A vs R and N

This case concerned an application by the father, 'A', for the summary return of his children to Uganda, opposed by the mother, 'R', and the intervenor, 'N'.

TLDR:

• Father applied for the summary return of his children to Uganda.
• Mother and intervenor opposed the application.
• The court ruled against the summary return, focusing on the children's best interests.

The case was brought before the High Court of Justice, Family Division, with His Honour Judge Middleton-Roy presiding. The father, 'A', applied under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court for an Order for the summary return of his four children to Uganda. The mother, 'R', and the intervenor, 'N', opposed the application.

The children, referred to as 'E', 'Z', 'D', and 'V', were born in Uganda and lived there until November 2022, when the mother took them to the United Kingdom without the father's consent. The father sought their return, arguing that their removal was in breach of a Ugandan court order that granted joint custody and prohibited taking the children out of Uganda without mutual consent.

The mother argued that returning to Uganda would not be in the children's best interests, citing allegations of domestic abuse by the father and concerns over the children's welfare. The court also considered the children's wishes and feelings, as reported by a Cafcass Family Court Adviser.

The court noted that the children had integrated well into life in the United Kingdom, attending school and forming friendships. The Cafcass report indicated that the children were happy and settled in their current environment, expressing a clear wish to remain in the UK.

The court acknowledged the serious nature of the mother's allegations against the father but did not conduct a fact-finding inquiry into these claims. Instead, the focus remained on the welfare and best interests of the children.

Ultimately, the court concluded that a summary return to Uganda would not be in the best interests of the children. The judge emphasized the importance of stability and continuity in the children's lives, noting that a return to Uganda would cause significant disruption and emotional harm.

The court dismissed the father's application for the summary return of the children, allowing them to remain in the United Kingdom with their mother.

Legal representatives: Ms Jennifer Perrins, Counsel for the Applicant, instructed by international Family Law Group LLP; Mr Gibson-Lee, Counsel for the Respondent and Intervenor, instructed by Chancery Children's Services Solicitors.

Judicial Panel: His Honour Judge Middleton-Roy

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 988 (Fam)