[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> C (leave to relocate), Re [2015] EWFC B204 (29 May 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2015/B204.html Cite as: [2015] EWFC B204

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE CENTRAL FAMILY COURT

		First Avenue House 42-49 High Holborn, WC1
		29th May 2015

JUDGE LAURA HARRIS:

1. I am giving judgment today in an unusual application to relocate to Ireland, despite Hague Convention proceedings brought by the father and a declaration by Mr. Justice Holman in this jurisdiction in December 2014 that there had been an unlawful removal. The child with whom I am concerned, C, born on 24^th June 2009 and therefore aged five years and eleven months, is still living in Ireland and has been there now for fourteen months. In the course of this judgment I will attempt to explain how this surprising state of affairs has come about.
2. The parents in this case are S, the mother, who was born on 11^th February 1989 so she is now twenty-six. The father is J. He was born on 6^th October 1989 and is therefore aged twenty-five. C is represented in these proceedings pursuant to an order made by the court on 28^th August 2013, save that instead of CAFCASS she has a NYAS caseworker representing her and that is W. The representation of the parties has been as follows: The father has been represented by Miss Gillman of counsel. The mother has been represented by Ms. McMullen of counsel. C herself and her Guardian have been represented by Mr. Horsley of counsel. C in fact has two half-siblings. Her mother has a younger child, a girl, who was born on 1^st January 2013 and is therefore aged two. The father also has a child whom he tells me is three, although he was unable to give me her precise date of birth.

The Applications

3. The applications before me are by the mother for permission to remove the child, C, permanently from the jurisdiction to live in Ireland; and by the father for a child arrangements order for the child to live with him or alternatively to spend time with him, for disclosure of the mother's address and the school attended by C and for parental responsibility.
4. I have read extensively into two substantial lever arch files and I have also heard extensive oral evidence both from the parents and from the NYAS caseworker. W, in fact, at my request and with the agreement of the parties, gave evidence at the outset of the case. The reason for that was because, somewhat disappointingly, although Her Honour Judge Hughes had made an order in March directing a report by the NYAS caseworker on the issues, central to which was the application to relocate, the final report prepared in fact dealt only with the two recent contact visits that took place in London at the L Contact Centre. The report contained certain recommendations as to contact, but did not deal with the wider picture. I say "disappointing" because I have had a similar situation in relation to a CAFCASS Guardian on a relocation hearing very recently and now this hearing. The message needs to go out that reports must address comprehensively and contain a suitable analysis of the different applications before the court. So that is why I heard from W first. Again by agreement W was going to give evidence again after he had heard the parents' evidence and indeed he did at some length.

The Parties' Positions

5. The father opposes the application for leave to remove. As I have said he seeks an order that C live with him and, if that is not granted, an order for ongoing visiting contact initially in some form of contact centre. The mother plainly seeks permission to relocate. She strongly opposes the father's application for a change of C's living arrangements and she submits that any contact which takes place between the father and C should take place in Ireland only and should be funded by the father. The Guardian's position throughout has been to oppose a change of primary carer for C, but his position altered significantly from his initial evidence to his evidence at the end of the case. Initially, he was inclined to favour a solution whereby the mother's application for permission to locate was adjourned for a period to attempt to ensure that some regime of contact was established. Initially, his stance was that a removal back to England would involve too great an upheaval for the child. However, having heard extensive oral evidence from the parties, he changed his mind and clearly came to the view that C's welfare required that the mother's application to relocate should be refused.

The Law

6. The law in relation to relocation was extensively set out and reviewed in the leading judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Re F [2012] EWCA Civ 1364. However, Ms. McMullen has very helpfully included extracts from a subsequent decision by Mr. Justice Mostyn in a case called TC v. JC (Children: Relocation) [2013] EWHC 292 (Fam) where Mr. Justice Mostyn very helpfully summarises and brings together the various principles governing these applications. I am going to adopt and rely upon that helpful judgment in setting out the legal position in this case and I will summarise from the passage which is cited. He sets out the principles to be applied and states:

(i) "The only authentic principle to be applied when determining an application to relocate a child permanently overseas is that the welfare of the child is paramount and overbears all other considerations, however powerful and reasonable they might be.

(ii) The guidance given by the Court of Appeal (and here he is referring to the well-known case of Payne) as to the factors to be weighed in search of the welfare paramountcy, and which directs the exercise of the welfare discretion, is valuable. Such guidance helps the judge to identify which factors are likely to be the most important and the weight which should generally be attached to them, and, incidentally, promotes consistency in decision-making.

(iii) The guidance is not confined to classic primary carer applications and may be utilised in other kinds of relocation cases if the judge thinks it helpful and appropriate to do so."

He then goes on to set out the well-known guidance set out in the case of Payne v. Payne as follows:

(a) "Is the mother's application genuine in the sense that it is not motivated by some selfish desire to exclude the father from the child's life?

(b) Is the mother's application realistically founded on practical proposals both well researched and investigated?

(c) What would be the impact on the mother, either as the single parent or as a new wife, of a refusal of her realistic proposal?

(d) Is the father's opposition motivated by genuine concern for the future of the child's welfare or is it driven by some ulterior motive?

(e) What would be the extent of the detriment to him and his future relationship with the child were the application granted?

(f) To what extent would that detriment be offset by extension of the child's relationships with the maternal family and homeland?

(iv) Since the circumstances in which such decisions have to be made vary infinitely and the judge in each case has to be free to decide whatever is in the best interests of the child, such guidance should not be applied rigidly as if it contains principles from which no departure is permitted.

(v) There is no legal principle, let alone some legal or evidential presumption, in favour of an application to relocate by a primary carer. The old statements which seem to favour applications to relocate made by primary carers are no more that a reflection of the reality of the human condition and the parent-child relationship.

I apply all that guidance to my decisions in this case.

