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.