Case No. LS20P01640

4.Since the proceedings began in late-October 2020, the father has actively participated; he has attended all court hearings (albeit remotely by video-link) from his home on the west coast of the USA. He initially instructed solicitors, Mills & Reeve, then in 2022 moved his instructions to Hughes Fowler Carruthers. Throughout this period, he has been represented at hearings by experienced counsel, all experts in the field, including Alexis Campbell KC and Marina Faggionato. He has filed extensive evidence and a reasonably detailed Form E. He was legally represented by solicitors and counsel at the pre-trial review only a little over four weeks ago. I have found his contributions – evidentially and through counsel – to be extremely helpful.5.Up until the point at which he disengaged from the proceedings he had honoured the financial orders made against him, including legal services orders for the payment of legal costs; at the point at which he disengaged he was due to pay a further (final) £175,000 to the mother’s solicitors. This sum has not yet been paid. 6.Following the pre-trial review, the father wrote directly to the mother on 27 January 2023 informing her that he intended to play no further part in the proceedings and would not attend the final hearing:“I have dis-instructed my lawyers and will not attend the final hearing. I have lost faith that you will allow [Zoe] to have a relationship with me, as you have rejected my proposals and have said that [Zoe] will not go to [State A] in the foreseeable future. My main priority is the well-being of [Zoe], and I want our daughter to have a safe, secure life surrounded by both of us and her loving families. I am saddened and disappointed that you have kept [Zoe] from me and her family in the United States. I feel that you have used [Zoe] as a pawn to extract money from me while denying [Zoe] the opportunity to have a meaningful relationship with me. In the interim, I will continue paying maintenance at the current level until further notice. I understand that you must give notice by March 10 whether to renew your lease. The flat was always unaffordable and I will not fund rent at that level. If you chose to rent a less expensive flat, I will provide a moving fund.Please contact my representatives at [e-mail address] should you wish to coordinate any visits you will permit [Zoe] to take to [State A].”7.In preparation for the final hearing, I enquired of the father directly (via my clerk) whether he wished to participate by video link. The father replied, courteously, confirming: “I will not be attending”.8.Rule 27.4(2) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (‘FPR 2010’) empowers me to proceed in the absence of a respondent, provided that I am satisfied that the said party has had reasonable notice of the application, and specifically of this hearing, and that the circumstances of the case justify proceeding in his absence (rule 27.4(3)(a) and (b) FPR 2010). I am under an obligation to try this case justly and proportionately, and while this includes a duty to ensure that the parties are on an equal footing (rule 1.1(2)(c) FPR 2010), I am equally obliged to save expense and to deal with the case expeditiously and fairly (rule 1.1(2)(d)/(a) ibid.). 9.I can confirm that I am satisfied that the father has had reasonable notice of the application, and specifically of this hearing. I find that he has taken the conscious decision not to participate.10.The father must realise that he has done himself a disservice by disengaging at this point in the process; as Mr Thorpe KC put it: “his arguments are subdued by his absence”. He must appreciate that I have been denied the benefit of true forensic engagement on the important issues raised by this application. By virtue of the fact that the mother alone attended for the hearing, with her assemblage of lawyers, the presentation of the material has been inevitably one-sided. Having heard oral argument, and brief evidence from the mother, and having reviewed the documentary material filed, I reserved judgment and here set out my reasoning fully. I have prepared a more-than-usually detailed review of the arguments, and the law in this area (financial provision for children of unmarried parents) as it applies in England and Wales, for three main reasons:i)First, so that the father can better understand the evidence before the court, the arguments, and the legal basis on which I have reached my conclusions;ii)Secondly, so that the father can see that I have, where I have felt able to do so in reliance on the documents filed, taken proper account of his case, notwithstanding that it has not been presented, or argued, before me;andiii)Thirdly, should there be any need for enforcement proceedings in the USA (I hope that it will not come to this), it can readily be seen how my decision has been arrived at.