FD 24 P 00524 - [2025] EWHC 1030 (Fam)

On arrival in England, M and DC and RC stayed in a hotel. On 5 July 2024, they were placed in a refuge, on the basis of M’s allegations of domestic abuse. The children started at school in September 2024. On 14 October, M and the children moved to a two bedroom property provided via the YMCA. YMCA services made a referral to the Local Authority which led to a Single Assessment. The assessment was made without M’s consent and was terminated on 18 October 2024. On 13 November 2024, the children moved school. No explanation has been given for this move.

Meanwhile in Ireland on 19 July 2024, F applied for guardianship orders in respect of both children and took steps to secure the return of both children via the Hague Convention. His application in respect of both children was issued on 28 October 2024 but the fee for issue was paid on 28 September 2024.

On 8 October 2024, the hearing in Ireland listed for M’s application to vary access arrangements was adjourned as a result of M failing to attend. On 6 November 2024, a guardianship order was made in Ireland in F’s favour in respect of DC. The court did not have the power to make such an order in respect of RC, as she is not F’s biological child.

On 8 November 2024, F’s application for summary return under the Convention came before Ms Justice Harris who made location and disclosure orders and standard directions including listing a further directions hearing on 26 November 2024. The judge also gave permission for F to withdraw his application in respect of RC, who does not fall within the ambit of the Convention because she is not F’s biological child.

The location order was executed on 25 November 2024 and M was personally served the following day. That same day she and the children moved to their fourth address in England. As M’s service came so close to the directions hearing on 26 November 2024, Mrs Justice Arbuthnot made an order re-timetabling standard directions and listed the case for further directions on 10 December 2024. On that date the matter came before Mr Justice Trowell who made directions for a further directions hearing on 22 January 2025.

On 17 January 2025, M filed her Answer to the application in which she pled two defences, namely that (1) DC objected to being returned and had attained an age and degree of maturity at which it was appropriate to take account of his views, Article 13(2) and (2) that there was a grave risk that DC's return would expose him to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation (Article 13(b)).

On 22 January 2025, the matter came before Mr Justice Cusworth. The judge listed this hearing and acceded to an application made by M for the instruction of Dr Ratnam as a joint expert. In addition and because M had raised DC’s objection as a defence, a CAFCASS officer was directed to produce a report in respect of DC’s wishes and feelings. A recital to the order recorded the court’s expectation that M would facilitate contact by video between F and DC at least once a week.

In early March 2025, M and the children moved to their fifth address in England since arriving in late June 2024.

Throughout the period following the removal of the children to England, F had regular contact with the children by video and audio calls. F has produced the entire log of his calls from 11 January 2025 to 6 April 2025. These demonstrate a consistent pattern of calls on Sundays and other days of the week. He has also supplied a complete run of text messages between him and M from Christmas 2024 to about 6 April 2025.

The text messages are to a degree illuminating. They demonstrate a number of things. First, the parties are for the most part able to communicate appropriately. Second, on 14 January 2025, M suggested to F that he could travel to England and see DC. F asked if he could ‘take [DC] off by myself an bring him and stay in the hotel’. M replied ‘I’m sure that won’t be a problem’. It appears to have become a problem once M had taken advice. On 5 February 2025, M explained to F that she was waiting to hear from her solicitor and said ‘so it looks like nothing will be happening till the court hearing is finished IV been advised not to follow through with the contact as it's a safety issue for me and the kids however their is an option of paying privately for a social worker to give you access but i don't know how that even works maybe discuss that with your solicitor’. Third, on 20 February 2025, M explained to F that she would like to have her passport released to her so she could visit Ireland to see her sisters who were expecting babies.

The fourth issue demonstrated in the text messages relates to a plan for DC to go to Ireland to live with F. The family’s English social worker visited M and the children on 13 March 2025. She reported to Ms Demery, the CAFCASS officer, that there had been a suggestion that DC was being collected by F and one of F’s sisters on 21 March 2025. On 18 March 2025, Ms Demery visited the family home and observed DC who was in a highly agitated state and was under the impression that he was going to Ireland on 21 March 2025. The text messages show that M sent to F a picture of DC’s packed bags on 17 March 2025. It is clear from the text messages the following day (18 March) that DC was saying on 17 March 2025 he wanted to go to Ireland but that M thought he had changed his mind. It would appear that this had been the plan since at least 13 March 2025, given Ms Demery’s report of what the social worker had said to her. However later the same day (18 March) when the CAFCASS officer was at the house, M texted F and told him to book a flight to take DC back. The following day M reported that DC had changed his mind. She also shared with F part of an email containing advice she had received from her solicitor.

Following these communications, M blocked F on her phone and F had no further contact with the children until 2 April 2025. On that day, M issued an application releasing her from the obligation recorded in Cusworth J’s order to facilitate contact.

That is the background to this case. I turn now to the evidence of Ms Demery and Dr Ratnam after which I will address the information I have about DC.