GU24P07400 - [2025] EWHC 1587 (Fam)

There is a helpful report from Ms Huntingdon dated 4 June 2025. She sets out the background to the dispute. She met the Respondent online. She met the Applicant in person. She met the children in person at the Cafcass Office on 19 May 2025.

She describes that the girls remember Nigeria and they spoke of their house where they lived with ‘mummy and daddy’ and attending school and carpet time there. They recalled positive things about their life in Nigeria and ‘fun places’. “Neither girl could think of a worst thing about Nigeria”. X referred to the house he shared with his parents and siblings in Nigeria. He preferred his UK school because he could go swimming there. “He could not think of anything when asked about the best and worst aspects of Nigeria”. The twins spoke of doing fun things with the Respondent and of him “being kind to them”. The twins wanted “daddy to visit their house and Z wanted him to stay with them more often.” Ms Huntingdon explains they have little understanding of why they came to the UK. They had a “very limited understanding” of the issue of their return to Nigeria. “They both expressed positive sentiments in respect of a return to Nigeria….[Y] said that she would be happy because it’s a hot place and [Z] said she would also be happy because she likes Nigeria.” Both expressed that they were “ok” to leave England. She noted X was reticent. He struggled to describe his mother. His father’s presence in the former family home was limited, but when he was at home it was fun. “X said that he gets on well with daddy, whereas he is “in the middle with mummy.” He was unable to tell her the best thing about his mother but the best thing about his father was that “he listens to me”. X describes himself as being very happy on the day he saw his father at school in 2024. X had little understanding of his move to the UK. At first X said that he would not want to live in Nigeria but could not say why. When this was revisited, he said “he would not care if the judge decided that he should return”. He said there was nothing that would worry him in the event of a return to Nigeria. He told me in a little letter that he wants to be rich and to live in a mansion in California.

Ms Huntingdon notes the children have little understanding of the complexity of the issues the court faces. She notes it is beyond her remit to determine what happened between the parents but she has not “identified the highest risk behaviours” given the Applicant’s account. She notes the impact on the Applicant. Taken at their highest, the Applicant’s reported behaviours “would not be considered to be a barrier to coming to safe arrangements for contact post separation”. She notes some of the Respondent’s post separation behaviours raise concerns. This is a reference to the ex parte order and the police involvement when the children were unilaterally removed from his care.

She states that if what is said by the Applicant is true, this presents a significant risk factor of the children being used as part of coercive behaviours and he could seek to separate them from the mother. She notes the Applicant did obtain an order granting her custody of the children but raises issues about enforcement.

She states that the Applicant has “indicated she would feel unable to return to Nigeria with the children if this was directed by the court, although I am mindful that if this was to become a reality of the children’s circumstances, [the Applicant] may reconsider her position.”

She states:

“If the court is satisfied with the parents’ evidence and finds on balance that there are no risks, or that the risks identified as posed by the father could be mitigated against the lack of judicial support and enforcement of any orders granted in the UK and in the absence of support services for protect the children, then a return order for all three children to Nigeria could be contemplated.” (sic)

She raised concerns about progressing contact between the children and the father without determination of the “contested issues”.

I permitted both parties’ counsel to ask limited questions of Ms Huntingdon. She was challenged by Ms Ecob on her cautious approach to interim contact. She accepted professional supervision would deal with some safeguarding issues. She stated that Nigeria would be relatively familiar for them if returned. She accepted given their ages a year in the UK was significant for them.