I have not quite seen that level of shame that I would be expecting. He regrets, certainly, but not that level of shame which I would expect given that he has been confronted with it ...”

“58.

I have taken into account the audio clip that I have heard which was in 2017, which showed an angry tirade, and I have to say it was an unimpressive tirade, again vile in his abuse and in his tone, and I use the word vile very carefully. It is not hyperbole on my part. It is not a word I use very often, and he has got to take stock in that regard ...”

Father also admitted that he threatened to harm Mother. On 3 September 2021 he stated that he would “do round two in front of (his parents’) house”. On 8 January 2022 he said he assumed W “wanted to go to war” over an unpaid direct debit. These acts were found by HHJ Kushner to constitute threats to harm and or kill.

Additionally, Father admitted to consistently breaching an existing non-molestation order having entered guilty pleas at Magistrates’ Court proceedings. In summary, the breaches encompassed:

The card accompanying the Mother’s Day flowers, which Mother believes to have been written by a florist on Father’s instruction, said:

“Happy Mother’s Day [...]. we have been through a lot to have [C]. You are a good mother to her and deserve to enjoy her. Hope you both have a great day together. All the best, [Father].”

Father accepted that he used alcohol and that he used cocaine and cannabis. He was found to have, on occasion, brought drugs into the family home, to be under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or both and that such acts were more prevalent before and after Covid. It was proved that Father left drugs around the family home in reach of C.

It was proved that on 14 September 2020, C was caught in the crossfire of a parental argument when a pillow was thrown, but not directed, at her. HHJ Kushner found, at [78]:

“78.

... it being alleged that [Father] threw a pillow at the child whilst she slept, and [Father] was in another rage and was verbally abusing [Mother]. I take the view that the basis of those circumstances were correct. That there was a violent row going on between the parties. I am making that finding, that a pillow was thrown. It was not a game. It is not a game that the father was referring to, though I take the view that the child was actually caught in the crossfire. I do not make any finding that the pillow was actually directly slung at the child in order to hurt her, but I take the view that within the violence within the marriage that the child, as I said, got caught in the crossfire ...”

Father was found to have been in a rage on 21 January 2021 and retrieved a hammer from the garage with the intention of attacking a vehicle belonging to the maternal grandparents. He used the hammer to threaten and at the time C was in the vehicle.

It was proved that on 25 February 2021 Father grabbed Mother’s neck and squeezed it hard in front of C, who was in her highchair. HHJ Kushner found that this would have been particularly frightening and that it was part and parcel of Father’s unregulated behaviour at the time.

Father was found to have slapped Mother’s face on 28 March 2021, and it was further found that this occurred during the marriage, though more prevalent after Covid than before.

The findings establish physical, emotional and psychological abuse conducted by Father.

HHJ Kushner identified at [91] Father’s need to be able to recognise his very poor behaviour and to make a start in regulating his behaviour. She identified a route forward for Father, at [93], [106]-[107]

“93.

... I note that the father has undertaken some therapies since the separation. It certainly did not stop, it has to be said, the unregulated behaviour on the phone, and what has happened, but it might well be that some of the therapies have helped him to calm down. One of the things I would be looking for in the future is for him to undertake further therapies, but it usually requires an acknowledgement of things done. He probably needs to go on a one-to-one management course, not to excuse him, but actually to have a very deep reflection on his general conduct.”

...

“106.

I take the point what the mother says about her concerns in respect of alcohol and drugs. That could be easily resolved by having tests, not urine tests, but blood tests, so that we can see what happens, and that is a form of reassurance as well. The money now needs to be spent in trying to find a way forward. The father needs to find a way of reassuring mother, and I am very, very clear about that.

107.

It is not simply right to say, well, those are the findings and I am off to therapy. The mother’s confidence, both in herself and in him as a father, has, quite rightly, been undermined and I think she has just cause to be concerned about the father’s conduct. He has to find a way of reassuring her, not easy, but that is his job for the future. That is what I think the Cafcass report needs to direct itself to, to find the route map back.”

I have considered the oral evidence and the documentary evidence filed in these proceedings with care, including evidence not expressly referenced below. I address witness evidence at the outset to provide an understanding of the parties’ respective cases.

Father has eight convictions for fourteen offences from 1998 onwards:

There has been disclosure from both Bedfordshire and Kent Police. There has been no disclosure received from the Metropolitan Police despite various orders and consequently this Court has no information from the police as to Father’s recent arrest in respect of kidnapping and witness intimidation. As previously observed by HHJ Kushner, most of the corroborative evidence from the police and statements to the police concern events after the separation in 2021 and are not corroborative of what was happening when the couple resided together.

Kent Police disclosed crime reported incidents relating to Father by a letter dated 18 July 2025. The recorded incidents, which took place between June 2023 and June 2025, are detailed below and were addressed by Father in his oral evidence.

Identification as a suspect:

Identification as an involved party:

Identification as the victim:

Ms Carter is a Probation Service officer who was Father’s Offender Manager following the imposition of a 12-month community order by a Magistrates’ Court in May 2023 for a breach of a non-molestation order. Ms Carter’s evidence filed with this Court consists of email correspondence dated 14 July 2025 and an attached document providing information as to an intervention programme Father was directed to undertake. She confirms that Father successfully completed eighty hours unpaid work on 28 November 2023.

In addition, Father was required by the Magistrates’ Court to undertake a rehabilitation activity requirement over twenty-five days This is a pre-planned structured intervention introduced under the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 permitting the Probation Service greater flexibility to decide on the best ways to rehabilitate individuals addressing identified needs. For thirteen of the days, Father was required to undertake and complete the Skills for Relationships Toolkit, which seeks to address the needs of men with responsivity issues, including denial and substance addiction, for a desistance-focused approach to behaviour. An inherent element of the intervention is to help participants form meaningful therapeutic relationships with practitioners, to identify and build on strengths and to develop skills to enable them to lead better lives. Desistance is established by enabling conversations in supervised situations designed to enable participants to understand their behaviour, think about their views and the views of others, commit to self-responsibility and both learn and practice pro-social skills.

Ms Carter states that there was agreement with Ms Gwewera in October 2023 for Father to undertake this work. I record the date of ‘October 2023’ was agreed between the parties, with the date of ‘October 2024’ provided in the email being accepted to be a typographical error.

Ms Carter confirmed that when reporting to the Probation Service, Father was well presented, polite and courteous. He always attended on time, engaged well during supervised sessions, completed all requirements of his order and never received any enforcement action.

The document attached to Ms Carter’s email provides an outline of the Skills for Relationship Toolkit but does not detail Father’s personal engagement on the programme save that he completed it.

Ms Carter did not attend the hearing.

Ms Gwewera attended the hearing on day one and gave oral evidence. She prepared a Section 7 report and an addendum in these proceedings. The respective dates of filing are 12 September 2023 and 5 May 2025. The reports post-date HHJ Kushner’s fact-finding judgment.

Both parents were interviewed for the Section 7 report. Ms Gwewera observed Father’s previous convictions and arrests. She recorded Father as being subject to impending prosecutions relating to criminal damage to a vehicle in August 2021 and witness intimidation, also in August 2021. Neither prosecution resulted in a conviction. This history is identified as one of concern, with Father appearing to be a repeat offender, though he seemed to Ms Gwewera to be remorseful and have regrets for past behaviour.

Though not engaged in any courses or programmes to address his domestic abuse or substance misuse concerns, Father reported having found his own coping strategies. Ms Gwewera’s concerns were as to whether these could be sustained for a long period. She opined that Father had to meaningfully engage in a domestic abuse or anger management course to positively address and manage his emotions.

Father is recorded as being engaged in Family Court proceedings in 2010 and 2017. In respect of the former, the records show that he was previously having supervised contact with his children from his first marriage, and there were numerous reports filed within the proceedings. The issue surrounded a high level of conflict between the parents and a Children’s Guardian was appointed. In the 2017 application, Father applied for a child arrangements order (to live with/ spend time with). A Section 7 assessment was completed raising concerns as to Father posing a perceived risk of emotional and physical harm towards the children and their mother. Supervised time was recommended between Father and the children and ordered for six sessions before a final order was made for the children and Father to spend time without supervision.

I note para. 25 of the Section 7 report in this case:

“25.

[Father] was resistant in sharing information about his older child (i.e. address, details of mother and children), as this was a barrier, it is unknown whether some of the information shared by him is true or he is sharing what he thinks as a professional I need to know or will help in seeing [the Child].”

Ms Gwewera drew upon information provided by C’s nursery and by health services in her assessment. C presents with speech difficulties and attends speech and language therapy where she has made progress. Otherwise, C presents as bubbly and smiley, happy and confident. Ms Gwewera recorded that it was positive that Father does not raise any concerns as to Mother’s parenting. It was clear to Ms Gwewera that C has continuously been exposed to, or witnessed, parental conflict and there is a risk of impact on her emotional well-being. C continues to watch her mother emotionally distressed whilst promoting virtual contact and this has an impact on her having positive meaningful contact with Father.

The relationship between C and their parents was identified as significant and it was Ms Gwewera’s professional opinion that it must be promoted in line with C’s best interests.

Recommendations were made that C live with Mother and continue to have virtual contact with Father via a weekly video message sent to a confidential email address to reduce C presenting with a level of concerning behaviours and a weekly virtual/ video call that would give Father and C the opportunity to talk about the video he previously sent. The recommendation as to indirect contact was founded upon the risky behaviours Father was identified as posing to C. It was observed that Father would benefit significantly from developing his insight and understanding into the impact of domestic abuse upon victim and child.

