Judge sends children to Australia with mother and tells father to talk to them via th

Klingon Hamlet

Here's an article from The Daily Mail:

The country’s most senior family judge yesterday told a father fighting to stop his former partner taking their children to Australia that he could keep in touch with them via Skype.

The man’s plea to keep the two youngsters in England was rejected by Sir Nicholas Wall, President of the Family Division.

He said the decision was in the ‘best interests of the children’ although the father’s objections ‘came from the heart’.

Sir Nicholas sympathised with the difficulties of keeping in touch with the youngsters on the other side of the world but said the man could use instant communications such as Skype.

The leading judge said he ‘did not minimise’ the father’s objections but added that modern ways of keeping in touch meant the children’s move would not destroy their relationship.

It is not known if the man, who lives in Devon, has access to the technology required. The hearing at the Appeal Court in London followed a ruling last year which had banned the mother from moving to Australia.

Then, the father had successfully argued that the pre-teen children’s departure would destroy his ‘embryonic’ relationship with them.

At Exeter County Court, Judge David Tyzack QC agreed that the children were at a critical stage in their links with their father.

He said the bond between the youngsters and the paternal side of their family would be severely damaged if they emigrated. Any departure would be a ‘grave loss’.

But that decision was overturned yesterday, with Sir Nicholas saying it was ‘plainly’ wrong.

Sir Nicholas said the age of Skype meant the children's move did not mean the destruction of their relationship with their father

Sitting with Lord Justice Lloyd and Lord Justice Elias, he said he was confident that neither the English nor the Australian courts would ‘sit idly by and allow the relationship to wither’.

Lord Justice Lloyd said the mother planned for the children to return to the UK for one month each year to stay with their father.

In the meantime, ‘contact by Skype, post and otherwise would be arranged’, he added.

The court had heard that the parents, who cannot be named for legal reasons, never married and had ‘grown a long way apart’ since splitting up.

The mother said she would be ‘devastated’ if her plans to go to Australia with her children were not allowed.

New life: The mother had said she felt 'isolated, trapped and depressed in England'

Sir Nicholas said: ‘I have reached the clear conclusion that the best interests of the children require the mother’s application to relocate with them to Australia to succeed.’

He concluded that the balance ‘pointed overwhelmingly’ towards the mother getting her wish to move to Australia, where she believes the children will enjoy a better lifestyle.

The mother had said she felt ‘isolated, trapped and depressed in England’ and Sir Nicholas added the children clearly wanted to go with her.

Describing the decision as ‘really hard’ for the father, Lord Justice Lloyd said that, whichever conclusion the court reached, the outcome would be ‘extremely difficult, and even harsh, for one parent or the other’.

I think this is an awful situation. The mum would be sad to stay in UK with her kiddies. The father would be sad to be without his kiddies 11 months a year, except for webcam chats.

Where should the decision go? Is the mum being selfish? Or is the father being naive?

CrazyRabbit

So he based his ruling on the presumption that the mother would no longer suffer from depression if she lived in Australia, and that the children would have a better lifestyle????

Absolutely madness. Regardless of what I think about the decision, or what is best for the children, any judge that makes a decision on pure speculation should not be a judge.

CrazyRabbit

As for the issue itself. When you have a child, you make a commitment to ensure the well-being of that child. I think that should mean doing everything to ensure that BOTH parents have direct access to the child (well except if the parent is abusive).

Parents have the greatest impact on the development of children. Removing one, or both of them can only have a negative impact on the children.

Bad decision by the judge. Neither parent should be allowed to remove the other from the relationship.

Orion

I don't know. tbh I don't think there's enough information (typical Daily Mail). Is the mother Australian? The fact that the rag doesn't say where she's from leads to believe she is.

There's another factor at play here - the right to travel. I think a judge would have to seriously think long and hard before restricting that right. If she has custody then the children would travel with her. You could look at it from another perspective - the judge is not allowing her to take them - he is reversing a previous decision to restrict her right to travel with her children - a decision that he says is "plainly wrong". imo he's right in this regard.

