A (A Child) (Removal to non-Hague country) (No 2), Re

In unusual child-removal cases, the court may adjourn rather than determine immediately the date or mechanism of a child’s return where the welfare evidence is materially uncertain and future circumstances are likely to affect the outcome. The general desirability of finality in children proceedings does not require an artificial or premature welfare determination.

The court should consider whether continuing judicial and guardian involvement will promote the child’s welfare and avoid duplicated litigation. Relevant factors include the child’s relationship with each parent, the practical arrangements for any return, the stability of the child’s interim home, and the likely development of the evidence.

Disclosure of a child’s temporary address may be ordered where the welfare benefits of ordinary communication and trust-building outweigh identified risks.

The proceedings concerned a seven-year-old child who had been taken by her mother from England and Wales to a non-Hague country and had remained there with her maternal grandmother. The father had previously sought her summary return. At this hearing, the parties substantially agreed interim living and contact arrangements, but disagreed about whether her return should occur in 2025 or 2026 and whether a deferred return order should be made.

The mother offered an undertaking to return the child by summer 2026. The father ultimately aligned himself with the guardian’s position that the court lacked sufficient information to make a clear welfare determination about the return date. The issues also included the timing of a review hearing, continuing involvement by the guardian and Cafcass, and disclosure of the child’s temporary address.

1. Adjournment. The application was adjourned rather than dismissed or finally determined. The court accepted that the date and mechanism of the child’s return should be considered nearer the time when the decision would become operative.
2. The decision required a difficult welfare balance. The child was settled and doing well in her temporary home, but remaining there limited her direct relationship with both parents and risked longer-term consequences, particularly for her relationship with her father. The court was entitled to take account of the extent to which that relationship might be restored before the return issue was reconsidered.
3. There was substantial uncertainty about the mother’s completion of her nursing course, registration, employment, working arrangements and ability to provide care after any return. That uncertainty was directly relevant to the child’s welfare and made an immediate determination of the return date inappropriate.
4. Although finality is generally desirable in children proceedings, it was outweighed in this case by the benefits of preserving the guardian’s and Cafcass’s continuing role, facilitating specialist contact support, obtaining further information and avoiding a fresh application followed by duplicated directions and hearings.
5. A review hearing was directed for the earlier part of 2025, preferably late January or February. No addendum guardian’s report or further evidence was directed at that stage. The parties were instead to exchange position statements, with the guardian responding after considering the parents’ positions. Earlier restoration remained available if difficulties arose.
6. The court concluded that the child’s temporary address should be disclosed to the father. The welfare benefits of direct letters, gifts, photographs and ordinary communication, and of avoiding the suggestion that the father represented a danger, outweighed the alleged risks. The agreed child arrangements and contact provisions were otherwise to operate as directed.

This was a first-instance decision in continuing Family Division proceedings. The judge had previously dealt with the father’s application for the child’s summary return in September 2023 and had indicated that the application would not be granted on the summary basis advanced.