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

Ms Demery is a very experienced member of the High Court CAFCASS team. Her report is dated 1 April 2025. The court made provision for this report because M pled a defence based on RS’s objection to return to Ireland.

Ms Demery visited M’s home on 18 March 2025 (a Tuesday). She had asked that M bring DC to her London offices according to usual practice. M had explained that because of DC’s behaviour this would be impossible. Ms Demery therefore made plans for a home visit on 18 March 2025. She sent DC a letter explaining her role. The letter must have been confusing for DC given that it would appear that for periods between 13 March and 18 March he understood that he was returning to Ireland.

Ms Demery’s report sets out the investigation she had undertaken which included reading the court bundle prepared for 22 January 2025, Irish police reports and Dr Ratnam’s report. In addition, she undertook safeguarding checks in this jurisdiction and communicated with the family social worker and school.

Ms Demery had expected to meet M at the station but on her arrival she received an email explaining that DC was refusing to leave home. Ms Demery discovered at this point that M and the children had moved home in early March. This had not been communicated to Ms Demery.

Ms Demery reports that M told her DC had been acting out since Sunday 16 March when he spoke to F and was expressing a wish to return to Ireland. On arrival at the home, Ms Demery greeted the children. RC responded but DC made it clear that he did not want to speak to her. Ms Demery attempted to engage with him but he became more and more agitated. He wanted to speak to F. M said F was at work and DC replied ‘I don't give a shit that he is still at work I want to speak to him now’. DC told Ms Demery that she preferred life in England ‘as it is safer’ but she was unable to articulate why and that she wants to remain in England. DC told Ms Demery that F was coming for him and he really wanted to go with him. DC said that the judge’s decision did not matter. He dictated a letter for the judge which read ‘Dear Judge, Bring me back to Ireland and I want to live with my dad. From Ryan’.

DC then announced that he was going to Ireland ‘now’ and left with his bags. He returned to put on his shoes, putting them on the wrong feet and left again. M went after him and brought him back. On his return he told Ms Demery that ‘this house is crap’ and said F has a bigger TV. DC went on to say that he would be happy to return to Ireland without M and without RC and even if they returned with him he would want to live with F. DC told Ms Demery that ‘[This city] is boring, as the children do not come out to play. It’s dirty and full of drunk people’. Mr Jarman submitted to me that this sentiment must have come from an adult and that F was the likely adult. I do not necessarily agree with either proposition. DC and RC then fought and DC bit RC. DC then watched TV and stopped interacting with Ms Demery.

Ms Demery then reports that DC’s bags had been packed since Sunday and that ‘there had been some suggestion that F would collect him on Friday 21 March 2025’. I remind myself that while Ms Demery was talking to DC, M was in another room texting F telling him to book flights to collect DC (the timings of Ms Demery’s visit coincide with the texts). M did not tell Ms Demery about these texts.

M reported to Ms Demery that DC’s one to one support person in school was a woman but this had been changed to a man because DC disrespects women which he learnt from his father. In this context, I note that in Ireland, where DC had two one to one support people in school both were women and no issues seem to have been raised. M told Ms Demery that F would not be able to care for DC if he returned. She said that DC had not slept overnight at F’s since separation. The texts, of course, demonstrate a different picture.

Ms Demery reports that DC was adamant in his wish to return to Ireland. She noted that this was in stark contrast to his need to take M’s dressing gown to school for reassurance. Ms Demery suggests that DC may have an idealised view of what living with F may be like. In assessing DC’s maturity she had the benefit of discussions with the family’s social worker and former YMCA support worker. She notes that the school considers in some subjects he is working at a stage typical for four year olds.

Ms Demery could find no reason for DC to be separately represented and no reason for him to meet her. She concludes that both children are in the highest category of risk of emotional harm as a result of the combination of mental health, reported domestic abuse and substance misuse of both parents. She concludes that domestic abuse is effectively child abuse, irrespective of whether a child directly witnesses it and can have a devastating impact on children. She points out that the children might struggle with forming secure attachments, leading to trust issues and difficulties in establishing healthy relationships.

Ms Demery unsurprisingly concludes that although DC does not object to a return there is a question of how much weight can be given to the views of a child of DC’s age who has been exposed to so much trauma. I certainly take no account of DC’s expressed wish to return given his very low level of maturity.

As to the defence of grave risk of harm/intolerability, Ms Demery says in her report that DC would find separation from M and RC ‘difficult, given that he has not lived with his father since he was five years old.’ She goes on to conclude that F does not appear to appreciate the scale of DC’s difficulties and the support that DC would need if he were to live with him. I will give her concluding paragraph in full:

Ms Demery gave oral evidence and was cross examined by both parties. Ms McKenna, on behalf of F, cross examined Ms Demery at some length about the possible causes of DC’s presentation on 18 March, suggesting its roots might be found in the tumultuous changes which had occurred in DC’s life since his removal from Ireland. Ms Demery could not opine on these issues. She did make it clear to me that it was very difficult to ascertain how DC was feeling because his presentation was so dysregulated. She re-iterated that he was obviously missing F and Ireland. She also reminded me that she had not interviewed the parents and hadn’t delved into the history. She made the point that DC and RC were particularly close as siblings. She told me that DC would likely find a move to Ireland without his mother difficult.

Mr Jarman cross examined Ms Demery on behalf of M. She told me that she found it quite shocking that DC behaved so rudely towards her and was surprised he was so dismissive of her. She said that right from the get-go he didn’t want to speak to her and was not interested in her. I pause to comment that this behaviour is somewhat less surprising with the knowledge, which Ms Demery did not have when she wrote her report, that M was asking F to book flights. She told me that M had not been able to manage DC’s behaviour. She told me that DC and RC have a close relationship but fight a lot and that DC appears to be protective of RC.

During this cross examination, there was a very significant exchange in which Mr Jarman asked a question and I asked for clarification. There was some debate in submissions about the exact words. After the end of the hearing, I was provided with an agreed transcript. It is as follows (with underlining added by me):

This evidence is very significant. I take from it that there is no immediate risk to DC if he is returned to Ireland in circumstances where M refuses to return and he is thereby separated from RC and living with F so long as a welfare assessment is begun immediately. Mr Jarman cautioned me against such an interpretation. I will revert to that in due course.