The Background

7. I have been provided with an extremely helpful and extensive chronology, which is an agreed document, together with an extensive case summary (which is also an agreed document). I am plainly not going to recite the long and very dispiriting history as set out in those documents, but I consider that the chronology should be attached to my judgment to assist any other court which may come to look at my judgment.
8. The parents met in 2008. The father says that this was a four month relationship during which they stayed together at the home of a friend. The mother alleges that C was conceived as a result of a rape and she says there was no real relationship between the parents. She moved to Ireland in December 2008 whilst pregnant and returned, she says, when the baby was two weeks old (although I think the father considers that it was later than that). She then proceeded to deny that the father was indeed the father of the child and there had to be DNA testing. Significantly, one of the matters put to the mother was a letter (C325) from a learning support teacher at a school where the father's mother worked, and I believe the school he attended in his own time. It is a significant letter because it reports that the father and the mother came to the school to show T (that is the paternal grandmother) and CR a photograph of the twelve week scan of the baby and she said: "Both parents appear proud and excited at the prospect of becoming parents". The mother wholly denied that there had been such an event and said that she had no knowledge of CR and, whoever she was, she had fabricated this account. The father, however, confirmed that this occurred. I entirely accept that CR was not available to be cross examined in relation to the mother's assertion, but I have heard the evidence of the father confirming the statement and I have to consider the likelihood of CR going into print to make such a specific assertion. I am quite satisfied that there was such a meeting as the father described. Further, it was put to the mother during her cross examination that messages on Facebook between the parents plainly refer to the father being the father (C328). Although the messages came from an account in the mother's name - she using the name "ST" for Facebook purposes - she said that in fact the messages did not emanate from her and a person unknown must have been using her Facebook account in order to send the messages. I have read the messages and, in my judgment, they plainly are messages passing between the mother and the father. I cannot see, and nor has any motivation been suggested, why another person would assume the guise of the mother. I am quite satisfied that these were messages between the parents and I accept the father's evidence about that. So, again, further evidence that he was plainly the father.
9. There has been, sadly and tragically for C, litigation about her throughout her life. The father's application for contact was made at the Edmonton County Court on 12^th August 2010. Plainly, there had to be DNA testing and that DNA testing established the father's paternity. The mother also at the outset of the proceedings made allegations that the father was abusing both drugs and alcohol. Directions were given for hair strand testing and they all came back with negative result. Despite the inception of proceedings in 2010, it took almost to the point of C's second birthday before the father set eyes on his daughter. The first contact in the presence of the maternal grandmother, P, took place on 19^th May 2012. Shortly after that contact the mother made an allegation of abduction or attempted abduction by the father and contact was suspended. Thereafter, one has the picture (as I have said the very dispiriting picture) of the sort that one is accustomed to see in what might be categorised as an intractable contact dispute; orders succeeding orders, periods of compliance with orders followed by periods of non-compliance and return to court. One step forward and two steps backward may be a colloquial way of characterising the picture.
10. The proceedings trundled on leading up to a fact finding hearing, which was to take place on 24^th July 2012. On the day there were no doubt lengthy negotiations between the parties and the fact finding hearing was compromised. I have found in my experience that when these hearings are compromised almost inevitably one comes to the conclusion, when things unravel thereafter, that in retrospect and in hindsight it would have been better if the parties' allegations and counter allegations had been aired at an early stage and a judicial determination made, but that was not to be the case here. The compromise and the order (B39-B41) involved the mother withdrawing her allegation of rape against the father and confirming that she would not seek to rely on such allegation in future proceedings and the father making a number of admissions, which are set out in a schedule of admissions. The admissions refer to the years 2009 to 2010 principally and they involve his admitting that on occasions he had, for example, driven past the mother and slowed down to look in the pram to see C (that was before he had ever seen her by way of a meeting) and admissions that he had driven by the mother and, for example, looked at her, smiled and turned up music. He says this was to drown her out, he expecting some kind of incident. In relation to those admissions it is recorded that, although it was not his intention, he accepts that the mother may have felt apprehensive about his actions. He also accepts driving on a main road near his home, on a number of occasions, but states that at the time he had not been served with a without notice order prohibiting him from so driving. So that was the position as of the date of that order.
11. The court directed that there should be ongoing contact in a contact centre to be agreed between the parties. A contact centre was duly identified, a contact centre local to the parties, but, having been identified, the mother then rejected it as being not adequately secure. A search had to resume again and a further centre called X offering supervised contact was identified. An order was duly made in December 2012 requiring the parents to participate in a Tavistock programme to assist them in resolving the ongoing parental battle. The mother, it turned out, was not willing to participate in the programme and therefore it never went ahead. A final order, insofar as these orders can ever be final, was made on 19^th May 2013.
12. There were then a number of contact sessions thereafter for the rest of 2013 into early 2014, but these proceeded in a halting fashion. Mr. Horsley took me to a number of unsatisfactory gaps caused by such things as the mother saying, for example, something unspecified had happened in September 2013 and contact being interrupted just before Christmas and then again at the beginning of January 2014. I should record that the contact visits were extremely difficult. The chronology records that on a number of successive visits, for example, in October 2013 going into November 2013, that the father would dutifully attend and C would simply not engage. There were occasions also when C became extremely distressed and plainly very adversely affected. I have to consider in this judgment what the reasons are for her worrying presentation. The father had also attempted to engage in indirect contact and the mother reported a very similar reaction of the child becoming on occasions hysterical and crying at the receipt of a letter from the father. The mother complains the father did not persevere with the indirect contact, but the father told me in evidence with some insight and child focus that after five or so attempts he stopped, having had these reports of the child's reaction and not wanting her to be in a position where she could not consider her own house to be safe. So the reactions to indirect contact were as powerful in an adverse sense as the reactions to the direct contact. Having said that and having reviewed some of the contact notes, there were occasions where there seemed to be a breakthrough but then the situation again deteriorated. So that is how matters proceeded to the end of 2013.
13. By this stage the NYAS Guardian was in place and it was his job to attempt to set up a session or sessions to be observed by him. In February 2014 there was a hearing at this court where the mother did not attend, having informed the court through counsel that her children were unwell, and the matter was adjourned to 30^th June 2014. The NYAS guardian was to file an initial analysis and recommendations for future contact by 4^th April 2014. On 21^st February 2014, following that order, W met the mother and C in the mother's solicitor's office. He obviously wanted to meet the child and was attempting to set up contact arrangements. Nothing was said to him at that meeting about the mother's plans. From the totality of the evidence it is now plain that the mother had formulated a plan to leave this jurisdiction and go to Ireland in January 2014. Her mother, whom she alleges has gone with her to support her, did leave the jurisdiction and stayed in Ireland initially in January 2014. It is obvious from what I have said and the chronology that W was left in complete ignorance about her covert plans when he met with her with a view to setting up contact. On 14^th March 2014, although the mother in her evidence suggested that it was 26^th or 28^th March 2014, the mother left for Ireland with C and she has been living there to this very day.
14. I have amended the next paragraph from what I originally said in my oral judgment, which was very critical of the mother's solicitors' actions. I received a letter from them dated 5^th June 2015 setting out their chronology for this period. On 15^th April 2014, the mother's solicitors were informed of the mother's actions in that the mother said she was in Ireland, did not give her address and said she did not want her current location disclosed. She was advised that this action could be seen as attempting to frustrate the current proceedings. She should have been advised that the mother was committing the offence of abduction and that the solicitors as officers of the court would need to disclose her criminality. The solicitor with conduct then took counsel's advice on 24^th April 2014. Counsel advised an urgent directions hearing should be sought and the court notified immediately. This was done on 28^th April and was accompanied by a letter to the judge disclosing the mother had moved to Ireland. The position remained, however, that the father and the NYAS Guardian remained in total ignorance of the mother's covert plans. The details of the application are set out at B118 and say as follows:

"The matter is being restored for urgent directions before His Honour Judge Wilding. On the advice of Social Services the mother has moved from her previous address due to concerns regarding the safety of her two children after an incident whereby the father made threats. The mother seeks to keep her address confidential from the father; the same only to be disclosed to the court. The mother agrees to NYAS knowing her whereabouts, but only on the condition that NYAS first confirms they will not disclose the same to the father or his solicitors."

