[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions >> EM v BK [2021] EWHC 108 (Fam) (22 January 2021) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2021/108.html Cite as: [2021] EWHC 108 (Fam) |
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
FAMILY DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
EM |
Applicant |
|
- and – |
||
BK |
Respondent |
____________________
Michael Gration (instructed by Advocate) appeared pro bono for the respondent
Hearing dates: 21 and 22 January 2021
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Mostyn:
"The aforementioned act [of abduction], irrespective of the total disregard of the clear judicial provision, must be deemed, given the evidence provided, as gravely detrimental to the right of the minors to dual parenthood, and as seriously harmful to their balanced emotional and physical development. … Given what has been said, the conditions exist to urgently give exclusive and immediate custody of both minors to the father who, pending a complete assessment regarding the economic merits of the case, will directly provide for the total maintenance of children for ordinary expenses, without prejudice to the 50% division of extraordinary expenses between the spouses"
I shall refer to this judgment as "the Rome judgment".
"I noted that C recited an adult-sounding statement about his father choosing to spend money on court proceedings and not supporting them financially. On reading the papers again I noted this was a similar complaint [the mother] makes in her statement [para. 17], leading to me suspect this is an adult view that he has heard, either indirectly or directly and repeated. C referred to the Italian Court making the wrong decision, without being able to explain what he meant by this. A at times spoke rapidly and presented as a child keen to relay his narrative which, can be an indicator of a rehearsed nature. He justifies the removal by stating the second Italian Court decision did not expressly prohibit the children being removed to live abroad. Putting aside that the removal does not allow for the children to spend time with their father under a shared care basis as ordered by the Court, it seems to me this is a rationale that could only be advanced by [the mother] and one that A came to became aware of either directly or indirectly."
To my mind this clearly shows that the children have been subjected to indoctrination and manipulation. I therefore do not place much weight on their objections as recorded by Ms Jolly.