As to the addendum report, though Mother was interviewed, Ms Gwewera was unable to contact Father who at the time was on remand. Mother was identified as a victim of domestic abuse, with C having been exposed to incidents of domestic violence. Ms Gwewera considered the Schedule of Findings to reveal a troubling pattern of verbal and physical abuse by Father towards Mother and C. She considered the breach of the non-molestation order to underscore Father’s disregard for legal boundaries and the safety of his family. The findings “paint a distressing picture of an unpleasant and unsafe environment for [C], which can significantly affect her emotional and psychological development.” The present recommendations are that C continue to live with Mother. Additionally, it is not considered to be in C’s best interests that there be direct or indirect contact with Father. Ms Gwewera supports Mother’s application for relocation.

Ms Gwewera gave oral evidence. She confirmed that she contacted Ms Carter in October 2023 in respect of his criminal sentence and was informed that he was required to undertake a rehabilitation activity requirement. However, she was clear in her evidence that she did not cooperate with Ms Carter in the choice of rehabilitation course because Cafcass could not make specific recommendations. The rehabilitative course was a matter for the Probation Service alone. She was not informed that Father was directed to undertake and complete the Skills for Relationships Toolkit. She only became aware of this at the time of preparing the addendum report and without the provision of supporting documentation addressing Father’s own participation in reflective sessions, she could offer no professional opinion as to Father’s engagement in the intervention and his level of learning.

In her opinion, a positive of the Toolkit are the efforts to ensure that participants consider and understand their behaviour. However, she considered it to be at the basic end of a relationships course, with insufficient reflection upon abusive behaviour and its impact upon others. She referred to it as an introduction to managing behaviour, rather than an intervention changing and modifying the behaviour of a domestic abuser and someone with anger management issues.

Ms Gwewera confirmed that to date there had been no police disclosure concerning the kidnapping and false imprisonment investigation. However, regardless of the investigation being concluded, she considered that the court should be worried that Father was caught up in the allegations.

Returning to her Section 7 report and her recommendation that Father needs to meaningfully engage in a domestic abuse or anger management course to positively manage or address his emotions, Ms Gwewera confirmed that to date Father has not undertaken the work as to risk she could like him to. On instruction Ms Taylor asked whether Ms Gwewera was aware that Father had undertaken an anger management course running for 50 hours. She responded no. It is to be noted that there is no evidence in the trial bundle as to the undertaking of this course, not even a certificate.

On behalf of Father, Ms Gwewera was asked how many times she had spoken to him for the Section 7 report and the addendum. She confirmed there was one meeting for at most two hours in respect of the report and she was subsequently unable to contact him when he was on remand. She cannot remember talking to him at any other time. She confirmed that she considered the time spent at the interview sufficient to reach a professional opinion and complete the report. For the addendum, she read the papers including Father’s position statement.

I found Ms Gwewera to be thoughtful and considered in her evidence. She provided cogent reasons for her professional opinion that Father continues to have concerning behaviours with clear patterns of being embroiled in highly violent situations, whether as perpetrator or victim. She explained with clarity her concern that Father is not making progress at the present time; he needs to have a period of not being involved in such behaviour. As to behaviour she observed that recent police disclosure showed a similarity in volatility and violence with Father’s new partner as arose when living in the family home with Mother and C. The failure to modify existing behaviour will, in her opinion, adversely impact C if any form of contact were to recommence. C has already been exposed to emotional, physical and psychological harm by Father. At the present time, it is her opinion that there is a risk of C being exposed to a volatile relationship with Father.

Mother’s sister made a statement dated 20 July 2022. This witness did not attend the hearing before me. Her evidence was previously considered by HHJ Kushner in April 2023. I have read it in full. One paragraph in particular justifies reciting in full, relating to the incident 21 January 2021:

“11.

After this, [Father] came out and went straight to the garage past our car. The garage was behind me as I was facing the gate now. He came to the car with a hammer. I was in the driver’s seat [C] was behind me on my left-hand side of the car. He started wielding the hammer by the side of the car. He was gesturing he would smash the car in the window. I froze at this point. I was minding my own business and doing nothing wrong. [Father] had come over to me without any provocation and with [C] in the car. He was shouting to me, “turn it off, turn it off”. He said, “I'm going to smash the car in”. I did not understand what was going on and was incredibly fearful. I was full of shock. [Father] was far closer to [C] than me. [Father] then went to the front of the car and gestured he was going to smash the car lights in.”

Ms Platts, a Reporting Scientist at DNA Legal, detailed by a witness statement dated 12 August 2024 that a blood sample and a body hair sample was collected from Father in July 2024. She stated that the detection period is difficult to determine in body hair samples but is expected to span several months. In this matter she opined that the detection period was expected to be more than four months prior to sample collection, based on the sample length.

Upon analysis, cocaine was detected with the results strongly suggesting the active use of cocaine. Cannabis was not detected.

The results of the blood and hair analysis demonstrated excessive consumption of alcohol from approximately 26 June to 23 July 2024.

Father has filed seven statements. The first two predate the Fact-Finding Hearing. I set out Father's perspective of the marital relationship before Mother and C left the family home, as detailed in his undated second statement:

“2.

My marriage to [Mother] was, as far as I was concerned a good one. We had our usual ups and downs of marriage and we also had some extremely challenging times together during our issue with fertility, but overall I thought we were happy and stable and committed to each other. I have never put her down, belittled, bullied or humiliated her as she states. Our life changed, as expected when we had [C] and although that was sometimes hard more often it was a huge pleasure as she is an amazing little girl. [Mother] is a very strong character and has been a massive help to me when I was working doing things for us I did not have time to do, [like] admin and running our home. She showed no interest in working for the whole time we were together despite previously having a very good job. I was happy to support her as I felt it was my duty and in this respect I went above and beyond. I was always very grateful of her support of me and my parents and tried my very best to do the same for her.”

In the first statement filed after the fact-finding judgment, dated 27 September 2023, Father expresses his concern that Mother continues to fabricate domestic abuse. He states that he was “controlled, coerced, financially, emotionally, and psychologically abused, however these incidents seem to have gone unnoticed.” Additionally, he states, “there was a period where I regretfully sent voicemails and messages to Mother. This was due to being extremely emotional after not seeing [C] for a long period of time. I now know that I should have previously dealt with my emotions a lot better.”

In subsequent statements he confirms that has taken time to reflect deeply on the issues arising in these proceedings and the concerns put forward by Mother. He has reflected upon HHJ Kushner’s concerns and has taken these findings seriously. Although he does not agree with all of Mother’s interpretation of events, he understands that his actions have contributed to a breakdown in trust and that his responses in high stress situations were not appropriate. He observes that the Court has found evidence of certain abusive behaviours, such as verbal aggression and controlling tendencies, which he regrets deeply.

Father acknowledges that the Court had found him responsible for incidents of domestic abuse. However, he stated that his relationship with Mother was challenging, and that the Court had found incidents of domestic abuse to have occurred from both sides. He identified the Court as specifically finding Mother guilty of abusive behaviour such as hitting and biting him during the relationship, and though he regrets his actions “during those difficult times” he considers it unfair that Mother continues to portray herself as solely the victim while minimising her own role in the abusive dynamics. He considers that this one-sided narrative has been used repeatedly to alienate him from C, thereby blocking him from having a meaningful part in his child's life.

He acknowledged the impact that his previous behaviour has had on his family and identified steps he had actively taken to address his behaviour, including engagement with a Skills for Relationships Toolkit program, which he identified as providing him with valuable tools to better understand his past behaviours and to develop healthier patterns of interaction.

As he is no longer in a relationship with Mother, and they do not have regular direct interaction, Father believes many of the previous issues and triggers that may have contributed to conflict to be no longer present. The dynamics that were harmful or problematic have been illuminated, and he believes that the changing circumstances will have a positive impact on his ability to engage constructively with C.

His position is that without the underlying relationship tensions, there is a clear opportunity to establish a healthier, more stable environment for C moving forward. His priority is to rebuild trust gradually and to demonstrate that he has internalised the lessons learned both from the Court's judgement and from the Skills for Relationship Toolkit programme.

As to the breach of the non-molestation order, he states that he initially agreed to it to provide Mother with the peace of mind she deserves as a mother. His sole focus at the time was ensuring C’s well-being and avoiding unnecessary conflict. He explained in his January 2025 witness statement:

“However, I was unaware that the conversation I had with the court and [M’s} solicitor when the order was prepared – conversations that should have clarified the wording to include “other than for contact regarding our child” - had not been properly reflected in the final order.

This misunderstanding led to an unfortunate situation where two entirely innocent actions on my part were taken out of context and used against me. One was an email with a hairstyle suggestion for [C], and the other was a Mother’s Day delivery of flowers sent on behalf of [C] in a genuine attempt to build bridges and make amends for the same of our daughter. At no point was I acting maliciously or in violation of the court order.

At the time, I was not aware the order was officially in effect, as I had understood from the court’s Zoom hearing that communication specifically regarding our child would be permitted. In fact, I had email exchanges with both the court and solicitors stating that the draft order was not consistent with what had been discussed in court. Nevertheless, I take full accountability for any misunderstanding or missteps on my part, and I would like to emphasise that this incident occurred over two years ago. Since then, nothing of the sort has happened again.”

Father expresses his delight at being able to see and speak to C. He is extremely disappointed that Mother disrupts and distracts C during FaceTime contact. He states that C is placed in an isolated room when the call is made, usually with no toys, and is then expected to engage in contact. Father’s belief is that Mother is not promoting contact, with C often looking to Mother for reassurances and validation and is encouraged to say ‘goodbye’ early in the call to bring it to an end. He gives an example of when he asked C to get her favourite doll and, when she returned after a minute, she said ‘goodbye’ and then said to Mother, “there you go Mumma, I said goodbye”.

