Case No. ZC21P00327

39.By contrast, I have been significantly assisted in this matter by the careful reports and oral evidence of Mr Patrick Mamattah, the Family Court Advisor who has met with both children. Mr Mamattah’s first report was prepared on 30 September 2021 and followed a visit to the children on 2 September 2021. A second report dated 25 January 2022 was prepared following the introduction of the evidence regarding the father’s mental health. Mr Mamattah has also interviewed each parent twice (the first time in person, the second by video-link).40.The prospective move to the USA has not been discussed with the children, and so Mr Mamattah was not in a position to explore their wishes and feelings in that regard. 41.It is evident from Mr Mamattah’s evidence that the children have grown up in a loving home and that there are no safeguarding issues. Mr Mamattah was clear that the children view both of their parents as sources of care, love and affection and they spoke positively about both their parents. Mr Mamattah noted a strong sibling bond between the two girls and described them as above average intelligence / general development. He stated: “It was a pleasure to spend time with [VB] and [LB] and their parents should be proud of them”.42.Mr Mamattah also commended the parents for the steps that they had taken to protect the children from the difficulties between them and the tensions which inevitably flow from their continuing to live in the same property. Mr Mamattah considered that the children had several areas of resilience which would enable them to manage a move to the USA and that as confident children they would thrive in any educational setting. He did not consider that there was any issue about the quality of available schools in either the USA or in England.43.He recognised that that the mother’s application for relocation would have an impact upon the children, and in particular the separation from their father that it would bring about. He described the father as being very much part of the fabric of the children’s lives and continued: “I am confident that both VB and LB’s wishes and feelings in this regard can be understood as a wish to remain near their father, in regular contact and with the potential to increase this at short notice if they wanted or needed.VB and LB will experience a level of loss from any relocation (should [the father] not also relocate to the USA with the children). Whilst VB and LB are both of a developmental age where they can understand they will see [the father] again and have some concept of time between arrangements, he will not be able to engage in the homework, school pickups, extra-curricular activities and the actual time spent with the children will reduce.”44.Mr Mamattah identified though that there were several features of the mother’s proposals which would help soften the blow of separation from the father. These included the strong bond that the children have with their mother, the fact that there were extended family members in the USA who they would be able to see more often and the fact that their existing nanny had offered to travel to the USA to assist with the transition.45.In his first report Mr Mamattah took the view that the father had taken a “somewhat dismissive” attitude towards the mother’s reported psychiatric presentation; he considered that the father’s comment that the mother was too good a mother to allow any disturbance to impact upon the children lacked insight. In his second report (which was ordered after the father was permitted to introduce evidence of his own mental health) Mr Mamattah developed this concern commenting that he was “confused” as to how the father imagined that the mother could cope (if her application was refused) in the light of his own description of how he would be affected if the application were to succeed.46.Mr Mamattah recognised that either outcome had the potential to adversely affect the children. In his first report he stated (in the context of the relocation application failing): “I sympathise with [the mother’s] position as that of the children’s primary carer who is fearful that her mental wellbeing will suffer if the relocation is refused. The effect of this on VB and LB potentially being far reaching and impacting on her ability to maintain her current job role (and then the level of earnings she currently provides), and the quality of her parenting as she may be less emotionally available or emotionally attuned to the children.”47.In his second report Mr Mamattah recognised the potential harmful impact of relocation on the children through its effect on the father’ condition. Mr Mamattah states: “[The father] was clear with me that moving to the USA himself (if relocation is granted) is no longer something he can contemplate. If relocation is granted, there is then the risk that [the father] will struggle to manage, and his wellbeing will deteriorate further.