A, B, C and D (no 2) (section 34(4) no contact), Re [2025] EWFC 394

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.

The short judgment was read to the parties at a hearing on 9 October 2025. Both short and long judgment were circulated to the parties’ representatives by email the same day. The time of handing down was 10.00 a.m. on 9 October 2025.

[2025] EWFC 394

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT OXFORD

Date 9 October 2025

Hearing Hearing dates: 6,7, 8 and 9 October 2025

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 AND IN THE MATTER OF

CHILD A, CHILD B, CHILD C, AND CHILD D

Before: HHJ Vincent Between:

OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Applicant

and

THE MOTHER

First Respondent

and

THE FATHER

Second Respondent

and

CHILD A, CHILD B, CHILD C, AND CHILD D

(via their Children’s Guardian, SARAH GWYNNE)

Third to sixth respondent children

Alex Perry instructed by the Applicant local authority

Artis Kakonge instructed by Dawson Cornwell solicitors for the respondent mother

Jonathan Adler, instructed by Brethertons solicitors, for the second respondent father Eva Holland of Cafcass Legal, solicitors for the children

Approved judgment

Short judgment

Decision

The local authority’s application, to refuse all direct contact between [Child A], [Child B], [Child C] and [Child D] with their father, is granted.

Indirect contact may still be considered, depending on the children’s wishes, and provided that there is support around the sending and receiving of letters or cards.

Reasons

[Child B], [Child C] and [Child D] are living with their mother. The mother is loving, kind and patient. She has coped extraordinarily well with the challenges she has faced. She is devoted to all her children and is able to give them a safe and loving home where all their needs are met.

The girls are happy and settled, but it is still early days. They have suffered significant harm caused by their father’s actions. They need time to process and recover from their experiences.

The children’s placement with their mother must be supported. The alternative is that they may be separated and raised outside their family.

The girls do not wish to see their father. They are frightened of him.

The plan for [Child A] is that he goes to live with his mother and sisters. He remains loyal to his father. He does not want to see his mother. He remains under his father's influence. He does not see it, but he too has suffered significant harm as a result of his father’s actions. At the moment he is unhappy and he is isolated from his family on both sides.

[Child A] deserves a chance to process and understand his experiences, away from the influence of his father. He deserves the chance to live with his sisters again, to mend his relationship with his mother, and to grow up in his family.

In recent months [Child A] has been more willing to talk to his social worker and he is back in school. He does want to see his sisters.

The father made the children reject their mother. He used his children as a way of continuing the domestic abuse that he perpetrated on the mother. The father has not accepted the court’s findings. He has not taken responsibility for his actions, and has not shown any understanding of the harm he has caused to the mother or to the children. If he does not understand why his behaviour caused harm, there can be no confidence he will know how to stop behaving that way. The children will continue to feel pressure from their father. The children will continue to feel that they cannot be their true selves. They will continue to feel they must be the version of themselves that he needs them to be.

Direct contact would risk causing further harm to all the children. The father’s influence remains strong and negative. The children’s progress is likely to be destabilised by seeing him.

There are no ways in which the risks arising from contact could be reduced to make it safe for any of the children.

Preventing contact between a father and his children is a major interference with their rights to a family life. However, this action is taken in response to the abuse committed by the father against his wife and all his children. It is a necessary and proportionate step, in order to keep the children safe, and to promote their welfare.

The decision is made to enable all the children and their mother to be supported in their recovery, in ensuring stability in the girls’ placement with their mother, and to give the best opportunity for [Child A] to be reunited with them, in accordance with the care plan.

Cards and letters can be shared if the children would like to receive them, otherwise, they will be kept safely for them.

The local authority will review the situation at least every six months.

HHJ Joanna Vincent

Family Court, Oxford 9 October 2025

Introduction

Between

Respondent childRespondent

Respondent motherRespondent

Respondent fatherRespondent

[1]The local authority applies under section 34(4) of the Children Act 1989 for an order authorising it to refuse contact between the children – [Child A] (12), [Child B] (10), [Child C] (9) and [Child D] (7) – and their father [name redacted]. The application is supported by the children’s guardian and by the mother [name redacted].

[2]In December 2024 I made final care orders to the local authority in respect of all the children. I approved a care plan which proposed to move all four children from their father’s care to their mother’s care. [see linked case A B C and D (stranding - alienatingbehaviours - extension of care proceedings refused), Re - Find Case Law - The NationalArchives).

[3]This followed private law and public law proceedings in which findings were made that the father had physically abused the mother during the marriage, that he had abducted the children in Pakistan and brought them to England, that he had stranded their mother in Pakistan, thereafter isolated her from the children’s lives, and created a false narrative about her to the children. In this way he disrupted their relationship with her, created confusion in their minds about what was true or was not true, and prevented them from expressing their own thoughts and feelings. He made clear his expectation that the children should reject their mother and choose him. In this way he used the children to continue the abuse that he himself had perpetuated against the mother throughout their relationship.

[4]The care plan was never going to be easy to implement. In December 2024 the parties were all of the view that it was premature to bring the proceedings to an end, and invited the Court to continue proceedings in order to retain oversight of the transition plan. Nonetheless, for reasons set out at length in my judgment, I took the view that it was not for the Court to be involved in implementation of the care plan.

[5]An unforeseen consequence of that is that the issue of contact was not fully ventilated at the final hearing. The initial plan was for the children to continue to see their father for supervised contact sessions while the plan for them to be transitioned to their mother’s care was implemented.

[6]At the conclusion of the care proceedings, [Child B] and [Child D] moved with their mother into a residential assessment placement, where they were supported to rebuild their relationship.

[7][Child A] and [Child C] moved to live with foster carers. The plan was for them to have regular contact with the mother, [Child B] and [Child D], and in time for them both to move to their mother’s full-time care.

[8]In the event, there were a number of issues with the foster care placement. From 21 January 2025, [Child A] and [Child C] refused to go to school. [Child A] later wrote a letter to social care saying, ‘Me and [Child C] want this then we will go back to school. Me [Child C] [Child B] and [Child D]. Me [Child B] [Child C] [Child D] will go together 2 times each week to visit dad together Me and [Child C] never have to go to family centre and visit evil mum we never have to stay there. I want me [Child C] [Child B] and [Child D] to be together at foster care each weekend without evil mum.’ [Child A] consistently said that he would not go to school unless the social worker provided written assurance that neither he nor [Child C] would be removed from school and taken to their mother’s care.

[9][Child C] and [Child A] continued to be highly resistant to any form of contact with their mother.

[10]The local authority had reason to believe that [Child C] and [Child A] were having contact with their father and that they continued to be under his influence.

[11]By the end of January 2025 the local authority had come to the view that contact should be suspended.

[12]The local authority’s application for the court to authorise the cessation of contact between the children and their father was issued on 4 March 2025.

[13]The mother, [Child B] and [Child D] left the residential assessment placement on 10 March 2025.

[14]In May 2025 [Child A] and [Child C] moved to separate placements. [Child C] presented relatively quickly with ambivalent feelings; saying she would like to return to her father’s care, but also expressing a wish to stay in her current foster placement and to have contact with her siblings. Over time she became more open to the idea of being placed with her mother, and was supported to re-establish her relationship with her. With the support of her experienced and sensitive foster carer, she moved to her mother’s full-time care in August. By all accounts this transition has gone very well. Her foster carer remains in touch and is a valuable and trusted source of support to [Child C] and her mother.

[15]For [Child A], life has been harder. He continues to say that he does not wish to see his mother or sisters. He very much wants to see his father, but that has not been permitted. His situation is better with his new foster carer in many ways. He is now attending school which is an improvement on his previous situation. However, he remains stuck, is unhappy, and he is isolated.

[16]The final hearing had been due to take place in the summer, but was adjourned, as that was just the time that [Child C] was due to move to her mother’s care, and there were issues around childcare provision for all three girls during the school holidays.