The application then goes on and I will pick it up a bit further down:

"It was requested [and this is by NYAS] that a session of contact be observed on 25^th April 2014. However, the mother was unable to make the child available for contact given that she had by then moved and also as her youngest child was in hospital undergoing emergency unplanned surgery and the mother was staying with her. The matter needs re-timetabling. Also the mother's move has implications for further contact. The mother will attend the directions hearing provided her child has sufficiently recovered and been discharged from hospital failing which she will be available via telephone to give instructions."

In that very veiled statement, there is no reference whatsoever to the fact that the mother had left the jurisdiction. Whilst the solicitors did advise the court, I remain of the view that their actions were too slow and that they had a duty to disclose the mother's abduction straight away. Two matters that need to be picked up from those details of the application: As to the first matter, the mother refers to an incident whereby she had concerns about the safety of her children. That refers to an incident which is alleged to have taken place on 23^rd February 2014. The assertion by the mother is that the father was passing her in his van and made threats. I have to say the threats as recounted to the police initially and as recounted in the mother's statement differ. What is the same in both is an allegation that the father slowed down, spoke to the mother from the window and said "I'm going to get C. She's not staying with a dirty nigger". That assertion, which is what was reported to the police according to a Social Services document, was expanded by the time of the mother's statement (C392b). This said that the father also went on to threaten to kill the baby (the baby being present with the mother in a buggy at that time). The second matter concerns the Social Services' report. I will come on to deal with that in more detail when I consider the professional reports in this case, but there was at this time a report made by Social Services which investigated the circumstances following on from a referral being made. The third matter, the reference to the unplanned surgery to ST (one of the mother's children), related to ST being very unfortunately attacked by a dog in Ireland and having to undergo hospital treatment; but that, as I have said, was in Ireland where the mother was then living. I am told somewhat surprisingly that when the mother's solicitors attended before a Deputy District Judge without notice on 23^rd May 2014, he did not seem to view the matter as urgent and simply let the hearing date of 30^th June 2014 stand.

15. The hearing of 30^th June 2014 duly arrived and it was on that occasion - some three and a half months after the mother had abducted the child - that the father and NYAS first found out about the mother's actions. It follows therefore that the mother had been wholly duplicitous in relation to the father and the NYAS guardian remained in ignorance although the mother's solicitors' letter indicated there was no objection to the Guardian being advised provided he did not tell the father.
16. What was behind the mother's actions? The mother's case is based fundamentally upon what might be categorised as an ongoing campaign of harassment by the father towards her. From the outset of the litigation the mother has alleged repeated harassment by the father, by members of his family and friends. Numerous police reports have been made - those are set out in the first CAFCASS report - and the allegations relate to the father repeatedly following the mother in his car or van, repeated threats to abduct C, abusive and threatening comments being made and repeated driving by the father past her home. I should make it clear that, at this time and up until the mother departed for Ireland, the parents were living in roads which were but one hundred yards or so away from each other. At C392J the mother says this at para.9:

"In paragraph 9 of the statement J alleges that I have lied to C. I have never lied to C about her father. C's fear of J is a result of J acting in a threatening manner on many occasions throughout her life. J used to sit outside our house in his car waiting for C and I to leave. He would then often run his car at us as we crossed the street. J also once told C at a contact session with her in 2012 that she would never see her mum again. In the CAFCASS report dated 12^th April 2013 J admits to examples of this behaviour, such as slowing down when driving past me and C and turning up his music to intimidate us. Therefore C finds the idea of seeing J very distressing."

As I have said, there were a plethora of police reports and those are summarised at D19-D21 in the CAFCASS report (and I am not going to read them out as they are along the lines of what I have referred to in that passage). The father makes the point, correctly, that the police on each occasion saw fit to take no further action and none of the allegations have ever been substantiated. The mother was asked about a particular allegation in cross examination on 17^th March 2011. A serious allegation was made, which formed the basis for her application for a without notice non-molestation order, that the father had tried to run her over and that this was about 9.30 at night in a particular location. The police report says that the CCTV at the location was checked and the mother was indeed seen at the location at quarter to ten, so very near the time when she says there was an incident, and there was no such incident at all (C108). The mother under cross examination said "Well, yes, I went to the shops in that location a number of times that evening" and persisted in suggesting that the father drove at her when with the child. Another allegation was the father punching her apparently in full public view when queuing to pay for petrol at a garage. The father says that the CCTV showed that he had just brushed by her by mistake. I make the point that it was inevitable living in such close proximity that these parties would come into contact with each other inadvertently from time to time. The mother was also asked about a reference in the CAFCASS report to her having admitted lying a couple of times to a police officer, WDC Potts (D34). Again, the mother stated that she had not ever made such an admission. Indeed, a feature of this case which became particularly clear under cross examination is that the mother was put in a position where she was having to challenge the accuracy of reports by a number of professionals - the police, social care and CAFCASS in particular.

The mother was reporting to professionals that she was scared to leave home and from the reports it is plain that this was impacting upon the family generally - the mother then living with her own mother and her two younger siblings - and it was said that the younger sibling, SE, who is now seventeen, was fearful of leaving home as well. There is another disturbing report in a Social Services' assessment document, which referred to the mother covering C from head to foot in a blanket when she took her out. One can only try and imagine the effect upon C of being taken out and covered up in that way in public. The father's case is that the police on numerous occasions investigated by viewing the CCTV footage and the mother's allegations, as I have said, were never substantiated. It is noteworthy, in my judgment, that the mother never sought to report by far the most serious allegation - that being the allegation of rape - to the police. The mother made a further and apparently new allegation at this hearing that the father and his friends had, on one occasion, attempted physically to seize C from the mother's arms.