By his witness statements of 16 October 2024 and 17 January 2025, Father addresses Ms Platt’s statement. He details that for over two years prior to the analysis he had completely abstained from using any drugs and had consumed very little alcohol. He maintained a clean and healthy lifestyle. He explains that his previous use of illicit substances had never been habitual, and he had only ever engaged in recreational use on rare occasions. He states that during the period covered in the report, he unfortunately experienced a brief relapse over the course of approximately a month, during which he used cocaine and consumed alcohol in a manner inconsistent with his typical behaviour. He describes this as a lapse of judgment. His explanation is that at this time he was under stress due to the pressures of his divorce and legal proceedings. He is critical of Mother “cancelling” a hearing in January 2024 and serving a case bundle only five days before the June 2024 hearing as causing “immense stress”. He confirms that following this brief period, he has returned to being completely drug free, except for prescribed medication, which he uses responsibly. He states that his alcohol consumption is now limited to occasional social settings, and he is committed to maintaining his sobriety moving forward. He fully acknowledged, and regretted, his actions during this short period of time.

Father is gravely concerned about Mother’s proposed relocation to Dubai, not only because of the physical distance that would result between him and C but also due to the significant jurisdictional issues the move will introduced. Consequent to the existing challenges he already faces in maintaining regular contact with C, he is fearful that Mother’s relocation will create additional barriers, both practical and legal, that would make it nearly impossible to establish a meaningful and consistent relationship with C.

He presently proposes that he have custody of C and provide her with a stable, loving home in this country. This would allow Mother to pursue her career in Dubai without the added stress of co-parenting from a distance. He understands that full custody would be a gradual process, and he would be prepared to work towards this.

Father gave evidence for over four and a half hours, commencing in the afternoon of day two and concluding at lunchtime on day three. Allowance is given for understandable anxiety arising from these proceedings which are obviously of importance to him. I observe that throughout his examination he referred to Mother as ‘your client’, and ‘that woman’ on all but a handful of occasions. He was asked not to talk over Ms Haider-Shah when she was cross-examining. On numerous occasions, his response to Ms Haider-Shah's questions was to ask her questions. On one occasion, he accused Ms Haider-Shah of lying. I informed him that Ms Haider-Shah's conduct and questioning was appropriate. I consider that he was personally dismissive of Ms Haider-Shah, and dismissive of his own counsel when he declared that Ms Haider-Shah was doing a better job. I conclude Father’s approach to cross-examination was an effort to control proceedings, to assert authority. He presented as someone seeking to control the narrative.

Having considered Father’s evidence from the witness box, I find him to be an unreliable witness. I was left firmly with the conclusion that he is a man to whom untruths, deflection and manipulation come easily, akin to a default setting. He engaged in it regularly in the witness box, regularly leaving the impression that he said the first thought that entered his mind. When contradictions in his evidence were put to him, he reverted either to blaming his solicitors for their egregious and constant failures to act on his instructions over several months or years, or to make serious allegations as to Mother’s behaviour such as her not being truthful to incidents of domestic violence upon him, herself being a domestic abuse perpetrator, and of stealing considerable sums of money from him. I again observe that I am to consider in my judgment whether the proclivity to tell untruths and deflect is relevant to my core consideration, namely C’s welfare. If it is not, then it has no weight in my assessment.

Father’s oral evidence established with clarity the significant extent he minimises his role as a perpetrator of domestic abuse. He exhibited little, if any, insight into the impact of his abusive behaviour upon both Mother and C. He has no real insight into the risk he poses to C. It was striking that beyond referencing attending group sessions he could provide little detail as to the thirteen days he undertook work for the Skills for Relationships Toolkit, let alone explain how his participation has led him to have greater understanding of his behaviour and views, as well as the views of others, enabling him to practice pro-social skills. His evidence also highlighted his seeking to exercise manipulative and coercive behaviour by his denying Cafcass, and ultimately this Court, the opportunity to assess his present relationships, both with his other children, and with his fiancée and her daughter. Additionally, the recent initiation of civil proceedings several years after Mother left the family home is strongly suggestive of a continuing drive to cause Mother distress and to intimidate her. Though he contends that separation has resulted in the removal of underlying relationship tension, he has little if any understanding that his ongoing actions continue to drive conflict.

Mother has filed eight statements. The first three statement predate the Fact-Finding Hearing.

When enabling C to engage in FaceTime contact with Father, Mother explains that she places the call by a mobile phone used only for this purpose and then leaves the room, though remaining close by if C needs her. Mother ensures that toys are placed in the room for C to use when she engages with Father. Mother seeks to encourage C to engage with the calls, but C will say that she does not wish to speak to Father and asks why she is being made to do this. There have been times when C has hidden the mobile phone or will hide in the house, for example under a table or in a bedroom, when it is time for contact with Father. Mother has to persuade C to engage with the FaceTime call. C has informed Mother on the morning of FaceTime contact that she did not wish to speak to Father. C will run from the room and refuse to return to speak to Father. On other occasions, she will say “hello” and then “bye-bye” because she does not want to speak to Father. Mother reports that there have been positive times when C has shown Father her favourite toys and she has informed him as to her likes, such as Lego and Disney, but she is often disappointed when Father does not engage with, or know, what she is talking about.

Mother states that on 30 April 2024 she was informed by C that Father told her that he will tell her off the next time she says “hello” and “bye-bye” and then ends the call. Mother recounts Father speaking to C in an aggressive tone.

Mother considers that Father is not child-focused during his contact with C. Mother reports C informing her that during FaceTime contact Father often answers other calls, or speaks to others around him, and so does not give C his full attention. Additionally, C has informed her that Father puts the call on hold, so that she cannot see him, and asked her to “wait there” or “hang on”. During other calls, Father has placed C on mute, and consequently when C has spoken to him there has been no response.

Mother confirms that her PTSD is triggered when she hears Father’s voice in her house as he engages in FaceTime contact with C.

As to video contact with the paternal grandparents, it usually takes place with only the paternal grandmother attending. C regularly adopts the “hello” and “bye-bye” approach.

Mother notes Father’s contention that many of the triggers that caused his behaviour are no longer present because their relationship has ended. She considers Father to be indirectly blaming her for his abusive behaviour against both her and C. She considers this evidence of his continuing lack of insight, acceptance and responsibility.

Mother wishes to relocate to Dubai with C. She considers that she can access a much higher salary that will provide a greater standard of living for her and C. She states that she has investigated the local job market and considers that there are many employment opportunities. She has not applied for any positions, as most employers would expect her to be available to start immediately.

She confirms that she would continue to travel to and from the United Kingdom, maintaining C’s links with this country. Her sister resides in Dubai, with whom C will have regular contact, and her parents are planning to move out there if she is successful in her relocation application. The intention is to reside with her parents who have a property there, situated close to her sister. She would not be required to pay rent and estimates that household bills will amount to £350 per month. If her parents move to Dubai, she expects to pay only half this sum. There is a high-quality private health care system, and employment opportunities cover medical insurance. There are British schools in Dubai, and Mother considers C to be at a suitable age to relocate to a new education system. Mother and C have visited Dubai on three occasions, spending between four weeks and two months there, and C has enjoyed her visits.

As to her immigration status in Dubai, Mother’s intention is to secure an employment and residency visa. C will secure a visa through her.

Mother agrees with the recommendation in the Cafcass addendum that C live with her and that it is not currently safe for C to have either direct or indirect contact with Father. If the Court were to consider that some level of contact needs to be established, Mother suggests that Father send letters/ cards to a PO Box, which she would be willing to set up and provide the details for. This way, there would be no requirement for a third party.

Mother gave oral evidence over approximately three and a half hours on day two. She was polite to counsel and also when referencing Father to whom she called by name. I remind myself of relevant guidance when it comes to assessing demeanour. I am mindful that she is a victim of domestic abuse and has been accepted to have been subjected to emotional and psychological abuse by Father. I accept that giving evidence in the same room as Father proved emotionally difficult. Father, through counsel, was critical of Mother for the delay in several of her answers. I conclude that she was seeking to find the right words in what is a matter of importance to her. That she was being careful to be accurate is evidenced by some of the answers given after delay being favourable to Father, such as the acceptance that he loves C. Overall, her evidence was clear and helpful. She made appropriate concessions and expressed an understanding that Father is concerned as to the potential impact of relocation upon his relationship with C.

The United Arab Emirates consists of seven Emirates, including the Emirate of Dubai. The Constitution of the United Arab Emirates permits each Emirate to establish its own judiciary or to follow the federal court system. Dubai has its own Court of Cassation.

The United Arab Emirates is not a signatory to the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children.

Mr Day is a barrister instructed by both parties to provide a single joint expert report pursuant to Part 25 Family Procedure Rules 2010. He was instructed as to the following:

Neither party raised concern as to Mr Day’s expertise as to the issues above.

Whilst the Dubai has no equivalent to a “mirror order”, an order made in one country which reflect the original order made in another country, Mr Day confirms that it is possible for foreign parties to submit an agreement to a Court in Dubai for it to be confirmed and enforced locally. This process requires agreement between the parties.

Turning to the facts arising in this case, there is at present no mechanism by which a court in Dubai will simply recognise and enforce a final order of an English and Welsh Court in relation to a child living in Dubai. There is no formal process by which mirror orders can be obtained. An application could be made to a Dubai Court for an order in the same or similar terms as any English and Welsh court and Mr Day opines that the English and Welsh order “would carry considerable weight”. He relies, in part, on the decision of Dubai Court of Cassation in Case No. 592 of 2023 (25 January 2024) where a petition for the enforcement of an English judgment made within financial remedy proceedings under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 granted by the Execution Court was upheld on appeal.

Mr Day is not aware of any reciprocal return agreement in place between Dubai and the United Kingdom.

Ms Haider-Shah submitted on behalf of Mother that Father has yet to adopt the identified route proposed by HHJ Kushner by undertaking appropriate work to address his behaviour. The work undertaken with the Probation Service was insufficient. He has a long history of violence, criminality, substance abuse and domestic abuse. He takes no accountability, blaming everyone else for his failings whether it be his former wife or Mother. The recent initiation of civil proceedings in respect of theft is another example of Father having no understanding as to the impact of his behaviour on Mother. If he had undertaken the work identified by HHJ Kushner, he would now understand the impact of his behaviour. Police disclosure constitutes evidence of continuing violence in Father’s personal relationships. He has a consistent and pervasive pattern of behaviour. Father’s evidence as to this disclosure, as with his evidence generally, was confusing and implausible. He deflects, misleads, challenges and confronts, all the while not taking accountability for his behaviour.

