S (Father) v D (Mother)

Poonam Bhari (instructed by Birmingham Legal Limited) for the Applicant (father) Naomi Scarano (instructed by Charles Strachan Solicitors) for the Respondent (mother) Hearing dates: 14 December 2018 and 15 January 2019 ____________________

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

I have not seen this evidence, or anything like it, and the mother has not specifically addressed it in her evidence; I can, accordingly, reach no conclusion about it. The father further asserts that the mother has historically made (and continues to make) a living as a stripper, and that this lifestyle contributed to her former husband's success in his bid to care for her older children.

ii) the father would, within reason I dare say, offer any undertakings which the court reasonably required in order to secure the return of A.

The mother's case (with regard to Article 13(b) ) is that A would be likely to be exposed to domestic abuse perpetrated by his father if returned to Hungary; in this regard, the mother refers (as I indicated above) to a history of domestic violence and of course to the father's recent conviction following the assault on 15 April 2018. In considering this issue, I have much in mind what was said by the Supreme Court Justices in Re E (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal) [2011] 2 FLR 758 at [31-35], specifically: