This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/sep/30/former-bbc-presenter-katy-ashworth-wins-family-court-fight-ex-partner-child

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
BBC children's presenter wins family court case over child BBC children's presenter wins family court case over child
(35 minutes later)
A children’s television presenter with the BBC has won a family court case brought by her ex-partner over their child. A former BBC children’s television presenter has won a family court case brought by her ex-partner over their child.
Katy Ashworth, star of the CBeebies show I Can Cook, had brought the child back to Britain after a trip to Australia earlier this year. Her former partner, Ben Alcott, who lives in Australia, had argued that the child was habitually resident there and Ashworth had been wrong to take them back to the UK. Katy Ashworth, star of the CBeebies show I Can Cook, brought the child back to Britain with her after a trip to Australia this year. Her former partner, Ben Alcott, who lives in Australia, argued that the child was habitually resident there and that Ashworth should not have taken the child back to the UK.
However, the deputy high court judge, Alex Verdan, who analysed evidence over two days at a private hearing in the family division of the high court in London, concluded that the child was not wrongfully removed from Australia by Ashworth. However, the deputy high court judge Alex Verdan, who analysed evidence over two days at a private hearing in the family division of the high court in London, concluded that the child had not been wrongfully removed.
The judge had allowed reporters to attend the hearing – and report an outline of the case – but had barred the publication of the names of the people involved. He then produced a written judgment on the case and ruled that Ashworth and Alcott could be identified, but that the child must not be named in media reports. The judge allowed reporters to attend the hearing this month and report an outline of the case, but barred publication of the names of the people involved. He then produced a written judgment on the case and ruled that Ashworth and Alcott could be identified, but not the child.
Ashworth is best known for working on CBeebies. Her website describes her as a “very well-known and much-loved face to thousands of children and their families across the UK and throughout the rest of the world” and says she is an “accomplished actress, entertainer and singer”. Ashworth’s website describes her as a “very well-known and much-loved face to thousands of children and their families across the UK and throughout the rest of the world” and says she is an “accomplished actress, entertainer and singer”.
Verdan had considered evidence earlier this month at a hearing attended by Ashworth and Alcott. Verdan’s ruling, which was made available on Friday, described Alcott as a 42-year-old television director who lives in Redfern, New South Wales. Ashworth, 30, has lived in England for most of her life.
He said in his ruling, which was made available on Friday, that Alcott was a 42-year-old television director who lived in Redfern, New South Wales. Ashworth was described as 30, British, and having lived in England for most of her life. “The parties started their relationship in May or June of 2011. They never married,” he said. “The parties’ relationship was long distance given where they each lived. In addition, they separated and reconciled on a number of occasions.”
“Until earlier this year the mother worked as a television presenter with the BBC,” the ruling said. “The parties started their relationship in May or June of 2011. They never married. Verdan said Ashworth had always been the child’s primary carer, and that she had travelled to Australia with the child in April. “The father says this was a permanent move. The mother says it was a trial attempt to see if their relationship would work out long-term.”
“The parties’ relationship was long distance given where they each lived. In addition, they separated and reconciled on a number of occasions.” Ashworth and the child stayed at Alcott’s home for three nights and returned to the UK shortly afterwards, the judge said. “The main reason the mother left Australia was that she discovered material on the father’s computer which indicated to her his infidelity.”
Verdan said Ashworth had always been the child’s primary carer, and that she travelled to Australia with the child in April. He said Ashworth emailed Alcott saying: “Ben. I know everything. I’m done. Have packed up and left.” She emailed again after arriving in the UK, saying: “Thank goodness I found out all the lies before moving to Australia with you for good.”
“The father says this was a permanent move. The mother says it was a trial attempt to see if their relationship would work out long term.” Verdan said Ashworth had discovered evidence suggesting Alcott was having relationships with four other women. She found women’s clothing and, “more importantly”, messages on his Alcott’s computer from other women.
Ashworth and the child stayed at Alcott’s home for three nights and returned to the UK shortly afterwards, the judge said.
“The main reason the mother left Australia was that she discovered material on the father’s computer which indicated to her his infidelity.”
He said Ashworth had emailed Alcott, saying: “Ben. I know everything. I’m done. Have packed up and left.” She emailed again, after arriving back in the UK, adding: “Thank goodness I found out all the lies before moving to Australia with you for good.”
Verdan said Ashworth had discovered evidence suggesting Alcott was having relationships with four other women. She found women’s clothing and “more importantly” messages on his Alcott’s computer from other women.
Alcott had accepted that “on any reckoning” his personal life was “very complicated” and said it was “very difficult to balance the different female interests in his life” as his “decks were very crowded”.Alcott had accepted that “on any reckoning” his personal life was “very complicated” and said it was “very difficult to balance the different female interests in his life” as his “decks were very crowded”.
Judge Verdan said Alcott wanted the child to be returned to Australia. “His case is that the move to Australia was intended to be a permanent move and that immediately before the mother (and child) returned to England, (the child) was habitually resident in Australia,” said the judge. “The mother opposes the father’s application asserting that (the child) never became habitually resident in Australia.” Verdan said Alcott wanted the child to be returned to Australia. “His case is that the move to Australia was intended to be a permanent move and that immediately before the mother and [child] returned to England, [the child] was habitually resident in Australia,” said the judge. “The mother opposes the father’s application asserting that [the child] never became habitually resident in Australia.”
Judge Verdan ruled in Ashworth’s favour. Verdan ruled in Ashworth’s favour, saying her found her evidence “clear and consistent and supported by the documents. I found the father’s evidence to be inconsistent, unreliable and unconvincing.
“I found the mother’s evidence to be clear and consistent and supported by the documents. I found the father’s evidence to be inconsistent, unreliable and unconvincing. “My conclusion is that any agreement by the mother to move to Australia was based on a fundamentally flawed premise. If the mother had known the true state of affairs I am satisfied that in all likelihood she would not have moved to Australia with [the child] even for a trial period.”
“My conclusion is that any agreement by the mother to move to Australia was based on a fundamentally flawed premise. If the mother had known the true state of affairs I am satisfied that in all likelihood she would not have moved to Australia with (the child) even for a trial period.” He concluded that the child had never acquired habitual residence in Australia.
Judge Verdan concluded that the child had never “acquired habitual residence in Australia”. He added: “The mother did not wrongfully remove [the child] from Australia … she did not abduct [the child].”
He added: “The mother did not wrongfully remove (the child) from Australia ... she did not abduct (the child).”