FD24P00857 - [2025] EWHC 835 (Fam)

I have read the written evidence and observed the mother and father give their oral evidence. The latter is particularly important to determine the issue of: (i) whether the move in April in 2024 was based on the mother’s deception and was wrongful; (ii) whether the move was a temporary or permanent one; and (iii) whether the mother can succeed on her Article 13 (a) consent defence. Having considered all the evidence carefully and holistically, I make the following findings of fact:

My reasons for making these findings are as follows. The mother’s evidence in the witness box was not satisfactory; it was rather evasive at times. I accept the father’s submission that the mother did tell the British Consulate official in August 2023 that she wished to “leave Italy with her children”. The plain text of the Italian social services report makes clear this was not for a holiday. It is not credible as the mother suggested this was poorly recorded. A later Italian social services report dated 7 June 2024 references a holiday dispute, but the 21 August 2023 one does not. The mother accepted the conversation took place in English. This demonstrates as far back as the summer of 2023, the mother began a plan to relocate the children to London. The mother then paid for a deposit at A Nursery and I accept the father’s evidence he knew nothing about this. I accept his evidence that he found about this when the financial disclosure took place in their financial remedy proceedings. The payment was made from the mother’s bank account which the father did not know about. There is no contemporaneous evidence to support the father’s knowledge of A nursery at this time.

I also consider that the London local authority Child and Family Assessment accurately sets out what the mother told the social worker. I do not accept the mother’s oral evidence that the social worker rushed on her last day in that employment and therefore set out an inaccurate summary of what she was told.

Furthermore, the mother’s evidence that the parties began looking for London rentals in January and that she visited a property in March 2024 on a work visit and returned to Italy and told the father about this is rather odd. Such a permanent move would have been a significant step and yet there are no contemporaneous messages supporting the mother’s chronology. There are no messages between this couple sharing rental properties and thoughts. Tellingly, the mother’s own written evidence fails to detail her visit to the property that she went on to rent. Nor does it recount her telling the father about this and a record of his reaction. Given the family were, on the mother’s case permanently moving homes, this is a surprising omission of a significant life event.

I also accept the father’s evidence that he knew nothing about the sale of the second home in the mountains.

The mother began paying for the Z Storage Company in London from 7 February 2024. I did not find her explanation that this storage was for her brother (who lived in Scotland) credible. It was part of a deception to move her life and that of her children to London behind the father’s back. Tellingly she also contracted, on 8 February 2024, with an English mobile telephone company.

I also accept the father’s evidence that he was told by the mother her employer would pay for the relocation and living costs. This is partly supported by what the Italian social service report states: the mother’s company ‘arranged’ their living and nursery. I find he made payments believing they were for her graduate degree and that she instead made payments to estate agents and to A Nursery in 2024 and that the father knew nothing until disclosure in the financial remedies proceedings.

I also accept Miss Renton’s submission that the post April 2024 conduct of the mother supports the father’s case on the deceptive and premeditated move. I find the mother did hide the passports from the father and what she told the London social worker as reported in the Child and Family Assessment was what took place. The father was fobbed off with a story about HMRC and the dental work was not a credible reason to explain why the children could not have a summer holiday in Italy as was planned.

I also accept that whilst the father was involved in signing up the children for A Nursery he knew nothing of the mother’s actions in signing up their son for a Prep School on 1 May 2024. The mother’s attempts to set out that there was a seamless transition from A Nursery to the Prep School in oral evidence were not credible or persuasive. There is no evidence that the mother forwarded on the 1 May 2024 email offering the Prep School place to the father. I accept his evidence that the first he knew about this was when he read the mother’s witness statement.

I was initially unsure if the father’s evidence that he was only told of the temporary move on 17 April 2024 was in fact correct. It seemed unusual that he would be told this on 17 April and then he would have travelled with them on 21 April 2024. Having reflected on the parties’ oral evidence and considered the contemporaneous messages between this couple, I am persuaded the father was initially unsure but then did all he could to make it happen. He saw this as an opportunity to make his wife happy and to rekindle their relationship. Perhaps he should have been more curious how his wife had arranged a nursery and a rented home so quickly but on balance I consider he adopted a ‘can do’ attitude to support his wife and improve their relationship. I do not accept the father’s redundancy had been ‘on the cards’ for months before he was made redundant in July 2024. There is no contemporaneous evidence to support this.

I therefore find that the move in April 2024 was wrongful and in breach of Article 3 of the 1980 Hague Convention.

As I also find there was material deception on the part of the removing parent, the mother, and as such there was no valid consent provided for the removal of the children – see sub-paragraph 6 of Peter Jackson LJ’s summary in G. This applies to vitiate any consent to come to London.