The recent case of DE and FG considered a lengthy and protracted dispute between parents of a 7 year old boy (H) before the High Court dealing with applications made by H’s father, DE, under the inherent jurisdiction and the making of tip staff orders after DE alleged that H’s mother, FG, had brought H to England without his knowledge or consent and he feared that there was a risk of removing H from the jurisdiction unless prevented from being able to do so.
The case was particularly complex. The mother had dual nationality in Britain and another country referred to by the Court as Z. The father was a national of a European country referred to as Y. After they met and H was born in Y, in 2017, the family moved elsewhere in Europe to country X. Divorce proceedings were commenced in X in 2021 when the relationship broke down and the parties separated. There proceeded numerous Court hearings in X and in 2021, the mother was refused permission to relocate with H to England. She then applied to relocate with H to Z moving there in January 2022. There proceeded to be a number of Court hearings in X regarding H’s removal to Z and the level of time that H should spend with DE. There were also Court hearings with respect to financial arrangements in dispute.
The judgment of the case – why parents must work together constructively
The judgment in the recent case, handed down on 20 March 2025 can be found here – Re DE and FG As the judgment refers, H primarily resided with FG following the parties’ separation staying overnight on occasions with DE. It is said that H was well cared for in Z and doing well. Within the case, there were various allegations made against each of the parents, against one another. FG alleged that she had been the subject of coercive and controlling behaviour by DE. Curiously it is also said that the parties and H had a holiday together at a resort hotel in the Middle East between the summers of 2023 and 2024. In August 2024, DE made an unannounced visit to FG’s flat in London following which the police were called and then DE issued proceedings that prompted a without notice port alert and passport order to be made. DE provided a statement in support of his application, alleging that FG was mentally unstable and had threatened to remove H from the jurisdiction. The Court ordered that H should reside with DE on an interim basis.
Whilst H was in DE’s care, on 14 September 2024, he suffered an injury to a finger with various accounts of how the injury was sustained being provided. Later that month, the parents were involved in some form of physical altercation at a handover whilst H was present. As there were concerns with alleged drug abuse, the Court directed hair strand testing in October. A further hearing took place in December when an interim child arrangements order was made confirming H was to live with his father on alternate weekends and every Tuesday night with arrangements for half of the school holidays. At all other times, he was to live with his mother.
There was also child protection involvement with H being made subject to a child protection plan by the London Borough of Camden in the meantime. There was directed by the Court a report from a Social Worker who gave evidence at the final hearing. The Court did not accept all of the recommendations made by the Social Worker. In the judgment, the Judge remarks about the parents’ mutual animosity towards one another describing that they have absolutely no trust between them and that they each think that the other is dishonest and manipulative. The Court felt that a fact finding exercise was not justified. The Court was critical in DE indulging in horrible verbal and written abuse and considered a risk of DE reverting to a long established cannabis addiction.
The Court made it plain that the parents are extremely distrustful and hostile to each other and that H had clearly suffered emotional harm due to parental conflict.
Focusing of course most importantly upon H, with the Court’s paramount consideration being his welfare, the Court remarked that he needs emotional support and stability. He needs consistent parenting for his parents to support and not work against this. The headline to the judgment confirmed that a joint lives with order should be made. The Court was keen that whilst very clear rules needed to be set down with respect to the division of time, travel abroad and the sharing of information, a joint lives with order was the preferred outcome, notwithstanding the implacable mutual hostility between the parents.
The Court was keen to confirm that the parents have equal responsibility for H and “the tug of war between them must stop”. The Court was keen to remark that whilst there is currently no prospect of working constructively together for H’s best interests, they remarkably are agreeable to H spending extensive and unsupervised time with the other. The Court made no judgment about the merits of a future application that may be made with respect to relocating H abroad (by FG) save to comment that H needs stability and an end to the proceedings. It was further remarked that any application to relocate should be made in the context of a final child arrangements order having been made. The Court had to balance the need for H to develop and maintain a good relationship with his father whilst maintaining the important bond he has with his mother.
The Court discharged the port alert and passport orders previously made. The Court was most keen to allow H to develop a relationship with his father without disrupting his routine. The Court stated that it was hopeful that in time H will benefit from witnessing his parents working together constructively, however far from the current situation that scenario might be. The judgment emphasises some of the key principles in the Children Act and the welfare checklist and is a timely reminder to parents in dispute about the relationships for their children, that working together and in partnership, however difficult that might be, sends a positive message to the children and promotes their wellbeing moving forward.
If you wish to discuss anything covered in this article, please get in touch with our Family team.