[17]At this final hearing, I must determine whether I should authorise the local authority to continue to refuse to facilitate direct contact between the children and their father. The law

[18]Peter Jackson LJ set out in Re D-S (Contact with Children in Care: Covid-19)

[2020] EWCA Civ 1031

the statutory framework surrounding parental contact with a child in care: 11.(1) The local authority is under a duty to allow the child reasonable contact with his parents: CA 1989 s.34 (1). It must also endeavour to promote contact between the child and his parents unless it is not reasonably practicable or consistent with his welfare: CA 1989 Sch 2 para. 15 (1).

(2) Where an application is made to the court, it may make such an order for contact as it considers appropriate: s.34 (3). When doing so, the child’s welfare is its paramount consideration. It must have regard to the welfare checklist and it must not make any order unless it would be better for the child than making no order at all: CA 1989 s.1 (1),

(3) and (5). 12. In the first case, the decision about contact is one for the local authority. In the second case, it is one for the court. The fact that there will be mutual respect between the authority and the court cannot mask this distinction. A parent applying for contact is entitled to expect that the court will form its own view of what contact is appropriate in all the circumstances, however influential the professional view of the local authority may turn out to be. 13. Once the court has formed its own view, it has a broad discretion as to whether or not to make a contact order. It may well decide, applying the ‘no order’ principle, not to make an order because its conclusion about what contact is appropriate is broadly equivalent to be contact that is being offered, or, for example, because the making of an order may lead to a loss of flexibility, or because practical considerations make an ideal level of contact unachievable. But the essential point is that the court must reach its own conclusion and ensure that it has the information it needs to do that. It does not defer to the local authority, and the local authority is no more entitled than any other party to the benefit of any doubt.

[19]Mr Adler, for the father, referred me to the case of AU v Belfast Health and Social Care Trust [2024] NICA 1, in which the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland applied the guidance in Re D-S and referenced the human rights principles associated with applications to suspend contact as follows: Hershman and McFarlane, Children Law and Practice Vol 1 section C1350 also deals with refusal of contact and within that section states as follows:

"Such an order should only be made where matters are so exceptional and the risk so severe that contact must be stopped. In the context of ECHR, article 8, severing ties between a child and parent can only be justified in very exceptional circumstances…. 21. Of course, article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("

ECHR") also contains a positive obligation to promote family life. The promotion of contact is part and parcel of that obligation within the family law sphere. Proportionality which is central to the approach of the ECHR requires a reasonable relationship between the means employed with the aim sought to be realised. This requirement is particularly important in child law. One illustration of the point is that plans which propose to achieve the permanent separation of a child from parents must be proportionate to the need for child protection. Similarly, plans for the suspension of contact must be proportionate to the best interests of the child. Otherwise, the positive obligation to promote family life is compromised.

[20]Although the applications are made within the context of public law proceedings, I have found it helpful to consider the framework set out at Practice direction 12J of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. This sets out the factors to be taken into account when determining whether to make orders for children to spend time with a parent where findings of domestic abuse have been made.

[21]That framework provides that in every case where findings of domestic abuse have been made, the court should apply the individual matters in the welfare checklist with reference to the domestic abuse which has occurred and any expert risk assessment obtained. At paragraph 36: (2) In particular, the court should in every case consider any harm-(a) which the child as a victim of domestic abuse, and the parent with whom the child is living, has suffered as a consequence of that domestic abuse; and

(b) which the child and the parent with whom the child is living is at risk of suffering, if a child arrangements order is made. (3) The court should make an order for contact only if it is satisfied- (a) that the physical and emotional safety of the child and the parent with whom the child is living can, as far as possible, be secured before, during and after contact; and (b) that the parent with whom the child is living will not be subjected to further domestic abuse by the other parent.

[22]And at paragraph 37: In every case where a finding or admission of domestic abuse is made, or where domestic abuse is otherwise established, the court should consider the conduct of both parents towards each other and towards the child and the impact of the same. In particular, the court should consider –(a) the effect of the domestic abuse on the child and on the arrangements for where the child is living;

(b) the effect of the domestic abuse on the child and its effect on the child’s relationship with the parents;

(c) whether the parent is motivated by a desire to promote the best interests of the child or is using the process to continue a form of domestic abuse against the other parent;

(d) the likely behaviour during contact of the parent against whom findings are made and its effect on the child; and

(e) the capacity of the parents to appreciate the effect of past domestic abuse and the potential for future domestic abuse.

