‘This is the husband’s application for custody of two children, aged seven and five. I stress that the judgment I give today is an interim judgment, and the parties should not assume that the ultimate result will be the same. I have read the detailed affidavits submitted by both parties, in which they set out their positions at some length. There is a considerable conflict of evidence between them, and I think it will be necessary for me to hear evidence from the parties, and perhaps from other witnesses. I have also decided to order a welfare officer’s report, as both counsel agree this would be appropriate. The welfare officer, Mrs Wendy Cameron, is now present in court, and she will hear what I am about to say.
‘The parties, Henry and Susan Lang, are now both 32 years of age. They were married on 9 June 1962. Their elder daughter, Marianne, was born on 8 October 1963, and their younger, Stephanie, on 4 February 1966. At first, all seems to have been well, and the marriage was reasonably happy. They had little money to begin with, but that does not seem to have caused any serious problems between them. They lived initially in a flat in the Dalston area. Mr Lang, I think both parties agree, is a hard-working and ambitious man, a mechanic by trade, and he quickly set about improving their fortunes. While many men in his position might have been content with a job as a mechanic, earning the standard wage, Mr Lang aimed higher.
‘After gaining some experience with a well-known garage in Chelsea, he set up his own business, Mercury Mechanics, in King Henry’s Walk in Islington, not far from the family home. The business is not the usual kind of garage that accepts almost any vehicle. Instead, it specialises in the repair and maintenance of high-end vehicles, expensive and unusual cars, including imported vehicles. Mr Lang quickly earned a reputation for providing a good, reliable service, and he began to be in demand by the owners of vehicles of that kind in London, and indeed, beyond. Not surprisingly, the business has done well. He now employs three mechanics, in addition to working in the business each day himself. I have been shown the accounts for the past five years, and it is clear that Mr Lang has become, if not rich, certainly quite prosperous. The family was able to move to a much larger and nicer flat in Alwyne Road, in Canonbury, again not too far from Mr Lang’s business address.
‘One might have thought that Mr Lang’s success would have been good news for the whole family, but it appears that the long hours he was working to achieve it took their toll on the relationship between the parties. Because this is one of the main areas of contention, and I shall be hearing a good deal of evidence about it, I will say little about it today. But it is clear from the affidavits that the long hours of work caused a good deal of trouble between them. Mrs Lang says she felt ignored, being left at home all day with the children – at any rate until they were old enough to go to school – while her husband spent all day, and many evenings, at the garage. Mr Lang agrees that he was working long hours, but says that it was necessary to develop the business, and that the whole family, including his wife, benefitted from his success. They both agree that there were loud arguments between them, with both parties shouting. Mrs Lang says that the arguments turned violent, that he slapped her face on some occasions, and told her to shut up. Mr Lang strenuously denies that, and insists that he never hit her.
‘In February of this year, Mrs Lang left the matrimonial home and moved into a flat of her own in Pimlico, taking the children with her. It was in response to this that Mr Lang brought his suit for divorce, and has made this application for custody of the children. Putting it simply, he says that Mrs Lang is no longer a parent who can be trusted with the custody of young children. He says that she started going out at night long before she left the matrimonial home, that she regularly came home drunk at 1 or 2 o’clock in the morning; and that she had friends, both male and female, whom Mr Lang thought unsuitable for a parent with young children. He says that she sometimes left the children unattended at home. Finally, he says, she started taking drugs and associating with drug users and dealers. Mrs Lang denies that. She admits that she started going out in the evenings with friends, but she insists that the children were always safe, with a reliable child-minder. After she left the matrimonial home, she always left the children with her parents if she was going out for the evening. She says that she never came home drunk, and she denies taking illegal drugs.
‘These allegations are clearly of the greatest possible importance. They are bound to affect my decision about which of these parents should have custody of the children, and about the nature of the access which should be granted to the other parent. But they are not the only matters to consider. I need to know in far greater detail what living arrangements are proposed for the children by both parents, particularly what child-care arrangements they propose to make. I need to be satisfied that they will be safe, and I need to know what plans there are for their education. I shall, of course, also have to satisfy myself that the financial arrangements the parties propose to make are suitable.
‘I cannot decide all this today. I shall, therefore, adjourn this application pending the welfare officer’s report. The question is: what to do in the interim period? It is not an easy question. But I am persuaded, just, that the best course would be to keep disruption to a minimum. The children have already been uprooted once, when their mother moved them from Islington to Pimlico. It seems to me to be in their best interests not to uproot them again without good reason, when the court’s ultimate decision cannot be foreseen. For that reason, I will award interim custody of both children to Mrs Lang, but Mr Lang is to have access to the children every other weekend. I hope the parties can make their own sensible arrangements about the times at which the children can be picked up and returned. I am sure their counsel and solicitors will give them appropriate advice about that. If they are unable to agree, a further application can be made, and I will decide for them, but I very much hope that they will be able to work it out for themselves. I stress again, the more they can reach agreement without the intervention of the court, the better it must be for the children.’