FD24P00235 - [2025] EWHC 952 (Fam)

I am concerned with an application made under Art 21 of the Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereafter the “1980 Hague Convention”) to make arrangements for organising or securing the effective exercise of rights of access to P, born in 2012 and now aged 12, and Q, born in 2014 and now aged 10. The children are US citizens. Q has diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder and ADHD. P has been diagnosed with learning difficulties. The children are represented by Mr Michael Gration of King’s Counsel and Ms Charlotte Georges of counsel. The application is made by the father of the children. He is represented by Ms Anita Guha of King’s Counsel and Ms Helen Compton of counsel. The children’s mother is represented by Mr Henry Setright of King’s Counsel and Ms Julia Gasparro of counsel. The matter comes before the court for a finding of fact hearing.

The application before the court is made in the context of the dismissal of the father’s application for a return order pursuant to Art 12 of the 1980 Convention summarily returning the children to the jurisdiction of the United States by Ms Khalique KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge, on 29 April 2024 (see A Father v A Mother [2024] EWHC 991 (Fam)). The father now seeks to exercise his rights of access to the children although, for reasons I shall come to and subject to hearing further submissions from the parties, the findings that the court has made in this case will necessitate the court making a wider range of orders under the Children Act 1989 than those sought by the father.

In determining the facts in issue in this case, the court has had the benefit of reading the court bundle, of hearing evidence from the mother, the father and the paternal grandmother and of hearing comprehensive and helpful oral submissions from leading counsel. It is important to note at the outset, that the court’s task in determining the facts in issue in this matter has been significantly complicated by the difficulties inherent in obtaining forensic evidence from another jurisdiction, in this case the United States.

In light of the extent and complexity of the factual issues in dispute between the parties, I reserved judgment and now set out my findings and my reason for making them.Given the substantial number of relevant matters in dispute between the parties, this judgment is somewhat longer than is ordinarily desirable.