Father’s actions during FaceTime with C, being disengaged and challenging, has resulted in C herself disengaging from contact. The professional opinion of the Ms Gwewera was endorsed.

Mother has a well-constructed plan to relocate to Dubai where her sister resides, where her parents have a home and where her parents will relocate if she is successful in securing the order sought. Father’s proposal that he have custody of C to permit Mother to relocate is fanciful. He has had no contact with C for eight months.

In respect of the application for a section 91(14) order, these proceedings have been ongoing for over three years, and Father has commenced civil proceedings. Mother requires a rest from having to constantly engage with Father in court. She seeks an order for three years.

On behalf of Father, Ms Taylor submitted that he is engaged in reflection and has listened to the feedback received from HHJ Kushner and various professionals. He has secured insight from work undertake with the Probation Service, which required discussion of his behaviour in a group environment.

Father was open when being tested for drug and alcohol consumption that he had used both prior to testing. He was not seeking to hide his relatively short-term use. He has exhibited insight and honesty as to what was a ‘bender’, and he continues to be truthful as to not taking drugs and having limited engagement with alcohol.

Father has taken responsibility for his actions. He has concerns that Mother has not taken responsibility for hers. HHJ Kushner found that both were involved in pushing and shoving, and that Mother bit father leaving a mark. However, it is clear that Father takes the bulk of the responsibility for events, and he knows what he did was wrong. The risk to C is mitigated by her parents not being together. Father is not a danger to C, and whilst it is acknowledged that a child can feel stress in the womb, C does not have a memory of events whilst her parents lived together.

It is not Father’s case that Mother is engaged in alienation. However, he is concerned that Mother has adversely disrupted FaceTime contact.

Father wishes to progress contact. He has a sensible progression plan; to engage a contact centre on a weekly basis, with progression being child-led to overnight stays and then stays on alternate weekends. He is amenable to commencing this progress by FaceTime contact with a message to be sent a few days before.

There is real concern on Father’s part that his relationship with C would be effectively severed if she were to relocate to Dubai. He considered relocation is rooted in Mother’s opinion that if Father were wiped off the face of the World she could get on with her life.

Father is not agreeable to a section 91(14) order.

I draw together information provided in various witness statements and oral evidence. Father seeks in respect of his application for a child arrangements order:

Mother seeks:

The factual context for the Court’s analysis of what is in the welfare interest of C is as determined by HHJ Kushner in her judgment of 27 April 2023.

I commence my analysis and reasoning by addressing issues that arose at the hearing.

There was some evidence before me in respect of Father’s relationships with his first wife and their three children and his present partner and her child. Save for Father’s recounting of the healthy state of these relationships, the evidence was limited to reference by Ms Gwewera to previous Family Court proceedings and police disclosure.

I conclude that Father deliberately sought to control the evidence before me to enable him to provide a favourable narrative. I consider this behaviour to exhibit efforts to manipulate these proceedings.

The Section 7 report records that Father was resistant in sharing information about his older children, such as providing their address and the address of their mother. Father explained at the hearing that he could not support Cafcass talking to his son, a minor, without the permission of his first wife, and his first wife did not want her children to have a relationship with C “unless it went through me”. Three months before his interview with Ms Gwewera, HHJ Kushner had permitted his son to join with Father’s or paternal grandparents’ contact time. There was no assertion at the time that the first wife was opposed to her son joining in this contact time. No subsequent application was made by Father to vary this order. The Section 7 report was filed in September 2023. Father has had two years to ascertain the first wife’s view as to whether she and her son will engage with Cafcass.

The Section 7 report identifies three separate Family Court proceedings in which Father was party with his first wife. Numerous reports are recorded as being filed, with a Children’s Guardian being appointed. A high level of conflict is recorded as then existing between Father and his first wife, with concerns raised as to Father being a perceived risk of emotional and physical harm to his first wife and children. I am satisfied that by denying Cafcass the opportunity to interview his first wife and son, Father has deliberately sought to portray a highly partial account of his present relationship with his son. He repeatedly stated during his evidence that Mother had hijacked his relationship with his children from his first marriage, that she alienated them from him and that Mother had become drunk on a holiday and revealed that she was not happy with him having contact with his children. He explained that he was required to have contact with his children from his first marriage behind Mother’s back, said to be at a time between his split from his first wife and a Court order recommending supervised time in or around 2017. There was repeated vagueness as to events in Father’s explanation. His failure to disclose information to Cafcass about his son was the first substantive question he was asked in cross-examination. His immediate response was to be critical of Mother, and to place blame upon her for difficulties in his having contact with his children by her ‘hijacking’ the relationships. These serious allegations were not raised in his witness statements. Mother was not cross-examined on this matter.

I do not accept Father’s assertion that he raised Mother’s adverse behaviour in respect of the children from his first marriage with Ms Gwewera in interview. I would expect Ms Gwewera to have recorded it. Nor do I accept that it was his solicitors’ fault for not addressing these matters in his statements. A regular fall-back position when challenged in oral evidence was to place blame upon his solicitors. When reminded that he had signed his witness statements, he stated that he did not receive correct advice. He did not explain why his solicitors would not advance the factual history he provided them over time.

Father has been involved in several Family Court proceedings since 2010. He is well-versed in the Court’s procedure, the production of evidence and the role of Cafcass. By denying Cafcass the ability to liaise with his son and first wife on a basis of requiring permission, which he has not confirmed that he subsequently sought, and his first wife not wanting her children to have contact with C, a premise fatally undermined by the earlier order of HHJ Kushner, I find that Father consciously sought to control the narrative. Additionally, I find that Father deliberately sought to deny Mother the opportunity to address and respond to serious allegations by waiting until the hearing to raise them.

Father places considerable weight upon his residing with his fiancée and her eight-year-old daughter as well as with his parents. Ms Gwewera records that mother and daughter were not living with Father in September 2023. Save for Father’s oral evidence very little information has been provided to this Court about his fiancée and her daughter, not even their names. The happy and content family life they enjoy is solely identified by Father’s oral evidence. Recent police disclosure strongly suggests otherwise.

Regarding the events of 4 June 2023 concerning a row with a Kara bangle being taken off and a glass being smashed, it is said by Father that it related to an altercation between a couple who reside at a neighbouring property. Father states that he broke the altercation up, telephoned the police and asked them to attend. He was clear in his oral evidence that the police did not attend the incident. Kent Police disclosure expressly records Father as the victim. I have considered his evidence with care but note that Kent Police record the suspect as identified, but there being evidential difficulties. That both assailant and victim are recorded as known is strongly suggestive that the police were satisfied as to the identity of both parties. I find that Father was the victim in this domestic incident, and it is more likely than not that his partner was also involved.

The next incident on 26 August 2023 is identified as a verbal altercation, with Father identified by Kent Police as one of the parties. Father contends that this incident concerned the couple involved in the June 2023 altercation, which I have not accepted. I find that Father was involved in the altercation and as it is recorded as a domestic abuse incident, I find it more likely than not that his partner was also involved.

A year later, on 7 August 2024, there is a report of Father making a complaint that his “ex-partner” assaulted him during their relationship by non-fatal strangulation / suffocation. On one occasion he informed the police that she bit him, and on another occasion held a knife up towards him. Father’s evidence before me on this matter was very confused. He stated that it related to the same neighbours who were involved in the two previous incidents. Earlier in examination he confirmed that they had separated a year before in August 2023. When the discrepancy was put to him, he amended his evidence and said that the female left the relationship after she was the victim of the attempted strangulation. He was clear that it was the female who broke up with the male. The police record confirms it was the female who is said to have been violent, not the male. I am mindful of the pressures in giving evidence, but the only reasonable conclusion is that Father was saying the first thing that came into his mind. I find that the relationship with his partner had broken down by August 2024, and he made complaints to the police in relation to violent and threatening acts conducted by her against him. Having identified his partner to the police, he did not support a prosecution, an approach Father adopted in various other complaints made to the police.

It is therefore entirely unclear as to whether Father is presently in a relationship and if so with whom. He has sought to present a narrative favourable to him in these proceedings, but the narrative wilts when exposed to evidence before this Court.

I remind myself of the guidance in Re K and that more is required in a welfare assessment than a parent has told untruths. The link between lies and welfare must be spelled out.

If Father remains in this relationship, and so the break-up was temporary, I am satisfied it is one that exhibits strong negative and abusive similarities with his previous relationship with Mother, and that risks from his volatile relationship will flow into his relationship with, and impact upon, C. I am mindful that C has previously been exposed to emotional, physical and psychological harm within her family unit.

There is dispute in evidence between Ms Carter and Ms Gwewera as to the input of Cafcass in the choice of course undertaken by Father following the imposition of a rehabilitation activity requirement. A discussion is said to have taken place in October 2023 following which Ms Carter says Ms Gwewera requested Father’s engagement with the Skills for Relationship Toolkit. Father contends that such agreement can only mean that Cafcass was content that the Toolkit was sufficient for the route identified by HHJ Kushner and so he was not required to investigate and then engage in alternate courses.

