[2025] EWHC 2508 (Fam)

Developments Since 20 February 2025

AB made two applications for permission to appeal. The first was for permission to appeal out of time against the return order which I made on 06 December 2024. On 07 March 2025, the Court of Appeal (Moylan LJ) extended time but refused permission to appeal. The second was for permission to appeal against my orders on 20 February 2025 refusing AB’s applications to be joined as a party and to set aside the return order. On 07 March 2025, the Court of Appeal (Moylan LJ) refused permission to appeal.

Pursuant to directions which I made on 21 February 2025, the return order was to be implemented by the end of 09 March 2025. That did not happen. On 14 March 2025, the SGs applied to revive their application for a collection order. On 17 March 2025, McKendrick J made a collection order.

On the instructions of the Tipstaff, two Deputy Tipstaff attempted to execute the collection order on 21 March 2025. They were supported by local police officers with a view to ensuring that there was no breach of the peace. The SGs were waiting at a local police station so that they could resume care of the boys if the collection order was successfully executed. The Deputy Tipstaff attended M’s home but were told that the children had already left for school. They then attended CD’s school where they spoke to CD in the head teacher’s officer, in M’s presence (and in the absence of the police). Their note includes the following: “[CD] stated straight away that he wasn’t going anywhere and that he wasn’t going to leave school. He sat on mum’s knee and strongly remonstrated that he didn’t want to go to Ireland and wouldn’t go with the grandparents. We found [M] to be fully compliant with the terms of the collection order. [M] tried very hard to persuade [CD] to accompany us to [AB]’s school. [CD] said no and that [AB] would never agree to go either. [M] tried gentle persuasion and encouraged [CD] to come with her. [CD] refused. By this time, [CD] was standing and crying, visibly shaking, and holding onto the table in the office. Bracing himself against being moved. [The two Deputy Tipstaff] both spoke with him. [M] tried on at least 3 occasions for [CD] to come with her to see [AB], and on one attempt tried to pick [CD] up. [CD] resisted and remained holding onto the table.”

After more than an hour with CD, the Deputy Tipstaff liaised with the Tipstaff who confirmed that under no circumstances should they use any force and that he was satisfied that they had attempted to execute the collection order. After thanking CD and ensuring that he would receive appropriate pastoral support, the Deputy Tipstaff travelled to AB’s school.

After initially refusing to leave his classroom, AB did speak with the Deputy Tipstaff in a private room. Their note includes the following: “[AB] confirmed that he would not return to Ireland and that he had nothing more to say as he had a solicitor who he had already told everything to. . . . [AB] confirmed he would not leave his school and would under no circumstances ever return to Ireland.” After further liaison with the Tipstaff, the Deputy Tipstaff thanked AB in the presence of his head teacher and confirmed that they would not be removing him from school.

On 27 May 2025, SG2 applied for urgent directions with a view to executing the collection order, specifically for the children to be brought to court by M so that they could be collected by the Tipstaff. The matter was dealt with administratively by Harris J who noted the history and directed that the matter should be listed on 03 June 2025 so that the Tipstaff could be present to oversee any attempts to execute the collection order.

There were then two hearings before Theis J on 03 June 2025 and 06 June 2025, both in the presence of the Tipstaff. The order made on 06 June 2025 noted that the parties agreed that “there needs to be a focus on re-building the relationship between the applicants and the children”. The return order dated 06 December 2024, the collection order dated 17 March 2025 and the application for enforcement of the collection order dated 27 May 2025 were all stayed until further order. Provision was made for contact between the children and the SGs including direct contact in the North-East of England on the weekends of 28 and 29 June 2025 and 12 and 13 July 2025. The matter was then listed to come back before Poole J on 24 July 2025 to consider: “a) What, if any, further directions are sought regarding implementation of the return order; and b) What, if any, further directions are required regarding the orders relating to the children and the applications / orders currently stayed.”

The SGs travelled for contact on two weekends in accordance with the order dated 06 June 2025. The children did not engage with the contact arrangements. There are factual disputes as to why contact did not take place: the SGs allege that M failed to promote the arrangements; M denies those allegations and makes counter-allegations about the ways in which the SGs conducted themselves.

