The recently reported case of A v B dealt with three applications which were before the Court:
- The Father’s application for a return of C to England and Wales;
- The Mother’s application for permission to remove C to reside in Dubai;
- The Father’s application for a child arrangements order to progress his contact to enable him to spend direct time with C.
The case concerned C who was 8 years old. There had been two previous sets of proceedings in C’s life brought by his Father previously. A fact finding hearing had previously taken place with findings being made against his Father. It was suggested that the Father lacked insight into the impact of his behaviour on the Mother and C and suggested that he needed to do some work to address the abuse before direct contact could be safe.
A ‘lives with’ order was made to the Mother. She was a teacher who had been offered a job to teach in Dubai. Shortly before she was due to leave, she requested permission from the Father to remove C from the jurisdiction. He refused. The Mother left anyway for Dubai with C to commence employment. She did not make an application to apply for leave to remove him. She sought to comply with the terms of the child arrangements order by returning to the UK with C every 28 days. F applied for C to return to the UK.
C was made a ward of court as Dubai was a non-Hague convention state.
In making her decision, Ms Justice Harris took into account the needs of C – his welfare was the courts paramount consideration. She also considered the degree of connection he had with both countries and the time he had spent in each country. She also considered the welfare checklist and PD 12J in respect of the domestic abuse.
C was already living in Dubai and was attending school. He had made friends and was settled. It was submitted that a move back to the UK would unsettle C who was continuing to have indirect contact with his Father. The Father’s main concern was that if C remained in Dubai he would miss out on having a relationship with him and his paternal family. The Father was hopeful that the indirect contact would progress and he would be able to have a relationship with his son. Improvements were suggested by Cafcass to the indirect contact the Father was having with C. The s7 author did not recommend a change to C’s living arrangements or spend time with his Father and recommended that the Mother should be permitted to permanently relocate to Dubai.
The court determined, having heard all of the evidence and from the s7 author (who believed that the Mother had properly thought through her move to Dubai and had met all of C’s physical, psychological and educational needs) that it was in C’s best interests to live in Dubai with his Mother and agreed to the move.
The Father’s application to vary the child arrangements order was adjourned which has left the case open to the court. It was ordered that the Father will continue to have the indirect contact with C which was previously ordered and that the Father would need to demonstrate commitment and consistency with the indirect contact over a sustained period. He is able to undergo further assessment within the court proceedings.
This case demonstrates what that the court takes into account in determining whether to make an order for a child to leave the jurisdiction and includes many of the issues that the children team at Stephens Scown advise on frequently. If you need any further assistance with any issues concerning a child, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0345 450 5558 or enquiries@stephens-scown.co.uk