Summary
The parties married on 29th August 1992, and they moved to France in 2005.
The proceedings were initiated by the father’s originating summons.
The father alleged that the children’s habitual residence was in France, and they were wrongfully removed.
Mother argued that the move to France was not a permanent one, and the habitual residence of the children remained in England. The proceedings were concerned with an application by the children to join as parties to the proceedings.
Mr Justice Ryder granted their application, stating that:
“ 46 This is a rare case where a number of relatively old, articulate, close in age, children all vigorously and apparently rationally object to a return to France. Their views are almost ad idem, although they are of different ages. This is not a case where the children are unaware of the issues or of their parents' very different stances. Accordingly this is also not a case where the children will be exposed by the proceedings to issues with which they have not previously been involved and to that extent arguably already harmed. By the nature of their ages and understanding and the events that have happened i.e. facts that have affected them as distinct from events that have yet to occur, the substance of the issues in these proceedings have already well and truly intruded into their lives. It is difficult to see how their involvement in the proceedings to have advocated that which they already very firmly express can be any more intrusive or harmful for them. The very partiality of their position and their parents' positions will cause them harm, not their involvement as parties to the proceedings. They already oppose their father and not having the opportunity to say what they think and why they think it is more likely in my judgment to cause them harm than allowing them to express their views and wishes and to have their positions advocated professionally by their lawyers.
47 This application has been made extremely promptly. No delay, or at least minimal delay as to the listing of the final hearing will result from the granting of the application. In the context of C being separately represented there are only minimal expense considerations for his siblings to be provided with the same service.” [46-47]