AP vs AF

This case involved an application by the mother to discharge a prohibited steps order and allow her to take her child to Colombia for a holiday, opposed by the father due to concerns of potential non-return.

TLDR:

• Mother applied to discharge a prohibited steps order to take the child to Colombia.
• Father opposed, fearing the child would not return.
• The court permitted the holiday with safeguards in place.

The case involved AP (the Mother) and AF (the Father) regarding their child, O. The Mother sought to discharge a prohibited steps order preventing her from taking O to Colombia for a holiday. The Father opposed the application, fearing that the Mother would retain O in Colombia. O, represented by his Guardian, supported the Mother's application.

The Mother, aged 35, originally from Colombia, and the Father, aged 44, of British and part Burmese heritage, had a relationship that began around 2005-2007. They married in Colombia in 2007 and later in the UK in 2009. Their child, O, was born in 2010. The relationship broke down in 2013, leading to a prohibited steps order in December 2013 to prevent the Mother from taking O out of the UK jurisdiction.

In 2015, the Mother applied to take O to Colombia for a holiday, but the application was refused due to concerns about Colombia's compliance with the Hague Convention and the potential risk of non-return. The court maintained the prohibited steps order. Subsequent applications by the Mother to vary the order to allow travel to other countries were also dismissed.

In September 2021, the Mother applied again to discharge the prohibited steps order, citing changes in her circumstances, including a stable relationship with Mr M, with whom she had a baby daughter. The Father opposed, citing ongoing concerns about Colombia's safety and the risk of non-return.

The court considered expert evidence on Colombia's compliance with the Hague Convention, the Mother's ties to the UK, and O's wishes. The Guardian supported the Mother's application, noting the importance of O's cultural identity and the Mother's established life in the UK.

After hearing oral evidence from both parents and the Guardian, the court found that the risk of the Mother not returning O to the UK was very low. The court acknowledged the significant changes in the Mother's circumstances and her genuine commitment to ensuring O's return.

The court permitted the Mother to take O to Colombia for up to three weeks, with safeguards including a charge on the Mother's property and conditions regarding Mr M's presence during the trip. The prohibited steps order was discharged, allowing future travel without court applications, provided detailed travel plans were shared in advance.

The court emphasized the importance of O's relationship with both parents and the benefits of experiencing his Colombian heritage. The decision highlighted the evolving approach to international travel in family law cases, balancing risks with cultural and familial benefits.

Legal representatives: The Applicant appeared in person, Ms. Ruth Matthews for the First Respondent, Ms. Laura Searle for the Second Respondent

Judicial Panel: Mr. Justice Moor

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWFC 104