He also said that he believes it is in the best interests of the children and he may be right. If the mother is depressed that would not be in the childrens' interests either.

As a father myself, I can empathise and sympathise with this man but the mother is not deliberately cutting him out of the childrens' lives. He can keep in touch with them and will get 1 month a year. This is not the 80s - with modern technology they can talk face to face regularly. It's obviously not ideal but it's still possible to keep up a relationship with them.

Based on the information given and trying to think objectively I have to side with the mother & judge.

Orion

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Is the mum being selfish? Or is the father being naive?

Neither in my opinion. He's fighting for his children and who would blame him. She feels she has to move for whatever reason. I think it would be simplistic to label either of them without knowing all the facts.

Andre80Johnson

Yer man need's to get his eyebrows waxed.

On a serious note, it's a sad situation really. I don't think it's fair for a parent to lose their children to the other side of the globe. Especially if they are young.

Klingon Hamlet

From what I gather, the dad gets 4 weeks a year in which he can give his children hugs and kisses.

cnocbui

I side with the Judge on this.

The lives of the Mother and children should not be hindered or dictated by the Father. I think he is being staggeringly selfish, personally.

Perhaps he should look at relocating to Australia himself. Obviously the mother qualified.

the_syco

Think about it. She's in Oz. Why would she ever come back? What's to prevent her from staying there, and never letting her kids talk to their father via skype? Nothing.

She says she is depressed in the UK. Is she on medication for depression? Has she a visa for Oz? Has she any support over there? Family, friends, anyone?

January

The mother had said she felt 'isolated, trapped and depressed in England'[/QUOTE
]

Makes me think she's Australian and wants to go back to her family and friends rather than starting a "new life" in Australia without the father.

Klingon Hamlet

January wrote: »

The mother had said she felt 'isolated, trapped and depressed in England'[/QUOTE
]

Makes me think she's Australian and wants to go back to her family and friends rather than starting a "new life" in Australia without the father.

She started a new life in the UK. Had children with the father. Then decided the UK wasn't for her.

It's all very sad really.

January

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

She started a new life in the UK. Had children with the father. Then decided the UK wasn't for her.

It's all very sad really.

I know a few single mothers who are from different countries (mother and toddler group) and a lot of them would love nothing more than to head back to have their families support but don't want to take the father out of the equation.

A happy mother makes a happy child at the end of the day... same goes for the father too, but if the mother is the primary carer what good is it going to do to the children if she's miserable all the time?

Klingon Hamlet

January wrote: »

I know a few single mothers who are from different countries (mother and toddler group) and a lot of them would love nothing more than to head back to have their families support but don't want to take the father out of the equation.

A happy mother makes a happy child at the end of the day... same goes for the father too, but if the mother is the primary carer what good is it going to do to the children if she's miserable all the time?

It's a conundrum all right. Would she be miserable back at home with her family? If so, should she return to UK? Should her level of happiness determine her children's future? And where does the father factor in---secondary? If so, why?

Orion

Don't forget you're making assumptions here. While the Mail only refers to him as being from Devon - and being the Mail is probably on a bloody immigrants stealing our children rant - it is still entirely possible that she's from the UK too. Maybe she just wants a fresh start, maybe his family live close by and are giving her a hard time, maybe she has friends in Oz, etc etc. We don't have the full facts.

FunnyStuff

This starts to appear weird to me with todays decision by british lawmakers that grandparents are to be given legal rights over their grandchildren. This can of worms has never been bigger or more ridiculously complicated.

metrovelvet

Not enough information given so my opinion is based on an incomplete picture.

I am old fashioned and don't think a webcam and substitute for real presence. People are fooling themselves with SKYPE. LDRS are hardly satisfying in adult relationships, let alone parent child. [So basically if SKYPE didnt exist she wouldnt be allowed to go? Ridiculous that a family ruling is based on SKYPE.]

I am very ambivalent about this ruling and I can totally relate to the mother in this picture, being a foreigner myself feeling isolated and trapped and cant wait to go home. However, the dad was a long established presence in these kids lives and this kind of separation should not be taken lightly. The kids want to go, the mother wants to go too, and Australia has a lot to offer.

At the same time, she decided to start a family in England with an Englishman. So...you cant just turn around and change your mind. *Biggest myth in seperation and divorce is that you can stop acting as a family. You cant.

My solution would be he should go to Australia with them by way of a family majority rules, if he can get a visa or she and the kids should stay in England.

enfant terrible

metrovelvet wrote: »

Not enough information given so my opinion is based on an incomplete picture.

I am old fashioned and don't think a webcam and substitute for real presence. People are fooling themselves with SKYPE. LDRS are hardly satisfying in adult relationships, let alone parent child. [So basically if SKYPE didnt exist she wouldnt be allowed to go? Ridiculous that a family ruling is based on SKYPE.]

I am very ambivalent about this ruling and I can totally relate to the mother in this picture, being a foreigner myself feeling isolated and trapped and cant wait to go home. However, the dad was a long established presence in these kids lives and this kind of separation should not be taken lightly. The kids want to go, the mother wants to go too, and Australia has a lot to offer.

At the same time, she decided to start a family in England with an Englishman. So...you cant just turn around and change your mind. *Biggest myth in seperation and divorce is that you can stop acting as a family. You cant.

My solution would be he should go to Australia with them by way of a family majority rules, if he can get a visa or she and the kids should stay in England.

Judge probably used Skype once and thought it was good.

LegacyUser

So the judge is agreeing that the UK is isolating and depressing and that children are better off in Australia? I guess he got that bit right! (disclaimer: I'm an Aussie)

It's a hard situation and no-one really wins, but I think it's terribly sad that the judge thinks electronic communication is a decent enough substitute for a real parent.

If this is the case, I might just set up a laptop in my son's room and if he cries, we can just skype.

CrazyRabbit

cnocbui wrote: »

I side with the Judge on this.

The lives of the Mother and children should not be hindered or dictated by the Father. I think he is being staggeringly selfish, personally.

Perhaps he should look at relocating to Australia himself. Obviously the mother qualified.

Likewise....
The lives of the Father and children should not be hindered or dictated by the Mother. I think she is being staggeringly selfish, personally.

There is no definable benefit for the kids. And obviously a negative effect on the father. So the only person that gains anything is the mother. Very selfish.

metrovelvet

My guess is she is an Australian citizen and a British judge did not want to force her to stay in a country that was not hers and step on the toes of the Australians.

Skype is a lousy justification.

bulmersgal

Why do we all presume that the father is so great and the mother is so bad. From reading the article I presume she's from Australia. So she'd have better life over there with family and friends.

We don't no how often this father is visiting his children at present? How far the father lives from his children in the uk? Is there contact through phone calls and some visits.

There's a lot of questions we don't no about this case. I no for a fact that if I wanted to move my ex would object and bring me to court even though he hasn't seen out child in 2 months. The article is frustrating because its not telling us the whole story

stargazer 68

Im sure there is more to this than meets the eye

There was a story on the radio last night about a woman who has remarried and wants to move to Oz with her 10 year old son. The father of the boy won't sign the papers etc to allow her to do this. Now the father was only around for the first 6 months of the childs life - he hasn't seen him since then or even sent birthday cards etc. So why shouldn't she be able to move on??

metrovelvet

Dovies wrote: »

Im sure there is more to this than meets the eye

There was a story on the radio last night about a woman who has remarried and wants to move to Oz with her 10 year old son. The father of the boy won't sign the papers etc to allow her to do this. Now the father was only around for the first 6 months of the childs life - he hasn't seen him since then or even sent birthday cards etc. So why shouldn't she be able to move on??

Because the whole principal around fathers rights is that the child be available to them. It doesnt matter if he excersises them or not. That is what a right is. It can't be taken away.

