A, B, C (Children), Re

Where cross-border children proceedings are compromised before disputed allegations have been examined, the court should record clearly that it has made no findings on those allegations. Any future court must case-manage the matter afresh, including deciding whether proceedings should continue under the inherent jurisdiction or proceed by a section 8 application, and whether fact-finding or further assessment is required. Interim contact arrangements should be shaped by the children’s welfare, safety, existing professional knowledge and the practical consequences of transferring the case to a new court or professional team.

The father sought the return of three children from England to Belgium. His applications concerned registration and enforcement of a Belgian order relating to the youngest child, proceedings under the Hague Convention, the inherent jurisdiction, and the elder children’s return under the inherent jurisdiction. The mother challenged registration of the Belgian order and opposed summary return on the basis of alleged risks of physical or emotional harm. The children were joined and separately represented.

The parties reached an agreement before the final hearing. The father agreed not to pursue the return applications or Belgian proceedings, subject to re-establishing contact. The remaining issue concerned the practical arrangements for initial supervised contact and the future involvement of CAFCASS.

1. Disposition. The parties had settled their differences. The father would not pursue the applications for the children’s return to Belgium or the extant Belgian proceedings, provided that contact could be re-established. The court nevertheless gave judgment to record the position and provide practical guidance.
2. No findings on disputed allegations. The court made no finding about alleged violence within the parental relationship or about the children’s reports of violence. Those issues had not been examined, and the court expressly had no view as to where the truth lay. CAFCASS’s concerns were recorded only as concerns requiring consideration on a later occasion.
3. Initial contact. In the particular circumstances, the initial one-off supervised contact should be facilitated by the children’s existing CAFCASS guardian. She knew the children, had a good rapport with them, and understood the background. Using a new professional or transferring the matter immediately to a local court would risk delay and additional public expense.
4. Future case management. The CAFCASS guardian agreed to supervise the initial contact but did not undertake continuing involvement. If the parties could not agree future arrangements, the next judge would have to decide whether the inherent jurisdiction should continue or whether a section 8 application should be made, the appropriate venue and level of judge, and whether fact-finding or further assessment was needed. Those decisions would depend on how contact proceeded and on the parties’ continuing ability to agree arrangements safeguarding the children’s welfare.
5. The parents were urged to treat the arrangements as a new beginning and to cooperate so that the children could have safe and fulfilling relationships with both parents.

The judgment records proceedings in Belgium concerning custody, parental responsibility and the youngest child’s return. In England, the father issued Hague Convention proceedings and applications under the inherent jurisdiction. The Belgian order was registered and cleared for enforcement by District Judge McGregor on 29 April 2016, and the mother appealed that registration under article 23 of Brussels II revised. The parties settled before the final hearing before Mr Justice Bodey.