FD24P00284 - [2025] EWHC 729 (Fam)

I shall refer to the applicant as the father and the respondent as the mother in this judgment. I apologise to them for so labelling them, but I intend to lodge a copy of this judgment in an anonymised form at the National Archives for the purposes of transparency and such labels will help the anonymisation process.

This judgment is given at the conclusion of what was listed as a two-day hearing between the parties to determine the father’s application under the inherent jurisdiction for the summary return of the two children, A (aged 6) and B aged (3) to the jurisdiction of England and Wales from a country C (which is not a party to the 1980 Hague Convention) where the mother had taken them in July 2024.

The mother agreed that the children were habitually resident in this country at the time that she removed them. She agreed that there was no issue as to jurisdiction of this court. She agreed that she took the children without the father’s consent. She agreed before the beginning of the hearing that she would return the children to this jurisdiction at the end of the school year, which I have noted as by the 1 August 2025.

At the hearing the father made clear that he would not object if the mother wanted to stay another year so long as she promised to return the children by summer 2026. That was something he had already offered as an attempt to reach an agreement between them. He welcomed their early return.

The substantial issue on which I was to rule was therefore dealt with by agreement. Nonetheless there was a significant dispute between the parties as to what the children’s living arrangements would be on their return. The father proposed that they should divide their time equally between the parties: either week by week, or 4 days by 4 days. The mother proposed that the children should live with her and have contact with the father, subject to support, on a fortnightly basis, each Saturday from 10 am to 7 pm.

It was agreed by the parties that the father should commit himself to undertaking a Domestic Abusers Perpetrators course. That will take, I was told, some 6 months. And, it was agreed that the father would continue to share parental responsibility for the children.

The mother’s proposals in substantial measure agreed with the recommendations of a Cafcass Family Court Adviser, Ms Gwynne. I am indebted to Ms Gwynne for her thoughtful report and addendum report, and for her attendance at this hearing and at the PTR.

I acknowledge that these proceedings were conceived of for one purpose – a summary return – and are now being used for another – the children’s living arrangements. It would not however be appropriate for me to order the children back to face contested and uncertain arrangements, so it is necessary for me to resolve, at least in the short term their living arrangements.