I consider it much more likely than not that Ms Gwewera was correct in her evidence that when she spoke to Ms Carter on the one occasion, it was a general discussion as to the rehabilitation activity requirement and the possibility of Father engaging with the Skills for Relationship Toolkit was not raised. I find that Ms Gwewera was honest and open as to finding out about Father’s engagement for the first time when she read papers in preparation for the addendum. She was not challenged as to her professional opinion that the Toolkit is introductory as to behaviour management and not an intervention designed to change and modify the behaviour of a domestic abuser and someone with anger management issues. Being aware of HHJ Kushner’s observed route for Father, coupled with her professional opinion of the Toolkit, I accept that Ms Gwewera would not have considered it appropriate to address personal behaviours relevant in this matter if asked. I also accept as accurate Ms Gwewera’s confirmation that the rehabilitative course was a matter for the Probation Service alone as it arose from a criminal conviction, and Cafcass could not make specific recommendations in respect of the rehabilitation activity requirement.

Additionally, I find that Ms Carter was not tasked with providing Father with a course specifically requiring him to work on domestic abuse or anger management. She was tasked by the Magistrates’ Court to ensure Father engaged with the rehabilitation activity requirement.

I accept Ms Gwewera’s evidence that to date Father has not meaningfully engaged in a domestic abuse or anger management course to positively manage or address his emotions. No documentation has been placed before this Court addressing Father’s participation in reflective sessions. Father’s ability to recount his learning from the Skills for Relationship Toolkit is superficial. In evidence he identified certain exercises undertaken, and states that he is better equipped for taking them but provided no real insight as to personal reflection of previous actions nor how to implement lessons learned. When addressing healthy communication patterns, he simply confirmed in general terms that he now better appreciates the difference between what he intends to communicate and how it is received by the others. There was no depth of insight into his appreciation or identification of how he will implement healthy communication on a day-to-day basis. As to addressing unhelpful thinking patterns, he detailed in very broad terms that he would identify and restructure these thought patterns, without any practical identification as to how he is better equipped to respond thoughtfully and calmly in stressful situations. There was no identification of steps and measures he would undertake when aware of unhelpful thinking patterns. When asked by Ms Haider-Shah whether his regular reference to “certain abusive behaviours” exhibited a failure to actually name his behaviours which strongly suggested no development of personal reflection, he answered that he is a vague person, and if he cannot name things from a syllabus, “that is it”. I find that Father exhibited by his evidence very limited, if any, personal development from his engagement with the Skills for Relationships Toolkit.

Considering his evidence in the round, there is no identification of a personal understanding of his previous behaviour and views, beyond a simple repetition in his answers that he had reflected on his conduct. I conclude that his risk remains undiminished. He presents as having gone through the motions to bring this element of his supervision to an end.

Time was spent at the hearing examining Father as to Ms Platt’s evidence. Contrary to Mother’s position, I accept Father’s position that the hair strand test results do not establish that he was taking drugs over a four-month period. I also accept that he declared to the testing service that he had taken cocaine twice a week over a four-week period and drank beer and vodka twice a week over the same period.

I do not accept Father’s evidence that this was a binge whilst on a foreign holiday caused by Mother having previously confirmed that she no longer wished to pursue the financial remedy application and wanted a clean break, only to “maliciously” serve a hearing bundle five days before trial in June 2024. He considered the act to lack integrity, and that it adversely impacted him by occurring during a period of stress arising from the pressures of his divorce and legal proceedings. HHJ Kushner found Father to use alcohol and drugs, both before and after Covid. Kent Police disclosure references Father holding a glass during the altercation on 4 June 2023, and I conclude it more likely than not that it contained alcohol. Father has provided no insight into how alcohol is a factor in him being a perpetrator of domestic abuse by acting as a disinhibitor. I find that he underestimates his present weekly consumption of alcohol, and I am concerned that he does not have insight into his risks if he were to take drugs recreationally. I find that his blaming of Mother for his use of alcohol and drugs before the hair strand test is an example of him reverting to a default setting and evidences a failure to take responsibility for his own actions.

Since their separation in 2021, Father has provided Mother with no money for C’s care and upkeep. He states that the separation left him in debt.

When asked at the hearing about Kent Police’s disclosure as to suspicion of involvement in the production of cannabis he explained this arose from him running a business renting out vehicles. There was a police enquiry on one of the vehicles, and he was contacted for its whereabouts. Later in cross-examination, he was asked why he was not contributing to C’s upkeep. He replied that he had no money and was hoping to work. When reminded that he had previously confirmed he ran a business, he explained that was involved in “managing construction” and “property management”, though this was “partly family” as his parents have properties. He then declared that he was “self-employed”, “on PIP”, and “unemployed”. As to the business renting out vehicles, he stated that it was one car which was in his name.

I do not accept Father’s evidence as to his (self-) employment and earnings. Over time he has been able to go on holiday, afford drugs and, as he accepted, dress well. I consider his unwillingness to provide financially for C to be tied up in his continuing self-identification as being in conflict with Mother. It also evidences his selfishness, where he places his needs above C’s needs.

The importance of this finding is that I do not accept Father to be truthful when he asserts that he did not attend approved domestic abuse and anger management courses because of a lack of funds.

Father has been involved in several Family Court matters since 2010 and in criminal proceedings from 1998. He has knowledge of court proceedings and orders.

I do not accept as true that he was unaware of the restrictions imposed upon him in respect of the non-molestation order. He attended the hearing and was served the order. He pleaded guilty to breaching the order on several occasions. I find that his evidence before me that he was unaware his conversation with the Court had not been placed into the order is no more than an inadequate effort to deflect his disregard for the Court’s regulation of his behaviour towards Mother. I conclude that it was his appearance before a Magistrates’ Court and the imposition of a sentence placing restrictions on his personal life by means of the 12-month community order and the requirement to undertake a rehabilitation activity requirement that led him to develop some insight as to the importance of abiding by the terms of a non-molestation order.

I also do not accept as true his initial explanation for not having sent C any recorded message in accordance with the order of HHJ Newport, dated 22 October 2024, namely that he was unaware of it. In his oral evidence he explained that he preferred to send onto C a message created by ChatGPT because he wanted to do something personal for her, to send tailor-made stories. I find that he was aware that he was to send a recorded message but decided that he would do what he preferred instead. Having listened to Father give evidence, I accept that he finds ChatGPT a very helpful aid. He accepts having prepared one of his witness statements with it. It may well be that he found creating a message using ChatGPT easier than recording a personal message for C. However, he was not truthful in his evidence. Ultimately, he decided not to comply with an order of the Court.

On 6 February 2025, Father was arrested on serious offences. He was charged and remanded in custody until 4 June 2025 when he was released. His criminal solicitors, Bivonas Law, have confirmed by email correspondence dated 18 July 2025 that charges were “dropped”. He was arrested on a Thursday, and up until HHJ McKinnell suspending the order permitting indirect contact on 28 April 2025, he missed eleven FaceTime sessions with C on consecutive Tuesdays.

Mother states that during this time her solicitors contacted Father’s solicitors to confirm the time for FaceTime contact to take place. On each occasion, she went through the process of getting the room ready with toys, and with C in attendance she tried three times to contact Father by FaceTime. She reports C as expressing relief that she did not have to speak to Father and it being increasingly difficult to keep C in the room when she made the second and third calls. Mother expressed her own concern as to the psychological impact the unanswered calls were having upon C. I find that Mother is truthful as to these events.

I observe Mother’s witness statement dated 2 April 2025 where she states at paragraph 11:

“11.

On 6^th March 2025 my solicitors wrote to the Father’s solicitors to query why the Father had not engaged with contact for 5 weeks. No substantial response was received and my solicitors chased again on 19^th March 2025 after the Father had missed 7 consecutive contacts with [C]. On 20^th March 2025, the Father’s solicitors responded and confirmed that they believed the father had had a death in the family which prevented him from engaging with the calls. However, they explained they did not have full instructions from the Father. I am concerned that this is not a valid reason for the Father to stop engaging with the calls and do not believe this to be the case, as any death in the family could have been communicated to me at an earlier stage, to avoid me having to make calls to the Father which are not going to be picked up.”

Father has not sought to rebut with evidence the information provided to Mother by his solicitors.

By means of a C2 application filed with the Court and dated 25 April 2025, Father’s solicitors informed the Court, “We have discovered that our client is on remand at Wormwood Scrubs Prison .... “

In his witness statement dated 14 July 2025, Father states that Mother was made aware of his prison details by his own mother, “for her to make contact for our daughter in February but this was never actioned”.

In his oral evidence before me, he initially relied upon the solicitors instructed in his criminal case being aware that he was in remand as sufficient for Mother to have become aware. He then said that his mother had informed Mother that he was in remand, and his fiancée had informed his solicitors in these proceedings. When asked how his mother had informed Mother, he stated that she asked C during contact to ask Mother to come to the room and then provided Mother with his prison number.

I find that Father is not truthful in his evidence. His solicitors understand their professional obligations to this Court, and I find that the C2 application correctly identifies that they were informed in late April as to Father being on remand. I consider it much more likely than not that his solicitors were informed either by Father, or on his behalf, that he was unable to engage in contact because of a death in the family, information they subsequently conveyed to Mother’s solicitors. I do not find that the maternal grandmother used contact with her six-year-old granddaughter to provide Mother with Father’s prison number. I find that if Mother had been informed it is much more likely that her application to discharge filed on 3 April 2025 would have been founded upon Father being on remand and unable to engage in FaceTime contact than on the ground of a failure to engage in contact for the previous eight weeks.

I am in no doubt that the proposed move is not motivated by Mother to limit or restrict the relationship between C and Father. There is a pull factor for Mother towards Dubai through family connections as well as increased earnings through employment, and Father accepts that Mother has been attracted to residing in the country for some time. I do not accept Father’s contention that Mother has always intended to relocate C to Dubai and consequently he was correct to initially seek a prohibited steps order to prevent her unilaterally doing so. I accept that Mother is alert to Father having parental responsibility. I conclude that Mother feels this is the right time for her and C to take this step and start a new life in Dubai where there are better professional opportunities to enable her, as a single mother, to provide for C. To date Father has made no contribution to C’s maintenance and consequently financial responsibility for C’s care falls entirely upon Mother.