In advance of the hearing on 25 July 2025, statements were filed by SG1, SG2 and M. As reflected in those statements, there was (and is) precious little common ground between SG1 and SG2 on the one hand, and M on the other, and past issues in the adults’ relationships with each other continue to weigh heavily in their respective approaches. At para 19 of her statement dated 24 July 2025, M said: “I strongly urge the Court to consider setting aside the Return Order so that the boys can be reassured that there will not be any more attempts to force them to Ireland.”

On 25 July 2025, Poole J directed a further report from Ms Daisy Veitch of CAFCASS to address the children’s wishes and feelings in relation to contact, and what practical steps could and should be taken to reinstate contact. The collection order dated 17 March 2025 and the application to enforce it dated 27 May 2025 were dismissed. The return order dated 06 December 2024 was again stayed until further order. Provision was made for such direct or indirect contact “that the children wish to have with the applicants”. The matter was listed to come back before Keehan J on 22 August 2025 to consider Ms Veitch’s recommendations, and what if any further steps should be taken “regarding implementation, or otherwise, of the return order.”

Ms Veitch had met the boys at the RCJ on 14 October 2024 for the purposes of her Child Abduction Report dated 25 October 2024. She met them again on 05 August 2025, this time at the CAFCASS office in Central London, and spent about thirty minutes with each of them on their own.

Ms Veitch’s report is dated 08 August 2025. She notes the views expressed by the boys and the ways in which she sought to test those views with appropriate sensitivity. She described AB’s “wholesale rejection” of the SGs with AB insisting that his refusal to have contact with them was entirely of his own choosing. CD was similarly categorical in his negativity towards the SGs, though Ms Veitch noted how CD would consistently use ‘we’ instead of ‘I’ when talking about his wishes. Ms Veitch commented: “I think it is likely, as I have said previously, that [CD] has begun to align his views with [AB]’s. They have been one constants [sic] for one another during periods of profound change throughout their childhood, and it makes sense that [CD] would want to protect and preserve this by not contradicting his older brother. I also remain of the view that it is more emotionally straightforward for [CD] to be aligned with [AB] that [sic] to feel alone with a different view.”

Ms Veitch noted, as she had done previously, the boys’ accounts of physically and emotionally neglectful care from the SGs, which the SGs dispute. Ms Veitch expressed her professional judgment that: “[AB and CD]’s knowledge of their mother and wider family’s dislike of the applicants will have strengthened their existing negativity towards them. This combination has ultimately resulted in them rejecting their grandparents outright.”

Ms Veitch suggested that a “more conciliatory approach” from the SGs “may help to soften the boys’ attitudes towards them”. Ms Veitch continued: “Although there are certainly no guarantees, the children may feel more open to having a relationship with the applicants, if they were to withdraw their application and agree to the children remaining in the care of their mother in England. It is clear to me that the children are affected by the ongoing uncertainty represented by the proceedings, and they are in need of a final resolution to where they will live and with whom.” Ms Veitch encouraged the SGs to reflect on their position.

In respect of contact, Ms Veitch recommended “an openness from all parties to all forms of communication – written correspondence, calls and visits – but in line with the children’s wishes and feelings.” Specifically, Ms Veitch considered that M should retain and make available any written communications or gifts which the SGs may send, and that M should “make it clear to [AB and CD] that they have her emotional permission to miss and want to speak to the applicants, and that she will facilitate and support any calls, texts, gaming or in person contact they would like.”

On 22 August 2025, Keehan J directed that the matter should be listed before me given my previous involvement, not least in making the return order dated 06 December 2024. That order was again stayed until further order.

To bring matters up-to-date, I note that there are proceedings ongoing in Ireland which were instigated by M. An issue in those proceedings relates to the status (or lack of it) of the special guardianship order. I was told that at a hearing on 03 September 2025, the Irish proceedings had been adjourned until the New Year pending the determination of the proceedings in this court.