Yahoo News Parents' court fight over taking son, 5, to country suffering terror attacks
A father insisted on taking his five-year-old son to a conflict-riven country to visit relatives in defiance of the child’s mother, who was terrified he would be placed at serious risk
The man’s former partner feared the boy would be caught up in “civil disorder” if he travelled with his father to the family home in Asia.
She pointed out that the country had recently suffered from terrorist outrages and was anxious about their son’s safety if he was taken there.
One of her fears was that that her son could be caught up in an attempt to target her former partner’s parents, who are both “very senior civil servants”.
But yesterday a High Court judge sided with the boy’s father, ruling that he should be allowed to take the child with him on the visit - despite the country “experiencing unrest”.
Mr Justice Peter Jackson ruled that any risk was outweighed by the benefits which the boy, referred to as W, would gain from spending time with family members.
His decision came after the boy’s father, described as Asian, went to the Family Division of the High Court to obtain permission to travel abroad with his son against the wishes of his former partner, originally from Europe.
Both W’s mother and father were born abroad, but underwent further education and training in England, where they have lived for several years and have built their professional careers.
Mr Justice Jackson said that few other details could be released in order to protect the identity of the boy, who he described as “a very modern child with an unusually rich heritage” who had previously travelled to Paris and other destinations with his father.
He said the man had asked for permission to take his son to his "home country" to visit relatives, but that the child’s mother - with whom W lives - was strongly opposed to the idea.
She told the court she was profoundly worried that if her son got into difficulties “she would not be there to help him”.
In his ruling the judge said he appreciated the mother's concerns, stating: “Of course the risk that any person, child or adult, might be caught up in terrorism is almost a worldwide phenomenon these days,
"The fact that very, very few people in fact suffer physical harm from terrorism does not diminish its power to upset and disturb. When one adds to that the fact that the paternal family are people of standing, the matter comes closer to home.”
Mr Justice Jackson went on to say that the father was not taking his son on a tourist holiday, but intended to visit his family, who live in a “well-to-do” area where their home enjoys the benefits of round the clock security.
He said: "It is not in an area that is regarded as being particularly under threat although there have been terrorist outrages there too. I am not in these cases especially influenced by the Foreign Office guidance which must apply to people regardless of their backgrounds.
“To say to somebody that they should not take their children on holiday to a country that is experiencing unrest might be a very strong argument if they were going there purely for pleasure, but it has to be looked at in context if you are in fact addressing a family who originate there and who may have entirely different needs.
“In this case what is significant, to my mind, is that the father himself and his two brothers and his sister, and all the six children of his siblings and his parents have lived in stable conditions. There is no report of any attempt, still less a successful one, to threaten their security and the cousins who W knows from their visits to London have grown up safe and well.”
Mr Justice Jackson ruled that W should be allowed to travel to his homeland for a maximum of two weeks a year, unless otherwise agreed between the parents, who split up in acrimonious circumstances shortly after he was born.
"I think the risk to (the boy's) security is a background factor, but I find that it is hugely outweighed by the short, medium and long-term advantages to him of having his own experience of his paternal heritage and his knowledge of his large paternal family,” he said.