17. If these allegations were untrue or had been exaggerated out of all recognition it follows, as night follows day, that C would be living in a climate of fear whereby she came to view her father as dangerous and someone who was going to take her away from her mother and her home. There are descriptions of this child looking around her whenever a van went past and ducking down under the window believing that the father was outside her home. If these allegations were untrue they would represent gross emotional abuse of the child by allowing her to perceive her father as someone dangerous to her and her wellbeing. There are a number of references in Social Services and CAFCASS documents as well as, for example, in the contact notes about this aspect of the case. The mother was referred to a contact note (E40), which is dated 11^th February 2013, when the child was having contact with her father. It is reported by the contact centre that the mother rang the doorbell, came in and said she wanted to collect C immediately and appeared aggravated. The mother made some comments regarding the father; that he was a compulsive liar and he had his white van outside with pillows and duvets and she seemed to believe that the father was planning to take C, which she stated (according to the note) with C and the grandmother also present. The mother then asked the grandmother to remove C so that she could talk to the father alone and the contact supervisor was present when this took place and heard the mother call the father a rapist and a compulsive liar. Plainly, a pertinent part of that conversation or that discussion, according to the note, took place in the presence of the child. The mother denies it and says that the child had already been removed by her own mother, but I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the note. A further note from a contact session was put to the mother (E79), which was dated 11^th January 2014. A contact supervisor records that C was asked if she was alright and she said "Yes" and the contact supervisor said she was glad as she did not like to see C cry. I pick up the note:

"C was then asked why she does not want to see J and C said to me 'He drives past my house'. I asked C if she had seen J drive past her house and she said 'No'. I then asked her how she knew J drove past her house and she said 'S told me'. [S is the mother] I asked C again how she knew J drove past her house and she reiterated 'S told me'. C then proceeded to tell me she was in Morrisons with B (aunt) and she saw J. I asked C if she saw J and she said 'Yes'. I asked C if anything happened to her while in Morrisons and she said 'No'. C also stated she did not cry when she saw J and he did not take her away."

It is quite plain from those notes, which I regard as accurate, that this child was being encouraged to believe by what was being said to her and no doubt in her presence that her father represented some form of danger.

The Views of the Professionals

18. I have read two assessments by Social Services in this case. The first took place after the birth of ST when there was a referral made because of this ongoing dispute (I think by the hospital) and that is dated March 2013. In that report there are repeated concerns expressed by the social worker about the environment in which C was living. Significantly, the mother reported that there had been no incident of violence for over a year between herself and her ex-partner. She reported that she regularly sees him near to her house and she feels threatened when she sees him, even if he does not say anything to her. So no suggestion there of deliberate harassment or even being outside or near her home deliberately. At E55 of the report, the author records:

"There has been a climate of fear that has been created in relation to contact between C and her father. This apparently is affecting the way C is brought up and encouraged or otherwise to relate to her father."

At E58 the school reported that C has not expressed any distress nor has the school observed any distress at school after contact with her father. This is in contrast to the mother's report of distress and indeed bedwetting, both before and after contact. Further down the page at E58, it is recorded that:

"There have been concerns expressed and noticed by other professionals including school of inappropriate adult discussion that is made in the presence of C, which does not make her look forward to contact and this has been brought to the attention of both the mother and grandmother."

Finally, at E59, the report says:

"It appears there has been a perceived climate of fear and anxiety played in the presence of C. At any van that drives past her when out she is alleged to panic that her father or friends are going to kidnap her. There have been numerous allegations and reported incidents to the police, but I am not sure how many of these have been substantiated. I would therefore be worried about the emotional welfare of C in the care of her mother if there is evidence of fabricated incidents about the father."

19. The second report is dated 7^th March 2014. This is the report that the mother relies upon, as she puts it, as having effectively given her the green light to go to Ireland. This report is a very troubling document not necessarily in terms of a number of its observations, but in terms of its conclusions and the approach adopted by the author. I will return to that subject in a moment. At D46 of the report, the social worker who is the author of the report asked C about things that made her happy and she said "S, B and Nana". She was asked about what made her sad and C said "Him. J makes me sad when he says he will take me away and give me a new Nana. I don't want a new Nana. I want my old one". C seems to be acting on her mother's anxiety towards her ex-partner." At D48 the author of the report cites the opinion that C's feelings are as a result of transference from her mother: "The adults in the household are all afraid of J and he is referred to as someone who cannot be touched by the police". The conclusion of the report is surprising to say the least. The author of the report knew there were ongoing court proceedings because the report says so. The author of the report did not trouble to speak to the father to obtain his views on the allegations that were made. The author, having clearly stated that if these allegations had been fabricated that this would be extremely concerning so far as the child's emotional welfare was concerned, concluded as follows (D49):

"The assessment is evidence that the mother and the children are well supported by the maternal grandmother. However, the father remains a risk as he continues to ignore the non-molestation order and has made recent threats to the mother. C is now aware of his threat to take her away from her mother and she has become anxious about seeing him in case he does not return her to her mother. As the mother and maternal grandmother have plans to return to Ireland, this is assessed as being the safest way of ensuring there is no further risk from the father who does not appear to have a relationship with C, has not contributed to her care and is now seeking a contact order."

As I have said that is a shocking conclusion to read for the reasons that I have indicated. Firstly, the author had only heard one side. The report evidenced its concern that if the allegations were untrue that the risk of harm to the child was significant and the report makes it clear that the author was aware that proceedings in court were ongoing. Nevertheless, it gives its implicit or perhaps even explicit support to a plan for the mother to go to Ireland. It really beggars belief.

20. The other reports which are of relevance are the CAFCASS reports prepared by SM in the 2013 phase of these proceedings. I consider that he formed a very clear and correct understanding of the dynamics in the case. In his first report of 17^th January 2013 (D18) at para.12, he says this:

"C is affected by views expressed by the maternal family about J evidenced by the fear, she told me on my home visit, that her daddy was going to take her away. This fear stayed with her for the first two contacts, which she repeated before they started."

In his second report of 10^th April 2013 (D35) he refers to discussions with the social worker conducting the core assessment. He said that the discussion revealed social care's concerns about what the mother and grandmother were saying about the father with C present and that they were not preparing C for contact. He went on at para.26 to say this:

"[the social worker] thinks S is obsessed about J and his friends putting C at risk, which does not make sense. He thinks her views are not objective. S does not like J and cannot support contact. He thinks the strong conviction that J poses a risk to C is deeply held in the family. It affects SE who is not attending school and C who is apprehensive going out of the home because of the perceived risks with S paying taxis to transport C to nursery. I suggested there is a climate of fear within the family about J, which [the social worker] agreed. He thinks if the fear is not based on clear facts it is dangerous. His concerns about the serious allegations which may not be true suggest to him that S may have mental health problems or a personality disorder with these possibilities requiring her to be assessed."

The mother told me that she had taken issue with this and had telephoned [the social worker] who had reported that he had not, in particular, made the comments about her mental health because he was not qualified to do so. Again, I have no reason to think that SM, as an experienced professional, would misrecord what [the social worker] had said to him. Indeed, as I have said, [the social worker] seemed to share the same views as he did. The mother also claimed that SM (about whom she also made complaint) admitted to her that there had been errors in his reports, although she did not specify what those errors were other than this issue about her mental health.