I must determine the specific issue of international relocation within the broader determination of C's child arrangements pursuant to her welfare interests. Some aspects of the checklist and composite will overlap and be relevant to more than one aspect.I keep in mind the presumption of parental involvement and the no order principle. Consequent to the findings of domestic abuse, I am required to consider PD12J.

When considering international relocation I note V v. M, at [44]-[50]. I am mindful of the protected article 8 rights of Father, Mother and C. I must consider the proportionality of the outcome, which naturally occurs when I perform the essential balancing exercise within the wider welfare review. The proportionality issues feed into the ultimate paramount welfare outcome.

I commence my welfare checklist analysis with the ascertainable wishes and feelings of C, considered in the light of her age and understanding. I remind myself that wishes and feelings are not the same as what a child may say. Actions are also highly relevant.

C is a six-year-old British citizen child, who will soon turn seven. The addendum to the Section 7 report confirms that C has limited understanding of her lived experiences, as is to be expected of a child her age. She is therefore too young to comprehend the issues arising in this case, including the possibility that she may relocate to Dubai with Mother. However, it can reasonably be assumed that she wants love, emotional warmth, stability and safety.

She is used to living with Mother with whom I find she has a strong bond as does with her maternal grandparents. She is happy with her current living arrangements and is thriving under them as evidenced by reports from her school.

Her relationship with Father has been adversely impacted both by Father’s behaviour during FaceTime contact and his lack of recent communication. I have considered whether C wishes to see both parents but find that at the present time that is not the case. Over time C has become distressed by contact with Father, actively sought not to engage in it, and I have found that she feels rejected by his not engaging in the last eleven attempts at FaceTime contact.

She is not said to understand what is involved in relocating to live in Dubai, though she has visited the country and I accept that she enjoyed her time there. She is aware that her aunt resides in Dubai.

C is currently in Year 2 at a local school. She has limited engagement in her local community beyond the school gate. She is several years away from developing her autonomy and at present expects Mother to provide for all her needs.

Ms Gwewera raised no concerns for C at school. C’s primary additional needs concern beneficial intervention to help with her speech. She is on the SEND register for speech and language. Whilst she is presently working below the expected standard in writing and reading, she is working at the expected standard in mathematics.

I accept Ms Gwewera’s evidence that Mother is the main carer and continues to meet all her basic care needs. C is safe in Mother’s care, enjoys stability in her day-to-day life and is in a settled routine. I note that Father does not raise concern as to Mother’s parenting towards C.

I find that Mother is a highly competent and loving mother who can meet all of C’s physical, emotional and educational needs to a high standard.

I note Mother’s acceptance that Father loves C and that C is aware that he is her father. I find that C has been affected by Father failing to engage in contact from February 2025 onwards and this has adversely impacted her emotionally.

Whilst Father has, on his own admission, left C’s educational needs to Mother, I accept that he can adequately meet these needs. However, he is not in a position to safeguard her emotional needs. I find that he is the primary source of her worries and concerns. Additionally, consequent to his failure to engage with the route identified by HHJ Kushner in respect of abusive behaviour and anger management, Father cannot adequately meet C’s physical needs.

C has experienced significant disruption and difficulty during her parents’ marriage and separation. When living with Father she was subjected to abusive, insulting and demeaning language as well as well as being caught in the crossfire of domestic arguments.

She has experienced significant distress and rejection consequent to Father’s approach to contact, where he has not placed her best interests at the forefront of his engagement. She has over time been aware that she was to talk to her father on a Tuesday and it became a weekly event that distressed her. I agree with Ms Gwewera’s assessment that C is a six-year-old child who may become easily distracted, as young children are prone to do. Father exhibits little, if any, understanding as to the means required for C to actively engage with FaceTime contact. A parent should properly understand that different strategies may be required, whether used separately or sometimes together to enable a six-year-old child to engage in contact where they are not in the same room as a parent. The burden to ensure contact is a positive experience falls upon the parent, not a child who is simply acting as a normal six-year-old. Father’s complaints as to Mother distracting C, or wishing for contact not to succeed, simply fail to engage with the reality of the difficulties that can arise in stimulating a young child. I accept Mother’s report that whilst there have been positive elements to contact such as when C has shown Father her favourite toys and she has informed him as to her likes, Father’s failure to engage with, or know, what she is talking about, has led to disappointment on C’s part.

A striking element of Father’s evidence was his acceptance that, despite having a day's notice of the time when contact is to take place, he has on occasion been driving in his car or in the presence of other people when engaged in FaceTime calls. He fails to understand that his lack of focus on these occasions emotionally impacts C. I find that Mother has truthfully reported C’s observations to her that Father often answers other calls, or speaks to others around him, or puts the FaceTime call on hold, or has placed her on mute, and so does not give C his full attention. Such approach exhibits selfishness, with his own needs being placed above those of his daughter.

I also find that Father has unrealistic expectations of the level of C’s engagement and becomes easily frustrated. He exhibits his frustration to C. I accept Mother’s evidence of C reporting that Father has told her off during FaceTime contact.

I accept that by early this year, C was unwilling to engage in FaceTime contact and was actively seeking not to. I do not accept this behaviour was the result of Mother seeking to disrupt contact. Prior to the suspension of contact, Mother was taking appropriate steps to facilitate contact, undertaking her responsibilities even when on holiday. I accept that she would place toys around C so that she would be stimulated to talk to Father. I conclude that difficulties arose because Father failed to demonstrate requisite skills to keep C engaged. Such failure, resulting in C hiding in her room to avoid FaceTime contact, is evidence of emotional harm.

Importantly, for my welfare assessment, Father exhibited no insight at the hearing as to the adverse emotional impact suffered by C in having to go through the process of FaceTime contact on eleven consecutive occasions and for her father not to attend. It was his decision not to inform his solicitors, and through them Mother, that he was on remand and unable to engage in weekly FaceTime contact. Neither at the time, nor later at the hearing, did he exhibit any insight and understanding of the effect it had on C, who I accept adopted the approach of refusing to remain for the second and third telephone calls. I accept Mother’s evidence that C was distressed and disappointed by these repeated failures. At present the relationship between Father and C is in a very poor state, to the point of being damaged through degradation. C exhibits behaviour of not wanting to see Father.

International relocation will require C to leave behind her life in this country, including school and fledgling friendships, and start again. To many children it would be a big change. However, age has an impact on how significant the change is. I accept that it will be relatively easy for C to adapt to change because, as a soon to be seven-year-old, her roots in her local community are relatively shallow and her primary support group is Mother and her maternal grandparents, who also intend to move to Dubai.

She will lose many benefits of her British citizenship when residing away from this country. I observe Mother’s stated intention that C return to this country on holiday so as not to lose her ties with her country of nationality. I note that Mother is a British citizen with friends in this country.

I am in no doubt that Mother’s relocation plans are considered and thought through. Whilst they cannot be expected to set in stone, with Mother having taken the practical step of not applying for employment in Dubai pending these proceedings, they are realistic.

Mother has support and advice from her sister, who has herself relocated to Dubai. She has filed with the Court evidence as to her relocation plans, including employment opportunities as a trained counsellor and psychotherapist in Dubai. She confirmed her intention to secure employment before relocating to enable her to secure a dependency visa for C. She will continue to work as a mental health counsellor in this country, and I accept that upon relocating she can continue to work with existing clients as she has done previously when taking extended holidays in the country. Dubai has a private health care system. Mother intends to secure employment with medical insurance cover for both her and C. I conclude that the plans are realistic, and I find that Mother would not accept an employment offer that would reduce her ability to financially provide for C to a level lower than she is capable of in this country. I accept Mother’s evidence that the foundation of her wish to relocate is to provide a greater standard of living for C.

Mother has identified several private schools in Dubai that are suitable for C and understands the costs involved. These schools follow the United Kingdom National Curriculum. They offer GSCEs and A Levels. This education path permits C to have ongoing connection with this country and will benefit her if she wishes to return here to re-enter education or to work. Each school has Special Educational Needs support that will enable C to continue to receive support for her speech challenges. Three schools are relatively close to the family home, enabling Mother to drop-off and collect C. School buses can be used when C is older. I find that the plans as to C’s continuing education are realistic and appropriate for C.

The English language is widely spoken in Dubai, and there is a large expat community. C has visited the country for extended periods on three occasions and has enjoyed her visits.

There will be cultural differences for Mother and C to adapt to in Dubai. There are different legal and moral codes, and a different religious framework, though I accept there is tolerance towards other religions. I accept that though C is not Muslim she will be able to attend religious services and celebrate festive occasions relevant to her in Dubai.

Considering the evidence filed with the Court, I accept that relocation to Dubai would enhance mother’s income. Beneficial to her is that she will be residing at a home owned by her parents and will not be required to pay rent. Upon her parents relocating, utility bills will be shared. I accept that there is sufficient room at the property for Mother, C and maternal grandparents to reside there without overcrowding.

I note that Father did not challenge the details of Mother’s relocation plan and its viability. His case is not that C’s circumstances will be reduced, but that international relocation will end C’s relationship with him, and that in addition Mother will be a “flight risk”. The latter concern was not pursued by Ms Taylor in submissions. As explained above, I am satisfied that Mother understands the importance of C having some contact with Father, but she requires her trust in him to be rebuilt, and she does not wish C to be exposed to an unmanageable risk of harm. I have accepted Mother to be a truthful witness as to her intention to return to the United Kingdom on occasion so that C can continue to develop and enjoy cultural links with this country.

At present C’s key relationship is with Mother, with whom she has lived for all her life. Beneficial to her is the intention of maternal grandparents to move to Dubai, and the closer relationship she will develop with her maternal aunt who already resides in the country. There will be an impact on C of moving permanently to Dubai in respect of her relationship with Father and paternal grandparents. The impact will be limited. C’s relationship with Father has gone backwards over time. She has contact with her paternal grandparents, primarily her paternal grandmother, once a month by FaceTime. She has no relationship with her half-siblings.