Its' like if you didnt vote for ten years, you'd still be able to.

pickarooney

Information is scant but assuming the mother is Australian I think it best she be allowed go back home, for her own happiness and that of the children. To be honest I think it's a bit rich for the father, who had nothing to do with the kids for the first ten years of their lives to want to prevent them and their mother moving on with their lives.

bulmersgal

metrovelvet wrote: »

Because the whole principal around fathers rights is that the child be available to them. It doesnt matter if he excersises them or not. That is what a right is. It can't be taken away.

Its' like if you didnt vote for ten years, you'd still be able to.

thats ridiculous, that other parent can't move on in there lives because he's on the birth cert. If a father hasn't seen a child for 9 and a half years in my eyes he's no longer a father same applies to a woman. If a parent sees there child regularly then they have every right as a parent to stop the move.

Rights should be taken away if there not used

metrovelvet

bulmersgal wrote: »

thats ridiculous, that other parent can't move on in there lives because he's on the birth cert. If a father hasn't seen a child for 9 and a half years in my eyes he's no longer a father same applies to a woman. If a parent sees there child regularly then they have every right as a parent to stop the move.

Rights should be taken away if there not used

Yes, I agree with you.

Rights can't be taken away.

Rights that can be taken away, are privileges.

When people pursue RIGHTS, the pursue powers which are unrevokable.

Saying that, in reality a father who hasn't seen his child in ten years probably has no court ordered custody agreement, as the mother probably had it revoked and she herself has a sole custody order, so then it becomes moot.

thebullkf

cnocbui wrote: »

I side with the Judge on this.

The lives of the Mother and children should not be hindered or dictated by the Father. I think he is being staggeringly selfish, personally.

Perhaps he should look at relocating to Australia himself. Obviously the mother qualified.

If the roles were reversed would you feel the same way

Withouit knowing the facts its pure speculation tbh.
How often does the father see the kids presently? If its every weekend and he's a good dad, then i think the Mother is being extremely selfish .
If he''s not,and is just flexing his parental muscles to throw a spanner in the mothers plans then he's a tool and i agree with the judge.

Theres definitely more to do this than is being released (for obvious reasons).

If she's 'isolated, trapped and depressed in England' then how is the kids living with her now doing the children any good

Who pays for the children/mother to travel for the month every year?
All she has to say is her PC's broke, power failure,can't afford PC to stop the kids getting in touch....(in fairness so can he)

not enough information available to make a judgement call on whether the judge was right or not,we simply don't know the facts,which is why i'm amazed that you're opinion of the father is that

is being staggeringly selfish

...

I assume you'ree female?

thebullkf

pickarooney wrote: »

Information is scant but assuming the mother is Australian I think it best she be allowed go back home, for her own happiness and that of the children. To be honest I think it's a bit rich for the father, who had nothing to do with the kids for the first ten years of their lives to want to prevent them and their mother moving on with their lives.

the article doesn't state that....

Daisy M

thebullkf wrote: »

the article doesn't state that....

I get the impression pickarooney was referring to dovies post re an news item he/she heard on the radio.

thebullkf

is mise astra wrote: »

I get the impression pickarooney was referring to dovies post re an news item he/she heard on the radio.

i thought he mixed them both up.... the australia bit

Daisy M

Tbh I dont think theres much point in discussing this item when we have such scant info to go on, these cases are rarely as black or white as they may first appear. I dont doubt that there are often huge injustices done to both mothers and fathers no telling if this is the case here.

Fittle

Another attempt at a fathers rights debate when in fact, we know little, if anything about the facts of this case. The Daily Mail is bad enough for jumping on the 'skype' bandwagon on this one, but this thread is as bad imo - what's the point in even attempting to discuss this when we know little, if any of the facts?

+1 is mise astra, on the previous post.

pickarooney

thebullkf wrote: »

the article doesn't state that....

It does - it refers to an embryonic relationship with his pre-teen children.

metrovelvet

pickarooney wrote: »

It does - it refers to an embryonic relationship with his pre-teen children.

