GU24P07346 - [2025] EWHC 1224 (Fam)

Conclusions

Clearly, there have been professional concerns raised in the past about the quality of parental care given by each parent to the children. The background recited by Harrison J sets out a somewhat chaotic trajectory for the children, certainly from 2022 onwards, as they moved between their parents. Their lives have been characterised by allegations made by them against both parents, referrals to social services, self-harming, disruption, prolonged litigation and exposure to parental conflict. Both children are likely to have considerable vulnerabilities as a result of their childhood experiences. However, at all times the children remained in the care of one or other parent and have not been subject to public law proceedings.

I take into account that the move to the USA in June 2024 was consensual; it was not an abduction. However, prior thereto G had lived all her life in the UK. Her time in the USA has been disrupted, unhappy, and isolated. She has remained there contrary to her expressed views. It was a move which was intended to include L, but did not, and was intended to enable G to spend substantial time with the mother, but did not. It seems to me that any roots laid down in the USA are very shallow indeed. Her connections with the UK are by a very significant degree more substantial.

The factor of primary importance since the relocation to the USA in my judgment is the views of G. I am satisfied that those views are sincerely and very strongly held; “10/10” as G herself put it, which does not seem to me to be an exaggerated self-assessment. They are powerfully expressed. It seems likely to me that they are the product of (i) being separated from her sister, L, who was expected to relocate with them but was prevented from doing so because of visa difficulties, (ii) contrary to her expectations, she did not see her mother after moving to the USA and (iii) extreme unhappiness in the domestic household in the USA. I am confident that she is of an age, maturity and understanding to have come to those views rationally, independently and with an appreciation of her situation.

Her views have been repeatedly made clear to the father and the mother from the time she arrived in the USA and consistently thereafter. These were not the transient irritations of a child trying to settle down. These are clear thinking, robust views from G who is determined to return to the UK. The fact that she is being told she cannot, because she does not have a passport (in circumstances outlined above but which is on any view through no fault of her own) adds fuel to the fire. She is frustrated and thwarted. The Local Authority report dated 7 December 2023, as I have noted, states that separating G and L would not be in their best interests because of the strong bond between them and recommended that on moving to the USA the children should spend all school holidays with the mother. In the event, G was separated from L and has not spent time with M. It is hardly surprising that she feels let down.

Further, her wishes have been noted by independent third parties, namely her school in the USA and the police in the USA, and confirmed by the Guardian. G has been consistent and implacable throughout. And there is no dispute on this: both parents agree that G is expressing a strong view to return to England.

Not only should G’s autonomy, in principle, be respected, unless there is good reason to the contrary, I am satisfied that for her to be prevented from returning to the UK would be contrary to her interests. Her anger at not being able to return is damaging for her, and will only increase should the current state of affairs continue. It is illogical, and harmful, for her to be detained against her wishes in a country and household where she does not want to be. She has a very close bond with her sister. That bond was broken when her sister was prevented from travelling to the USA. Perhaps the father should not have taken G, leaving L behind. Be that as it may, this separation from L has been, and continues to be, inimical to her wellbeing, as has being deprived of the society of her mother. Moreover, she is clearly (as the Cafcass Officer recorded) very unhappy at home where her relationship with F and her stepmother is distant and fraught. As the Cafcass officer said, “There was a degree of desperation” in her account. She feels isolated. She has not seen her mother for nine months, despite expecting that she would see her regularly. Her closest friends are in England. The Cafcass Officer reported she was tearful and visibly distressed at the length of separation from her sister and mother. I do not think this toxic state of affairs can continue and I agree with the Cafcass Officer who suggests that there is a diminishing window for G to be provided with stability before she reaches adulthood.

The father sent a statement to the court, and the parties, the day before the hearing, raising a number of matters. No direction was made for it to be prepared. I read it de bene esse (as I did the statement of his wife which similarly was sent the day before the hearing without permission). Similarly, I read a statement in response from the mother who denies allegations against her and makes counter allegations against the father.