21. So that is the background against which attempts were made to get contact off the ground and for the father to develop a meaningful relationship with his daughter. The point is made fully by Ms. McMullen in her very helpful position statement that this is not a case, such as one sometimes encounters, of a blanket refusal of contact and that there were periods - sometimes quite a sustained period of months - when contact was largely proceeding and of course on the facts and the dates that is true. However it is my view and it is plainly borne out by the documents that, even when contact was proceeding, the mother was doing her best to obstruct and undermine it. A very good example and one which plainly resonated a great deal with W related to the mother placing restrictions upon what the father could and could not do in contact and which the contact centre felt obliged to enforce. Apparently the father had been playing with a ball with C in contact and this had been quite successful with C appearing to enjoy the game. Further, they had been playing with plastic cars rolling them across the floor and causing them to collide with each other and the father was pleased because there seemed to be an opening. On 14^th May 2014 (E41) there is reference to the contact supervisor advising the father that the mother had asked for C not to play with any balls or toy cars during the contact. According to the mother, the explanation for this is that it is dangerous to play with balls inside. I note this was a contact centre and the contact supervisors plainly had no difficulty with the game in terms of danger. Indeed, I cannot see - providing the ball is an appropriate one - any remote danger of playing with a ball inside. Regarding the toy cars. the objection was that when the child went home she was making toys or cars crash into each other and the mother thought that this was unacceptable. I am afraid I form the clear view that this was an attempt by the mother to control contact and to limit the activities which the father could do with the child. Further even when contact was taking place the atmosphere of fear, which was ongoing in my judgment, was present and was impacting upon the child's approach to contact. I note that the father was also expressly prohibited from taking any photographs of C. This is not so much something which was directly for C's benefit, although it might have been nice for her to know her father wanted to have some photos of her, but plainly was a further attempt to keep the father at arm's length. I will come on to the question of photographs in a moment.
22. The mother also alleged at this hearing (and I think there is one reference to this in the papers but it was not particularly dealt with in her statements) that the father would laugh at C's distress in contact, which plainly would be emotionally abusive behaviour. The father rejects that wholly and tells me how upsetting he found it to see his daughter being so distressed by contact. The mother in evidence (and again this resonated strongly for W) when asked by me whether she could say anything positive about the father said there was nothing positive to say about him. It is plain she has been trawling through his Facebook entries, although he says that they are not on his public wall, for evidence against him. We have the bizarre allegation that the father had burnt a bunny rabbit derived from conversations on Facebook. The father says this was a joke between him and his brother and it concerned him disposing of and burning an old dilapidated rabbit hutch they had not used. The mother says that this was reported to the police. She was reluctant to say who was behind the report and when I pressed her she admitted it was her sister. She then sought to deny knowing about this before her sister had reported it, although she says she sees her sister every day. The father says he was never interviewed by the police about this and the whole thing is a fabrication.
23. I have now had the benefit of not only reading extensively into this case, but have seen the parents expertly cross examined at some length by counsel for the mother and father respectively and also to some extent by Mr. Horsley on behalf of the Guardian. I have also looked at the question of inconsistencies in the written material between what the mother has said and what others have reported and have a holistic picture of the history as well as seeing the mother and her responses in the witness box. Of course, I also had the benefit of the same matters concerning the father. I have come to the clear view that the mother has on many occasions fabricated and on other occasions grossly exaggerated out of all recognition the incidents upon which she relies. I am quite satisfied there was no campaign of harassment and that, as I have said, the incidents have either been exaggerated out of all recognition or fabricated entirely. Therefore, it follows that it is my clear judgment that C has been manipulated in a gross and abusive way by being brought up in this environment where she has been caused to see her father as a danger to her. It is always difficult for a court to assess whether a parent or other carer has genuinely come to the point where they believe their own allegations or whether they are wholly fabricated and they know it. Interestingly, the father took the view that the mother probably did believe her allegations. It is impossible for me to assess exactly how much the mother has now convinced herself of their truth and how much is pure fabrication, but, as I have said, I am very clear that this child has been grossly manipulated within the maternal family home and this has caused her serious emotional harm.
24. Having said that, I have to also consider the father's evidence. I note the admissions he made and which he broadly adheres to. I have to say that I consider that the father is slightly immature and probably was more immature when these events occurred. I also consider that the mother was likely on occasions to have been provocative to him. For example, there is the reference to her photographing him as he was getting into his van after contact. It seems to me that it is likely on the balance of probabilities that, having regard to those factors, there were more incidents than the father chose to admit; but, having said that, I am quite satisfied that these incidents were of a relatively minor nature and certainly do not extend to the father ever threatening to abduct the child. I consider that he may well have said words to the effect that he was going to win or going to get the child in the sense of succeeding in his battle to achieve contact with her. So whilst I do not accept that the father's actions were as limited as the admissions suggest and that his immaturity and provocation from the mother may have led him to speak out inappropriately, I wholly reject the allegations that he made threats to abduct far less actually attempt to abduct the child. It is significant, in my judgment, the father has always gone through the appropriate channels (i.e. the court) and indeed has been tenacious in pursuing his application through those appropriate channels. So that is the backdrop against which I have to consider the parents' applications.
25. I should deal finally with the vexed question of the photograph. I do not have the photograph in front of me at the moment, but I remember it very well. The mother was ordered to provide the father with a photograph of the child; he not having one in his possession. The mother provided something which W described as looking like a photocopy of a photo scanned and he received it via the internet. The photograph is an insult. It is blurred. As I have said, it is not a photograph. I think the description that W gave was apt. The child, as he put it, looks almost demonic. It is a photograph where she had red eyes and, as I have said, it has been copied so that it is blurred and does not give any picture of what I am sure this delightful child looks like. The mother said C chose the picture and that, because of her likely reaction to knowing it was for her father, she was obliged to tell her that it was for her own solicitor. W, I consider, was quite affected by the photograph. To him it summed up the abject lack of value that the mother attaches to the father/child relationship and perhaps is a symbol in one single piece of paper of the mother's approach towards the father. As I have said he plainly felt very strongly, and rightly so, about the insult represented by that sole photo. What is even more poignant is that the father immediately asked me to give it back. He still obviously does treasure it as the only photograph he has of his daughter. It really is sad.
26. Against that backdrop and against those findings, I go on now to consider the mother's application. Before doing so I need to explain in this judgment how this unusual state of affairs persists, whereby a declaration of unlawful removal having been made, this child still lives in Ireland. How did this come about? It came about in this way. The father brought proceedings both in this jurisdiction and in Ireland. The matter took some considerable time to come before the court for resolution in this country, ultimately coming before Mr. Justice Holman on 12^th December 2014. Mr. Horsley was present on that occasion and has given me helpful information about it because I do not have a judgment. The learned High Court Judge on that occasion made the declaration to which I have referred, but was not prepared to order the summary return of the child. The reason for that was because the country which was properly seised of the application under the Hague Convention was of course Ireland, the country to which the child had been abducted. Out of respect for judicial comity, I am told, Mr. Justice Holman was not prepared to accede to an application for summary return. He did however order the mother, with a penal notice attached, to return the child to the jurisdiction for the purposes of supervised contact and made a specific order for two specific dates in January and February 2015. The mother, in blatant breach of the order, simply did not make the child available for those visits. She says it was because she had a taxi fare in excess of £90 she could not afford and the father did not have the funds to pay it. I note the father was paying for the balance of the costs of travel. She has told me that she has borrowed money from her family on many occasions and I find it inconceivable that, had she wished to comply with the order, she would not have found it possible to find the funds by some means or another. Therefore, as I have said, she was in blatant breach of that order.
27. The proceedings also proceeded through the Irish Court and came to be heard by Mrs. Justice Bronagh O'Hanlon in the High Court in Ireland on 18^th March 2015. I have seen her short extempore judgment. At that point the application to relocate had already been issued in the English Court and the English Court was seised of it. In those circumstances, she took the view that she should defer to the English jurisdiction. I observed on reading the judgment that there appears to have been some misapprehension about the order made by Mr. Justice Holman because she referred to there being temporary permission given for the child to stay in Ireland and plainly she did not want to tread on the toes of the English Court. I do not regard Mr. Justice Holman as having given temporary permission. What he did was simply not to make the order for return in deference to the Irish Court. So we have this somewhat bizarre position which I referred to during the case as "After you. No, after you" where each court was being extremely hesitant to tread on the toes of the other jurisdiction and to exceed what might be considered permissible. The effect, however, has been that Hague Convention proceedings which are meant to be, as Mr. Horsley reminded me, dealt with in a period of six weeks and to represent a summary procedure to cause the child to be returned to his or her jurisdiction of habitual residence in a speedy way simply did not happen in this case. I express concern about that as well. It has made the court's task and indeed W's task so much more difficult.