Good catch. Missed that!

rolly1

The country’s most senior family judge yesterday told a father fighting to stop his former partner taking their children to Australia that he could keep in touch with them via Skype.

April 1 right?

rolly1

Anyway luckily we have a thing called guardianship in Ireland and a legal remedy to this kind of madness.

Anybody experiencing the trauma of this ludicrous situation check this link out

amiable

rolly1 wrote: »

Anyway luckily we have a thing called guardianship in Ireland and a legal remedy to this kind of madness imo.

Anybody experiencing the trauma of this ludicrous situation check this link out

FYP;)

thebullkf

pickarooney wrote: »

It does - it refers to an embryonic relationship with his pre-teen children.

where'd you get 10 years from? whats your definition of embryonic?

I assumed it meant that them moving away would be detrimental to his undeveloped relationship with them...

metrovelvet

thebullkf wrote: »

where'd you get 10 years from? whats your definition of embryonic?

I assumed it meant that them moving away would be detrimental to his undeveloped relationship with them...

Well it says they are pre-teens, so that would leave them in the 10-12 age group.

By embryonic, I would take that to mean the relationship was in its very early stages [meaning he had not known the kids before hand].

It's interesting though that the first judge banned her from leaving and it was overturned on appeal.

rolly1

amiable wrote: »

FYP;)

Cheers, the website the link goes to is down at the moment, but I presume it will come back pretty soon.

Here's an interesting comment on this case from a person who's own family has gone through this:

Some of the comments on here are way out of touch with reality - as are the judges who sit and agree to the whims of women who's only desire is to destroy a fathers relationship with his children.

It is not right for children to be removed from either parent, regardless if is the mother or the father. Every parent has to make sacrifices and if that is the fact that they will need to stay in the UK for a few years - then thats how it should be.

One comment on here describes how the pre-teen children want to move!!! How can any child make that decision? Most children can be persuaded that it will be exciting and new.

I have personal experience of this very thing. My children were taken from the UK by their mother to live in NZ - when they were a similar age. Asking the children only makes them feel guilty in the years ahead.

I hold absolutely no grudge against my childrens mother - but I do against the discriminations of the legal system. A mother only needs to show she will be upset if not allowed to destroy her family - what a crock of sh&%!!! The result in my case was that my children were taken to the other side of the world where their mother continued to flout the contact orders made. This resulted in SIGNIFICANT emotional problems with both of my children who have had to undertake lengthy therapy.

Why is the law so blatantly discriminating against fathers? Why does the law not consider the long term damage that can be caused to the children? Why does the law completely ignore the statute that weighs the quality of the childs life - merely weighing up if a fully grown adult might be a little upset?

Maybe one of these very learned judges could speak with both myself and my children to understand the damage they do in the name of justice!!!!!

thebullkf

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well it says they are pre-teens, so that would leave them in the 10-12 age group.

By embryonic, I would take that to mean the relationship was in its very early stages [meaning he had not known the kids before hand].

It's interesting though that the first judge banned her from leaving and it was overturned on appeal.

jeez i never got that from it.pre-teen could be 8,9 y.o... see this is the problem . not enough info.



*I defo think the other poster got mixed up with the immediately preceding posts that mentioned 10 years and assumed it referred to this case*

metrovelvet

thebullkf wrote: »

jeez i never got that from it.pre-teen could be 8,9 y.o... see this is the problem . not enough info.



*I defo think the other poster got mixed up with the immediately preceding posts that mentioned 10 years and assumed it referred to this case*

If you want to get technical as in dictionary technical its 10-13.

But even if you push it back to 8, an eight year absence and you are stopping them from going?

I dunno. Im VERY on the fence about it.

On the one hand, it destroys any real chance of anything real developing.

On the other hand, he might just bunk off again or see them three times a year!

cnocbui

thebullkf wrote: »

If the roles were reversed would you feel the same way

Yes

I assume you'ree female?