The father, in his statement, submits that G would be at risk of harm in respect of education and health were she to return to the UK. He says the mother would fail to encourage her to attend school, although from everything I have read G is currently well motivated and accessing education. He says that the mother smokes which would badly affect G’s health, but I have no material medical evidence to this effect and the mother says she is no more than an occasional smoker. He says G is at risk of physical violence, although allegations of physical violence by the mother have been towards L rather than G, are somewhat historical, and such risk is offset by G’s maturity and, the fact that she wishes to return to the mother’s care. The suggestion made by the father that G would be under clothed and underfed in England is not well evidenced. Similarly, the risk of G accessing drugs in the UK is somewhat speculative given that she has been away from the UK for nearly a year and if and insofar as G took drugs in the UK in the year before relocation (as the father suggests), she was, it should be recalled, in the care of the father for that time.

I recognise that the allegations and counter allegations have not been subject to findings. There are unanswered questions about G’s life in the USA or, here, if a return order is made. A return to the UK is not without risk, but the potential risks asserted by the father seem to me be a little overstated or speculative and I bear in mind that his statement came in very late in the day and is disputed by the mother. Further, (i) the Local Authority has not seen fit to seek to remove the children from the mother when in her care, (ii) concerns have been expressed by the Local Authority in the past about both parents (and positive aspects of their care have also been identified), (iii) there seem to be no (or much reduced) concerns about M’s care of L, and (iv) in my judgment, for G to remain with the father would be a severe risk in terms of emotional and psychological harm. The father focuses mainly on physical aspects of care rather than emotional and psychological aspects which are, in my view, far more significant in this case. Putting it another way, the potential risk inherent in the unanswered questions should there be a return to England are in my judgment outweighed by the undoubted risks inherent in remaining in the USA.

It is positive that G acknowledges the challenges of returning to the UK and is amenable to accessing support services if she does so. To my mind, the very fact of returning, and leaving what for her is a toxic environment, would be likely to improve considerably her psychological and emotional wellbeing. The LA are familiar with this family, which is a protective factor and must be informed of her return. The father’s concerns can be considered by the Local Authority who are well placed to assist and inquire.

The reality of this case is that G does not wish to be with the father, and wishes instead to be with her mother and sister in the UK. She believes she was misled into going to the USA as L did not follow, and she did not spend time with the mother. Moreover, given her strength of feeling about being in the USA, her negative views of the father’s wife, her profound distrust of the father, her distress at being separated from her sister and not having seen her mother since moving to the USA, in my judgment it is hard to see how F can realistically meet her psychological and emotional needs in the USA. Indeed, there is no evidence that he has been successfully able to do so given the consistent strength of feeling for nearly nine months. If the application is refused, there is a risk that she will view herself as effectively imprisoned by her father, with all the emotional consequences flowing therefrom.

I have carefully considered the father’s position that the matter should go off for further investigation, including a welfare analysis by the Guardian and obtaining information such as therapy reports, USA school reports, information from the USA equivalent of social services and the like. The father says that the information is limited at present. In my judgment, it is not necessary to put the matter off, and it would be contrary to G’s wellbeing to do so. I have ample information to make a considered decision. I accept there are unknowns (which applies both in the USA and the UK) but I am satisfied that the information before me is sufficient to make a decision. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make this order on a “summary basis”. That said, it has been far from summary in terms of written evidence including a wealth of information from the proceedings in the past three years, oral submissions and assistance from the Guardian. I am satisfied that to adjourn for further inquiry would simply prolong the litigation and add to the burdens on G, who would be severely distressed. It seems likely to me that to carry out all the inquiries suggested by the father, and have a full hearing, would require a delay of at least 6-9 months which to my mind is unacceptably long for G, and it is hard to see how anything other than a return order could be made if G maintains her current strongly held position.

The landscape of this case has changed out of all recognition since the consent order of 3 June 2024 which provided for relocation of G and L to the USA with the father. L in fact remained here and the anticipated contact with the mother did not take place. G has not settled with her father. Prior to the move, she had lived in the UK all of her life and her roots are clearly far stronger here. In my judgment, having carefully considered all the evidence and submissions, and having balanced the risk arguments and G’s own feelings, an order for G’s return to the UK should be made as being clearly in her best interests.

I therefore make the following order:

For the return of G to this country no sooner than the end of the school term in the USA (which I am told is 15 June) and by no later than 30 June.

The wardship order shall continue and the matter shall remain at High Court level. If no applications are made within 6 months, the wardship order shall be automatically discharged and thereafter any further applications shall be to the local family court.

For the duration of the wardship order G shall be placed in the care of the mother.

An application shall be made to the FCO for emergency travel documents.

The order and this judgment shall be provided to the Local Authority and to any relevant UK or USA court or public agency.