The Mother's Proposals

28. The mother served a statement as ordered in support of her application. Miss Gillman makes the valid point that the statement was woefully inadequate. The well-known case law makes clear the sort of detailed information which should be contained in such a statement, even where the relocation is to a nearby jurisdiction and one where some of the child's lifestyle is going to be similar to this country. The case law makes it clear that there should be detailed information about housing, education, health, finances and not least contact proposals. There are often lengthy exhibits. Miss Gillman makes the telling point that the only exhibits to the mother's statement were the exhibits about the contact centre she had identified in Dublin and the exhibit about the burnt bunny. There was nothing else whatsoever. The underlying reason for this seemed to me to be because of the cloak of secrecy which the mother has sought to place over her circumstances. The mother has been wholly preoccupied with the father not knowing details of where she is living, details of the school or anything about her life in Ireland. It was therefore inevitable that the statement in support would be somewhat limited in what it told us about her circumstances. Such information as has been gleaned has come from elsewhere in a patchwork sort of way. A report from Irish Social Services reports on the child's home circumstances, which seem to be satisfactory. There is also a letter from her school, which tells us that she is settled and is doing well. But none of that came from the mother.
29. What is the mother's motivation for seeking to make this new life in Ireland? Firstly, she relies upon the incident of 23^rd February as being the catalyst for her decision. I make it clear I do not find that the allegation is made out. I find the mother has fabricated it. I prefer the father's evidence about what happened on that occasion. He said he was with his brother in his van and he saw the mother. Being used the situation whereby he was going to end up being reported, he noted the time on his clock and he said nothing whatsoever happened. What else has the mother said? She said explicitly that she has gone to get away from the father's harassment (C446). I have already dealt with my findings about the father's alleged harassment. She has said that she sees a better life for herself and her daughter in Ireland and those, she says, are her motivations for going. I am wholly satisfied that the mother's motivation in going to Ireland was primarily to exclude the father from the child's life. This plainly feeds in to the Payne guidelines because the mother's motivation is one of the first things that I have to consider. I reach that view and I find that it is overwhelmingly clear from all the material that I have looked at.
30. The mother relies heavily upon the support that she has from her extended family as being a plank of her application to relocate. This is an unusual scenario because, as Miss Gillman submitted, this is a case where the family went out to join her rather than the usual situation where a parent (usually after the end of a relationship) seeks to rejoin his or her family in their country of origin. The evidence about the extended family's position was described aptly by W as "a puzzle wrapped up in an enigma". I endorse that description. The evidence is vague, contradictory and unclear. The written evidence is contained at C445, in particular, in the mother's last statement. What the mother says at para.6 is:

"The vast majority of my family live in Ireland; in particular my immediate family have all now relocated to Ireland. My mother moved to Ireland shortly before I did and then my younger brother moved to Ireland a few weeks after I did. My mother and brother live very close by and I see them, pretty much, every day. My mother is a very good support to me and has always been a huge factor in C's life. Their relationship is extremely close. My sister recently also moved to Ireland."

I note that this statement was made in April. The mother's oral evidence is that the grandmother travelled to Ireland in January 2014, that she returned to the United Kingdom in March 2014 and came out again after the incident when STj was attacked by the dog. She says, despite being in Ireland for fourteen months, the grandmother has secured no permanent accommodation and is being put up by her friend, D, in what must be very overcrowded circumstances with D's own children, the grandmother and the grandmother's own two children. She is said to be engaged to D's brother, but is not living with him. I was told that the arrangement has been put on hold. The mother told me explicitly that the grandmother had given up her tenancy in March 2014. I asked for enquiries to be made about this and Ms McMullen (I am very grateful to her solicitor) was able to tell me just before judgment the upshot of those enquiries. Those are that a possession order was made on Tuesday 26^th May 2015 (earlier this week) in favour of the LB, that there were arrears of £4,000 relating to a year or more with costs of about £4,500 owed and that if the grandmother was able to pay the arrears there is a prospect that she could recover her accommodation. The father says that he has recently seen the grandmother in local shops on a number of occasions and I note it was the grandmother who met W with C in London in December 2014. Significantly, and perhaps the expression "out of the mouths of babes" is an appropriate one, C told W that "Granny visits us in Ireland". The mother sought to explain this away by saying that Granny is living in a nearby village and this is what C was referring to when she spoke of her grandmother visiting her. However, the statement "Granny visits us in Ireland" suggests otherwise. I have no way of verifying what the mother says about the grandmother's address because none of these addresses have been disclosed. The mother's address has now been disclosed in writing to me, but the grandmother's address has not been disclosed. As I have said, I find it very surprising that she is still in temporary accommodation. The evidence about the tenancy was plainly wrong and the tenancy has never been given up, albeit that rent has not been paid. I asked about her brother and sister and what they are doing there. The mother gave some extremely vague evidence about her brother initially being at school or college for a few months, but now he spends his time fishing and playing on the computer (although he will be going to a college unknown from September). She said her sister is not working. She sees her sister every day. She is living with the grandmother in the nearby village, but I note this is in contradistinction to her written evidence when she refers to her sister having joined them recently. I am not satisfied that it has been established that the grandmother has made a permanent home in Ireland. I find it likely that she is going between the two countries and spending time in both countries. As to the position of the sister and the brother, I am unable to unravel what actually is going on. I am however satisfied that, if I am wrong about that and even if the grandmother has relocated to Ireland, she plainly has not put down roots there in terms of accommodation or employment. I find it likely that if the mother was not granted permission that the family, and in particular her mother (her main support), would be likely to return to England with her.

