![FD24P00284 - [2025] EWHC 729 (Fam)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_0FrGysm.png){kind=logo}
Summary Background
Summary Background
The mother and father are both 35. They married in 2018 and separated in 2023. They are both Muslims and they had an Islamic divorce in February 2023 and a legal divorce in April 2024.
The father has formed a new relationship and is expecting a new child with his wife in May of this year.
In April 2024 the father suggested that the parties might think about a move to country C in certain circumstances. That might have precipitated the mother’s move in July 2024, but she entirely accepts that her move was without his consent. She was looking to build a better life for her and the children than she felt she could look forward to in London.
The mother had been living with her mother before she moved. The children had been living with her but had overnight contact with the father at the weekends, and some extra days during holiday periods. There was a disagreement as to quite how long, but even on the mother’s case up to 3 to 4 days at a time.
The father made an application to court for the children’s summary return on the 3 July. That has been managed to this hearing through a series of direction hearings.
It is appropriate that I pull out two points:
Peel J decided that there did not need to be a fact-finding hearing in November 2024, despite the mother raising issues of domestic violence, because the parties agreed that the children should spend time with the father. He also by agreement made orders for the father to have contact with the children in country C over the Christmas period. A safeguarding letter subsequently came to the court and the parties from Cafcass which indicated that the father had 5 convictions prior to 2019. There were later incidents on which no further action had taken place, some of which involved the mother. I will not set them out in this judgment, but I want to make clear that I take them seriously. The mother was not aware of the earlier convictions. The safeguarding letter recommended suspending contact. The court did not respond (it was over vacation and did not receive a judge’s attention); the mother initially put off contact; she then agreed, given the court order, the fact the father was in country C, and, as she relates, the children wanted to see their father; the father then had 5 days of contact and it is agreed that the children enjoyed that time.
The father at the time of the composition of the first Cafcass report agreed for a while that the mother could stay in country C. He changed his mind on this before the submission of the report (31 January 2025). He decided his children needed him as part of their lives.