You presume wrong - father with two children.

common sense brigade

Its a tough one, If she is Austrailian and her relationship has broken up obviously she will want to return home . But I think it would be better for the kids to live in same country as both parents. Its horrendous to think how heartbroken this man will be. At very least the kids should be allowed back 3 months of every year and christmas. Heartbreaking.

thebullkf

metrovelvet wrote: »

If you want to get technical as in dictionary technical its 10-13.

13 is not pre-teen. thirteen;)

But even if you push it back to 8, an eight year absence and you are stopping them from going?

you're assuming he's been missing all those years.... i'm not. there's no evidence to say he's not been around for that period.

I dunno. Im VERY on the fence about it.

On the one hand, it destroys any real chance of anything real developing.

On the other hand, he might just bunk off again or see them three times a year!

i agree.

thebullkf

cnocbui wrote: »

Yes

then you're being hypocritical, if the roles were reversed and the father wanted to take them you'd agree?.

Ultimately, what you're saying is if your ex-partner wanted to up sticks to Australia with your children .. you wouldn't contest it because

The lives of the Mother and children should not be hindered or dictated by the Father. I think he is being staggeringly selfish, personally.

You presume wrong - father with two children.

My mistake. I assumed, your post appeared to be from a mothers perspective.

cnocbui

thebullkf wrote: »

then you're being hypocritical,

That's an interesting assessment of my taking the same view irrespective of which parent was leaving with the kids.

I would have thought I would be being hypocritical if had held divergent views where the view was dependent on the the gender of the the parent.

Ultimately, what you're saying is if your ex-partner wanted to up sticks to Australia with your children .. you wouldn't contest it because

...I would just up sticks and move to Oz as well.

K-9

I assume they've taken account of the fact that the mother and father can facilitate access and particularly, afford it?

Skype while very good isn't access!

thebullkf

cnocbui wrote: »

That's an interesting assessment of my taking the same view irrespective of which parent was leaving with the kids.

I would have thought I would be being hypocritical if had held divergent views where the view was dependent on the the gender of the the parent.

you didn't answer my question,rather use subjective quoting to support your view. Doesn't matter-you'd move. fair play;)

...I would just up sticks and move to Oz as well.

In an ideal world, its an ideal solution.

metrovelvet

thebullkf wrote: »

13 is not pre-teen. thirteen;)


you're assuming he's been missing all those years.... i'm not. there's no evidence to say he's not been around for that period.



i agree.

"Embryonic' suggests his relationship with his kids its in its early development.

Fittle

So I am going to talk practicalities here - I know it's boring, but it's also real - with respect, never mind the embryonics and the rights that have been discussed here. I am a mother, and perhaps I am biased, because I am also single, so I do all of the 'jobs' that are involved with my child.

But who of you, amongst us knows fathers that get their kids up for school? Who of you know fathers who put the uniforms on and make the lunches? Who of you know fathers who drop the kids at the school gate and go home, to prepare the home for the return of the kids? Who of you know fathers who collect their kids from school? Who of you know fathers that do the homework, make the dinner, clean the house, prepare the tea, facilitate their after-school activities, make their tea, bath them, get them ready for bed, read them a book at bedtime, jump in during the night etc etc?

I might add, that I do most of the above, but as I work f/t, I arrange for someone else to look after the day-to-day minding. My friends, with husbands, also arrange the after-school activities.

I am NOT by any stretch of my imagination saying that all mothers do all of this - but in all honesty, most mothers do most of this - even amongst my friends, who have the most wonderful husbands and fathers as partners - the mother still does most of the above.

So perhaps the judge in this instance, saw all of this. Perhaps the just realised that it was the mother who carried out the day-to-day stuff in these childrens lives - regardless of fathers rights - there are huge and regular practicalities that children need and want, and without turning this into a gender issue, in the majority of cases, it is the mother who carries out these needs and wants in the majority of cases. And even if she's not carrying them out herself, she is arranging that someone else is carrying them out. It's biology, not gender, nor rights. It's just the way we're made.