31. With those findings in mind, I turn to consider them within the framework of the Payne guidelines. I make it clear when I do so that they are solely guidelines. The overriding criterion is plainly welfare and the guidelines should not necessarily be determinative of the case. They are described as a useful and important discipline for the court. I have already presaged what I find in relation to the first question: Is the mother's application genuine in the sense that it is not motivated by some selfish desire to exclude the father from the child's life? I find that the mother's application is primarily motivated by a desire to exclude the father from the child's life. If the guidelines were determinative that would be the end of the mother's application. It would fall at the first hurdle. However as a discipline, I propose to go on and consider the rest of the Payne guidelines.
32. Is the mother's application realistically founded on practical proposals, both well researched and investigated? I have already spoken about the paucity of information and the veil of secrecy which covers the mother's practical proposals. In fairness to the mother it does appear from putting all the evidence together that she has found housing. I should interpolate to say that without her application being determined she has taken the step of taking on a five year tenancy, which I find quite extraordinary. I accept that her housing, because it has been seen by Irish Social Services, is likely to be at least adequate if not better; that the child has settled well into school and that she is now in receipt of benefits from the Irish State. I cannot call the application well researched because she went without housing, without any financial security and went effectively by way of flight. But I accept that on the areas that I have received information about the child's circumstances that there is nothing there to give rise to immediate concern. The difficulty is that I know so little.
33. What would be the impact upon the mother either as a single parent or a new wife of a refusal of her realistic proposal? In the normal case the mother is still present. She has not pre-empted the court's decision and the court is considering how she would feel having not left and being obliged to remain in the country where she was living at the time of the application. This case is different because the mother has already been there for fourteen months and I accept, and it must be obvious, that she would be greatly distressed by a refusal of her application for leave. Having said that I must take into account that she has put herself in this position, whereby she removed the child unlawfully, and it is difficult really for her to pray in aid that she has now been there for fourteen months when that has never had the approval of any court. I also accept, and I will consider this in more detail when I consider welfare, that C will be distressed at least in the short term by the upheaval. She has put down roots to some extent, she is enjoying school and has made friends and is described as being happy in her new location.
34. Is the father's opposition motivated by genuine concern for the future of the child's welfare or is it driven by some ulterior motive? Here again the mother contends that the father has no genuine interest in his daughter and is doing this all to get at her. I am wholly satisfied that the father's opposition is motivated by a genuine, wholly understandable and wholly appropriate desire to see some future in his relationship with his daughter. His commitment to her is plainly evidenced by the tenacity with which he has continued through the courts for a period now of five years.
35. What would be the extent of the detriment to him and his future relationship with the child were the application granted? Here the evidence of W after he had heard the evidence of the parents is highly relevant. It was plain to W having heard the evidence that the mother places no real value on the paternal relationship at all. The factor which caused W to change his mind about his recommendation to the court went to the root of this question. He considered that the prospect of the father being able to build up and then consolidate a relationship with C would be virtually non-existent were she to stay in Ireland. This would be not only because of the mother's attitude, but also because of practical and logistical difficulties. He saw proximity as the only way in which there would be any prospect of this relationship being furthered in any meaningful way. I agree with him. I consider there would be enormous detriment to the father and his future relationship with C were the mother to remain in Ireland.
36. To what extent would that detriment be offset by extension of the child's relationships with the maternal family and the homeland? I have already made my findings about the immediate maternal family and what I consider would be likely to happen. The mother has other relatives, uncles, aunts and cousins in Ireland; but her immediate family and, in particular, her mother, are the relatives who provide her with support and nurturance and I have already formed the view that her mother, at least, is likely to return with her if she does not get leave. In fact it needs to be observed also that, whilst the mother is Irish by origin, she has spent her entire childhood and adult life (save for very limited periods) living in England as, I understand, did her own mother. Therefore, I do not consider that the detriment would in any significant way be offset by extension of the child's relationships with the maternal family.