Father has not been open and honest as to his earnings and employment. He has been able to enjoy a holiday abroad in recent time, and consequently C’s relocation to Dubai does not mean that their relationship will be fractured beyond repair by his remaining in this country. Risk is not a static factor. It is within his power to work to address concerns relating to risk to enable him to enjoy increased contact with C in the future, whether by travelling to Dubai when permitted to see her, or to contribute to C travelling to this country if arrangements are permitted for her to visit him.

C is a British citizen, as are her parents. She shares with them both her shared cultural, social and religious background. Whichever parent she resides with, she will be raised with an understanding of the richness of her heritage, including her British one, and her religion.

She does not speak Arabic. I accept that she is at an age where an introduction to the language should not be onerous. Mother’s intention is that she attend an English-speaking school in Dubai.

These factors are considered together because this is a case where there have been findings of domestic abuse consequent to which I must apply PD12J.

Father is a perpetrator of abuse towards C, who continues to suffer emotional abuse through his acts and omissions. I accept Ms Gwewera’s professional assessment that Father continues to pose a risk to C, as well as to Mother. He has made little progress in addressing the issues identified in the fact-finding judgment. He has not undertaken relevant domestic abuse and anger management work. To the extent that he undertook introductory level work under the rehabilitation activity requirement, I find that he has not developed adequate personal reflection and insight into his behaviour.

Father remains hostile to Mother, as evidenced by his reference to her as ‘that woman’ and ‘your client’ during examination at the hearing. He continues to minimise his behaviours and its impact. He does not appreciate the harm that he has caused both Mother and C. He was clear in his evidence that he disagrees with findings of fact made by HHJ Kushner. He expressed his belief that “certain findings have been brushed under the carpet”, that Mother “is not fully telling the truth, not fully telling lies” and that she “has lied to three courts”. He considers Mother applying for and securing a non-molestation order to have been “part of a plan”, it was “deliberative, provocative”. He continues to state that he is the victim of domestic abuse. His reliance on HHJ Kushner’s observation in her fact-finding judgment, and it was only an observation, that there was a lot of pushing and shoving between the parties, takes far greater precedence in his view that the clear findings that he is a perpetrator of domestic abuse. He continues to place significant weight upon HHJ Kushner’s observation that she has seen a photograph of a bite mark on his hand and that it is difficult to identify who else could have inflicted it other than Mother. In evidence he explained that his act of squeezing Mother’s neck in January 2021 was a response to prevent her continuing to bite him as evidenced in the photograph. The photograph before HHJ Kushner was taken in 2019. I conclude that he seeks to minimise his own actions, conflating events, and clings onto floating driftwood he identifies as favourable to him in the fact-finding judgment.

He has not shown insight into C’s concerns or disappointments as evidenced by his continued failings in preparing for FaceTime contact and in permitting efforts by Mother and C to proceed to prepare for, and be ready for proceed with, contact when he was on remand. With no insight into his own behaviour, he erroneously insists the difficulties with contact flow from the malign influence of Mother.

A core part of Ms Gwewera’s role is the assessment of risk. She remains deeply concerned about promoting contact between Father and C. With the present significant disruption in the established relationship, progress made in building the rapport between Father and C has been undermined and, in her opinion, this requires a return to gradual re-introduction until trust and stability can be rebuilt.

As I am to decide the issue of child arrangements, I should ensure that any order for contact will not expose C to an unmanageable risk of harm and will be in the C’s best interests. As confirmed above, I must have regard to paragraphs 35 to 39 of PD12J. I am required to have regard to the checklist set out at paragraph 37 of PD12J. As previously observed by Sir Jonathan Cohen, the issue of domestic abuse in this case is one of seriousness.

Father is a perpetrator of domestic abuse against Mother and C. It is appropriate to observe that Father continues to perpetrate, or be complicit in the perpetration of, domestic abuse on Mother by his continuing to blame her, as a victim, for his own predicament.

C has been significantly affected by domestic abuse. She continues to be at risk of harm from her father. She is uncomfortable with engaging with him, seeking to avoid contact at the outset or cutting short contact, and I have found that she has feelings of rejection after numerous failed attempts to set up FaceTime contact in recent times.

The relationship between Father and C is presently in a damaged condition, consequent to Father’s actions. It will take time and effort to positively develop whether C is in this country or in Dubai. Father and C have not seen each other for several years and there is at present no real likelihood of future direct contact until Father addresses his behaviours.

I acknowledge that if I refuse Mother’s application for a specific issue order, she may perceive it to be a consequence of Father’s failings over the years to build a relationship with C, and she may believe that her life is again adversely determined by Father. However, my focus is upon C and her best interests.

Father has advanced several cases over time in respect of the child arrangements order he seeks. He seeks supervised contact at a contact centre, leading to overnight stays and then alternate weekend stays. He has also suggested that C live with him and Mother relocate to Dubai alone. Both propositions evidence a lack of insight into C’s emotional needs, the challenges that he faces in meeting them, and the continued risk he poses to her. In his evidence he showed no true understanding that his relationship with C has gone backwards since indirect contact via FaceTime commenced and has gone backwards at some speed when he was on remand. That he had some small inkling of the problems he created by his omission to inform Mother and her solicitors that he was placed on remand was evidenced by his seeking at the hearing to establish that Mother was aware of the fact long before she says she was, or that it was the fault of his solicitors that she was not informed.

C was a baby when she experienced domestic abuse in the family home. Ms Taylor properly accepted C would be affected by such abuse in utero.

I find that C’s relationship with Father is presently in a damaged state, having degraded over time. Whilst processing her thoughts at an immature level consequent to her age, C has been exhibiting avoidance techniques in relation to FaceTime contact and has over eight months become used to there being no contact. She has proven sensitive to criticism from her father, and to his appearing disinterested in matters important to her. The relationship has been significantly weakened over time by Father’s inability to understand that favourable engagement during contact must flow from his efforts. He cannot expect a six-year-old child to continuously lead discussion.

The evidence leads me to the conclusion that Father is unlikely to place C’s welfare interests before his own personal interests, as evidenced by his own interaction with her such as his acceptance that he has engaged in FaceTime contact whilst in a car or in the company of others, but also consequent to his continued drive to engage in conflict with Mother. One manifestation of conflict is the recent decision to issue civil proceedings. He contends that Mother stole money from him, variously said to be between £64,000 and £200,000. In his witness statement of 17 January 2025, he focuses on Mother having taken property from his family, including watches and gold, as well as stealing money directly from his bank account. He states that Mother sold his car, and kept the money, though confusingly in evidence before me he confirmed that he transferred ownership of Mother’s car into his name. There is a real concern that the recently brought civil proceedings are another means of placing pressure and exercising control and intimidation on Mother. He gave no cogent answer to why the issues in the recent claim could not be addressed in the financial remedy proceedings or why the proceedings were brought so long after Mother left the relationship.

Father’s relationship with C can properly be considered damaged. Looking at it objectively, FaceTime contact has resulted in the relationship going backwards, with C distressed before and when engaging, and Father exhibits no understanding as to why this has been the case.

C is unable to articulate her feelings, hopes and concerns. I am required to assess her actions as reported by Mother, which I accept are accurate. C understands her family relationship with Father, and there is a possibility of the relationship improving. However, at present indirect contact via FaceTime distresses her.

Father has exhibited selfishness in relation to FaceTime contact and shown frustration. His expectation that C will amend her ways and conduct the contact session he wants to enjoy is unrealistic and shows a lack of understanding as to a six-year-old child’s abilities. Father’s lack of insight is illustrated by his seeking for C to reside with him to permit Mother to relocate to Dubai, despite not having seen C since 2021 and not having had indirect contact with her for eight months. He places his wishes before the best interests of C.

At the outset of these proceedings Father understood the relationship with Mother to be a “good one”, “happy and stable” and one in which he “never put [Mother] down, belittled, bullied or humiliated her”. Father continues to be unable, or unwilling, to address his behaviours and to understand their impact upon Mother with whom he remains in conflict. He has not adequately demonstrated that he takes responsibility for his behaviour. I have found that his recent relationship has been volatile. He was arrested and charged in relation to serious crimes this year arising from issues concerning “family property”. There was sufficient evidence for the CPS to charge him and for a court to remand him. Kent Police have also recorded that he is suspected of being concerned in the production of cannabis. The final two incidents recorded by Kent Police in December 2024 and June 2025 evidence continuing risky behaviour, with Father reporting a threatening communication containing threats to kill and a text from a woman making allegations of rape.

At present, Father does not show adequate, if any, understanding how his behaviours undermine the trust Mother can place in him.

I accept Ms Gwewera’s professional opinion that Father needs a period of time away from such behaviour, or suspicions of such behaviour, to start the process of reducing risk.

Turning to the question of international relocation, I observe the guidance in Re O (Domestic Abuse: International Relocation). The abuse is still ongoing. In respect of C, it is primarily emotional abuse. She has been shielded from physical abuse by not having seen Father since 2021 and her present address being unknown to him. There is no expectation that Father will secure C’s future address in Dubai, and if he were to, Mother and C can seek the support of the local police and United Kingdom Embassy. I have found that the abuse has not informed or influenced Mother’s decision to apply for relocation. The decision is founded upon improving C’s living standards through Mother securing more financially rewarding employment. C will continue to have the support of Mother and her maternal grandparents whether she resides in the United Kingdom or Dubai.

I consider the last factor in the section 1(3) welfare checklist, the range of powers available to the Court under the 1989 Act in the proceedings in question, in conjunction with paragraphs 38 and 39 of PD12J.

I have the full range of orders at the Court’s disposal. If I refuse relocation and the case remains within this jurisdiction, no matters of international law or enforcement arise.

If I were to allow relocation, then the question of the recognition and enforcement of an order made by an England and Wales Court would arise.