Welfare

37. C's welfare is my paramount consideration and I must apply the welfare checklist. The evidence of W on welfare was clear. He rightly stressed the paramount importance of this little girl being able to have a relationship with her father. He is part of her genetic inheritance. He is part of her identity. It is a fundamental part of her right to a family life. This is something that the mother must come to understand. Regardless of her feelings about the father, it is this little girl's right to have a relationship with her father. There is no guarantee, as W recognised, of success if the mother is living in England. But what was plain to him and is plain to me, if the mother remained in Ireland that relationship would wither and die. That is not only because of the mother's attitude, but, as I have said, because of the real practical and logistical difficulties in a scenario where finances are scarce and resources are limited.
38. Looking at C's wishes and feelings: Plainly if she were asked it is overwhelmingly obvious what her answer would be, but I have to have regard to her wishes and feelings in the context that they have been distorted in a very fundamental way by the attitude of the mother and her family. Her wishes and feelings, had they not been distorted, I would imagine would be to wish to have a relationship with her other parent. Therefore, I can place little weight upon her expressed wishes and feelings.
39. C's needs are to have a meaningful relationship with both her parents; to be given respite from this enduring litigation and from the battle being waged over her head. She needs stability and she needs consistency.
40. The ability of the parents to meet her needs: The mother in other respects has many good qualities as a mother. The child, C, the father acknowledges, has her basic needs well met. She is a delightful child, as seen by other adults. She is well looked after in a physical sense and I have no doubt that her mother provides her with emotional warmth and the reports say so. The obvious and central deficit in the care her mother is able to give her relates to her relationship with her father which the mother has poisoned. So far as the father is concerned, he has never had an opportunity to interact with her in any meaningful way let alone look after her. He has limited experience as a parent. I hear he babysits for his nephews and nieces, but his relationship with his other child is non-existent in terms of direct contact. He tells me he is in regular indirect contact with her. I accept entirely the views of W about the father. There were some concerning aspects of his evidence. I am troubled by the fact that he did not know his other daughter's date of birth. I am troubled by the fact that, really in a reprise of what happened with the mother, his relationship with his other daughter's mother broke down before her birth and that he has not established any meaningful relationship with her outside of indirect contact. He says that the mother of his other daughter has taken her cue from what is going on in these proceedings, namely that he is not allowed to see C other than in a supervised setting, that there must be some concern. Having said that she knows him, she's had a child with him and I tend to the view that there is likely to be a bit more to it than the father sought to disclose. I should make clear that I am not suggesting that there was, for example, domestic violence in the relationship. There is no evidence and I do not see the father as being someone who would behave in that way, but I remain of the view that I have not necessarily heard the full story in terms of what has passed between him and his other daughter's mother. There is also the concern expressed by W that he can be somewhat passive in contact, but in mitigation of that I accept that he is walking on eggshells and does not know what to do for the best. I consider that he could do with some help in terms of his parenting by way, for example, of parenting courses and I also see him, I have to say, as being somewhat immature. He has not established really any ongoing career for himself. There have been attempts over time to join the army, but they do not seem to have progressed very far. What I am clear about is that he loves his daughter very much indeed and when he spoke about her in answers to questions from Mr. Horsley that was absolutely plain. Even given the limited direct knowledge he has of her, his love for her was obvious. Finally, I should say that I do consider it somewhat unsatisfactory that he has not pursued his contact with his other daughter. He spoke about petrol costs to D and not being able to afford it, but, as W said, that really sounded somewhat lame. So I am afraid I do have to make certain criticisms of the father, but, having said that, he has been totally committed to his daughter in his pursuit of this litigation. He has been thwarted at every step and many less determined fathers would simply have walked away and washed their hands of the whole affair. It is greatly to his credit that he has persisted.
41. Any harm that C has suffered or is at risk of suffering? This case really involves a balance of harm test. Plainly, there will be short term upheaval and distress for this little girl if she leaves the place she has come to see as home. I agree with W that that can be mitigated if there are proper endings and that if I refuse leave she should be entitled to finish her school term in a planned way. I also agree with him that children do suffer moves in life as a result of events that arise in their parents' lives and the most important thing is the attachments that the child has. I consider W was right when he said that that is more fundamental than any short term distress. I also have to take into account that if the mother is forced to return against her will that that is likely to impact upon her. If it is possible to imagine it may make her even more embittered against the father, although it is hard to see frankly that it could get any worse. W observed that C herself could associate coming back with her father and it could thus militate against the development of a relationship. So I have to balance those factors against the loss of a relationship with her father. The upheaval of moving, I am satisfied, will cause short term distress. The mother's attitude is there anyway and is something that has to be worked with or worked round. I have to balance all the harms that W identified against the long term and lifelong effect of her having no relationship with her father. I am quite satisfied that in conducting that balance of harm test that the balance falls down strongly in favour of giving her a better chance of having a relationship with her father. As I have already indicated, if she remains in Ireland I am wholly satisfied that simply is not going to happen. There is no guarantee of success, far from it, in England; but, as W said, the key thing is proximity and the ability to see her at regular intervals.
42. In all the circumstances I am quite satisfied that I should refuse leave for the mother to relocate to Ireland. I consider that she should be entitled to stay there until the end of the school term and I will make a specific issue order, which I agree with Mr. Horsley I am entitled to make, which is in accordance with Article 11 of Brussels II Revised that the mother return the child to this jurisdiction immediately after the school term ends and not remove her thereafter, save by agreement with the father or by order of the court.
43. I have not said anything about the other applications. It must be clear from all that I have said thus far that the father's application for C to live with him cannot succeed. He has no relationship with her at the current time, there is no attachment and the mother has been her primary carer throughout her life. It really is not conceivable that he could simply take over the care and I do not in those circumstances really need to consider in detail the various practical difficulties that such a course would entail. I consider at some level he recognised that that was not going to be the outcome.
44. The other matters that I need to deal with are, firstly, parental responsibility. It goes without saying that this father should have parental responsibility. The mother should understand that she has a duty to consult the father. Sometimes parents cannot agree. Ones parental responsibility does not override the other's and ultimately if they cannot agree on an issue relating to the child's upbringing the court will have to decide. I cannot see this father, frankly, as being someone who is likely to seek to interfere in an unhelpful way with, for example, the school that C attends or her medical care. He has shown dedicated commitment to his daughter. The fact that he has no current attachment is no fault of his and his motivation for seeking parental responsibility is an entirely pure one, I am quite satisfied. It is important for C too, that his status as her father should be formally recognised and I have no hesitation in granting him parental responsibility.
45. I come on to deal with the question of disclosure of the mother's address and the child's school. Obviously this is not quite so central now because she is going to be coming back, but certain principles are involved. I asked the mother what the objection was to the father knowing the child's address and the address of her school. She said, again, it was the risk of harassment by him or his associates. I asked whether that was really likely and realistic that he with his limited resources would make the trip over to Ireland in order to harass her. Also it would be remarkably stupid because he could not argue if he was wandering the streets of her village that this was accidental. She said then, well, he could send friends. Again, I find that he would not do that and perhaps this is a reflection of the mother's rampant paranoia. I consider that the way things have gone these last few years has now got to change fundamentally. The mother has to address within herself her whole approach to her child's future. The father is not going to go away. He should not have to go away. She needs to address in a fundamental way her daughter's right to know her other parent. I consider that the father should have the address. I consider the father should have the name of the school. In a way it may be very helpful to the mother because when nothing happens (and I am sure nothing will happen) she will see that her fears have been unwarranted.
46. I cannot bring this case to a close in terms of C's relationships with her parents. Her relationship with her father is non-existent and it seems to me that the mother has a deep seated need for some therapeutic help to deal with these fears and paranoia that seem to be so much a feature of her presentation and also her attitude towards the father. I asked W for help as to what resource might be available when the parties have limited financial resources themselves and he found it very hard to come up with a solution. In the end it seemed to me that the only recourse that the court has in this situation is to seek the assistance of the Local Authority. I am satisfied that this is a case where C has suffered significant harm and I consider it entirely appropriate that there should be a s.37 direction addressed to the appropriate authority to report. Mr. Horsley has rightly asked me to identify what the issues are. The issues for me are the significant harm that C has suffered as a result of the climate of fear in which she has lived and the resulting effect this has had on her attitude towards her father. How can that be addressed? The Local Authority will be obliged to consider under s.37 whether there should be statutory proceedings taken or at the very least whether C should be regarded as a child in need. I consider that she is a child in need and I hope that they will take that approach. Thirdly, I consider it essential that the Local Authority address what therapeutic assistance the mother can obtain to help her to come to terms with this decision and for this destructive pattern which has pervaded this little girl's life so far to stop. The mother must understand that things must change. They cannot go on like this. I do not say this in any way as a threat, but if the mother goes on in this destructive mode in terms of the father's relationship ultimately the court must look to the question of the child's primary care. Therefore, in my view, it is essential that the mother receives some skilled help in attempting to come to terms with the basic fact of the child having a relationship with her father. Whilst the mother's need for help is acute, the whole family would benefit from family therapy or something similar. C also needs help to enable her to see that her father is not a danger to her and the local authority may need to think of a referral to CAMHS.
47. I direct that the mother make a statement within a time period that I will discuss setting out her plans for her relocation so that the appropriate authority can be directed to provide a s.37 report. That will also be essential to consider the nature of the contact arrangements in this country. It is very difficult not knowing what the mother's plans are to set in stone any contact proposal. I tend to agree with W that the sort of frequency that one is looking at at the present time is in the order of four to six weekly. I have now dealt with all the issues that are in front of me and that is my judgment in this application.
______________