I am assisted by Mr Day’s report. I have also considered the summary of expert evidence considered in Re O (Domestic Abuse: International Relocation) to which Ms Haider-Shah directed me. Enforcement in Dubai of any England and Wales Court order cannot be relied upon, and the most optimistic potential route would be to lodge an agreement by the consent of both parties. The possibility of such consent was not advanced by either party before me. However, the parties remain married, so concerns that arose in Re O as to the parties not being married do not arise here.

I properly observe that Dubai has no equivalent to a “mirror order”.

An application can be made to a Dubai Court for an order in the same or similar terms as any English and Welsh Court. I note Mr Day’s opinion that the English and Welsh Court order “would carry considerable weight”. The likelihood of the application being successful cannot be assumed.

Uncertainty is clearly a factor that attracts weight in the balancing exercise, particularly as Father remains in conflict with Mother. However, if I do make the specific issue order, Mother will have the benefit of both this judgment and my order.

Having regard to all the circumstances, to the evidence of the parties and Ms Gwewera, to each of the factors on the welfare checklist and to PD12J, I am in no doubt that C must continue to live with Mother. There is no question that C’s welfare needs are met by an order being made providing that she is to live with Mother. It is in her best interests for the present live with arrangement to continue.

I find that her welfare needs are met by an order that she spend time with Father.

Direct, supervised contact or overnight stays is not in C’s welfare interests as it would expose C to an unmanageable risk of harm from Father. There is overwhelming evidence about C’s particular needs, Father’s inability to meet them, domestic abuse, Father’s lack of meaningful acceptance of his risks, and his inability to demonstrate any meaningful changes in his behaviour.

The question as to the extent of time Father should spend with C by means of indirect contact is more difficult to answer. There has been indirect contact via FaceTime over time. It has, unfortunately, degraded the father / daughter relationship which not flourished as a Court would expect. C is at a stage of immaturity where she cannot be expected to understand the importance of developing a relationship with her Father, who in turn has proven unable to understand that the burden rests upon him to promote positive development of the relationship. His selfish acts, and lack of planning, when engaging in FaceTime contact have left C disappointed and distressed. I do not consider indirect contact via FaceTime to be in C’s best interests at the present time. The relationship needs to be carefully and safely rebuilt.

I find that, in the main, C has previously enjoyed receiving stories from Father. Mother has been willing to read them to C, and Father has sought to ensure that they are tailored to C’s interests. The parties have used one telephone number to send and receive these stories via WhatsApp. Mother only used this number for the purposes of indirect contact.

Despite the history of abusive messages being sent by Father in the past, Mother has been willing to access messages sending the stories, and to actively engage in reading them to C. Mother understands that Father loves C, and though she has suffered at the hands of Father, my conclusion is that she has been willing to ensure C’s engagement with FaceTime contact and the receipt of the stories because she understands that a child will grow up and likely wish to know about, and communicate, with an absent parent. Many children, and adults, have a desire to know about both sides of the family: where do they get certain characteristics from, their humour, their love of food, their build, their personality. I consider Mother’s efforts to date to exhibit an understanding that at some time in the future, in Father’s absence, C may possibly wish to resume contact with him, and it may be better that the relationship exists through childhood and not seek to commence at a later date.

I am mindful that Mother is a victim of domestic abuse and Father is the perpetrator.

I consider indirect contact by letter to be appropriate in the circumstances arising in this case. However, rather than Mother’s suggestion in her oral evidence that it be by post, I consider the “letter” can be a typed document sent by WhatsApp, to be read by C, or for Mother to read to C. The letter should be sent on the same date each month to coincide with C’s birthday. This permits Father to send a birthday message. Letters sent before or after the date each month can properly be deleted by Mother without being read.

As previously observed, Father’s preferred approach is to write by using ChatGPT rather than by pen. The adoption of the use of WhatsApp will enable him to tailor his messages to C. I am alive to the concern that abuse may be conveyed by WhatsApp at a future stage but note that for some time Father was able to send stories without adverse comment from Mother. He is no doubt aware as to the existence of Mother’s ability to take screen shots if abuse occurs.

Attendant to permitted indirect contact, the parties can arrange for a third party to forward pictures to Father of C as she develops. This shall take place four times a year. Father can send photos of him and the paternal grandparents to C twice a year, six months apart via a PO Box set up by Mother. He can also send birthday presents to the PO Box.

I was addressed in brief terms by Counsel in respect of international relocation, and no reference was made to the joint expert report of Mr Day. I proceed on the basis that its contents are not objected to by the parties, and I accept he is expert on the matters upon which he was instructed.

Cafcass supports Mother’s international relocation application. Father has not over time indicated a desire to follow Mother to Dubai. He is deeply rooted in his local community. Mother does not express a concern that he will follow her to Dubai and continue his abuse in her presence. As I have found above, I accept that he will abide by a court order when communicating by letter via WhatsApp as this is his only real means of developing a positive relationship with C. Mother can seek the protection of the Dubai authorities if required.

I remain mindful of the various Article 8 rights which are engaged in this case. By the nature of the application, either Father’s or Mother’s rights, whether they be concerned with private or family life, will be interfered with if relocation is permitted or not. I have assessed the proportionality of the outcome within the wider best interests review.

I have kept in mind factors which contra-indicate relocation as well as those that support it.

I find that it is in C’s best interests to relocate to Dubai with Mother. The ‘peaks’, particularly my findings, outweigh the ‘valleys” of the potential difficulties in securing an order in similar terms to the order accompanying this judgment. I conclude that the likely negative impact upon C’s relationship with Father consequent to her relocation is minimal as it is presently non-existent in a practical sense. Mitigation flows from Father being permitted ongoing monthly indirect contact where he can seek to positively improve the relationship, with the support of Mother who has C’s best interests at heart.

I therefore grant permission to Mother to relocate permanently to Dubai with C. I find it is C’s best interests to do so.

Contact shall be in the form identified in respect of the child arrangements order assessment above and such contact will commence from the 15^th of November 2025. This will permit time for the parties to prepare both themselves and C for the resumption of indirect contact.

When the Court issues its final order, a recital is to be included inviting the courts of the United Arab Emirates to recognise a child arrangements order made by a Court of England and Wales on the basis of reciprocity.

Mother seeks a section 91(14) order. It is supported by Cafcass, consequent to the risks posed by Father, until C is old enough to express her own views. Ms Gwewera opined that an order running for five years as appropriate, to coincide with C’s transition to Secondary School as a convenient next milestone. This recommendation was founded upon ensuring C’s welfare and stability by preventing unnecessary and potentially distressing court proceedings.

If Mother decides not to relocate to Dubai and C remains in the United Kingdom, she would be expected to attend secondary school in September 2030.

I am required to apply the considerations set out in PD12Q. As the Practice Direction makes clear, the order is a protective filter made by a Court in the interests of a child. It is not limited to circumstances in which a party has made repeated and unreasonable applications. It may be granted where a period of respite is required following litigation and where a person’s conduct overall is such that an order is merited to protect the welfare of a child, directly or indirectly, consequent to the damaging effects of litigation on a parent carer. The Practice Direction identifies that a future application can be part of a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour towards a victim.

I conclude that these factors apply in this matter. Mother relies on these proceedings having lasted for thirty-three months to date. It is appropriate that I consider Father’s temporary success in securing direct contact with C, and the subsequent delay in High Court proceedings following difficulties in securing a transcript of HHJ Kushner’s Final Hearing judgment. However, despite this unfortunate delay, these proceedings have run for a significant time. I accept that they have had a significant emotional impact upon Mother, and her distress may well have been observed by C, who has described herself as dreaming of being a “superhero to save mummy”. Mother has observed Father breaching a non-molestation order during these proceedings and required a restraining order under the Protection of Harassment Act 1997. I find that Mother requires a period of respite. In addition, as previously observed, Mother continues to be engaged in financial remedies proceedings and then some four years after their separation Father has initiated civil proceedings in respect of allegations of theft. I conclude that recent litigation results from Father’s motivation to be in continued conflict with Mother. If I issue a section 91(14) order it would not be an absolute bar to future applications. It is a filter, designed to ensure Court scrutiny of the appropriateness of any application. I find in this matter that an order would strike the balance between the Father’s protected Article 8 rights, and the rights of Mother and C. I therefore make the order as requested.

Father will be able to apply for another order under the 1989 Act in respect of C during the currency of the order if he is able to demonstrate that he has made substantial changes. These changes are in relation to the risk of domestic abuse and anger management. Father would need to provide the following with any application for permission to apply during the currency of the section 91(14) order:

These requirements are consistent with the route forward identified by HHJ Kushner in 2023 and which remains a path presently untravelled by Father.

As to the duration of the order, Cafcass recommend it run until C commences secondary school in September 2030. Mother seeks three years. Though observing the recommendation of Cafcass, and considering C’s welfare interests, I find that in the circumstances arising in this case it is proportionate for the length of the order to be three years. Observing that C turns seven in the very near future and being mindful of the possibility of emotions briefly rising at the conclusion of the order, to avoid such emotions clouding C’s birthday the order is to run to 4pm on 1 November 2028. I consider this to be the minimum period that provides the necessary protection from risk of harm that Mother and C require.

The section 91(14) order will cover any applications to vary arrangements in relation to C or orders in relation to C under section 8 of the Children Act 1989. I have considered carefully whether the order should include applications for enforcement under the Act. As I am ordering indirect contact once a month, I am mindful that Father may at some future point in time believe that written communication will not be passed onto A. I have found that to date, Mother has been willing to read messages to C. However, I am mindful that, even when legally advised, an enforcement application may be made where there is no evidence to show that the applicant is likely to be able to prove a breach of the order to the required criminal standard. On balance, and to ensure that the section 91(14) order does provide Mother and C with the level of respite and protection that is required, I conclude that enforcement applications in relation to the indirect contact order should also be covered.