Evidence

[23]I have reviewed all the evidence in the bundle, including the parties’ witness statements, the guardian’s two final analysis documents (one filed for the final hearing that was due in the summer, the other more recently), contact notes, and minutes of meetings. I have reviewed the documents from the previous two sets of proceedings that have been disclosed into these proceedings.

[24]I heard evidence from the children’s social worker [Ms M], from each of the parents, and from the guardian.

[25][Ms M]’s written evidence sets out a comprehensive chronology of events since the care orders were made. She has weighed relevant considerations in the balance and gives clear reasons for her conclusions, setting out the source of the information she relies upon. She has built good relationships with the girls and is working to build trust with [Child A]. She is sensitive to his situation. In cross-examination she remained clear in her recommendations and confident as to the justification for her professional opinion.

[26][Ms M] has been allocated to the case only since the children were placed in care at the beginning of the year. She is faced with a challenging task. She is charged with reuniting all four siblings to the care of their mother, to maintain their relationship with their father, but to continue to support the children’s placement with their mother. It is high stakes.

[27]The father has been found to have perpetrated serious domestic abuse against the mother, and the children have been victims of the abuse. No other family members were identified as suitable to care for the children. The father did not accept the findings of the Court made by Henke J in [2024]. He had not shifted his position in any way by December 2024.

[28]At the hearing before me some ten months further along, his position remains the same, that he has never caused any harm to the mother or to the children, that he was a good parent to them, and in bringing them back from Pakistan and establishing a life for them in this country, he has acted only to protect them and to further their best interests.

[29]While he was perhaps slightly less critical of the mother than before, he maintained that the girls’ current views were not their own, but had come from being under her influence. He did accept that if the children could not live with him, then the next best thing would be for them to be all together with their mother. He did not identify anything positive about her abilities as a carer. He denies that during the time [Child A] and [Child C] were in their first foster care placement, that he had any contact with [Child A] without the knowledge of the local authority. In the last six weeks or so, the father has completed some online courses which address domestic abuse and parenting skills. He said he did them because his solicitor suggested he should. He did not consider he needed to do them, because he does not accept there has been domestic abuse. He was not able to point to anything that he has learned. His response to the question of whether he would apologise to the mother or to the children for his actions was essentially blank; he does not accept he has anything to apologise for.

[30]At the end of his most recent witness statement he proposes that contact between him and the children could restart in a supervised environment and then progress to overnight. He asks that the possibility of a shared care arrangement is kept open, ‘if legally permissible and in the children’s welfare interests, subject to professional assessments, the children’s wishes and feelings and placement stability.’

[31]He does say that he will go on any course that is asked of him and will work respectfully with social workers, carers and his co-parent. However, nowhere within his statement does he say that he takes responsibility for his actions, or that he recognises the harm caused to the mother and to his children. It appears that he places responsibility on others to tell him what courses would satisfy them, or to reach a point where they can accept him back into the children’s lives. If he does not recognise that there is any need for change in the way that he parents his children, then they continue to be at risk of harm in his care. He would not be able to identify the behaviours that have been found to cause them significant emotional harm, and therefore not be able to change or regulate them.

[32]The guardian says that signing up to courses is a good first step, but unless and until he can acknowledge his role and accountability then there is little scope for genuine change. Should he reach a point where he is able to recognise the findings of the court and the harm he has caused to the children, then she suggests he should undertake a domestic abuse perpetrator programme with ‘Respect’ accreditation, which involves in person group work, that offers a linked ex-partner support service, and will be able to provide a report at the end.

[33]In the circumstances, there is no realistic possibility that any one of them could be restored to the father’s care, now or in the foreseeable future. The placement with their mother must work, if these children are to grow up within their family of origin.

[34]At the time the final care orders were made, all four children were adamant that they did not want to see their mother, let alone live with her.

[35]It is to the credit of [Ms M], the professional network that has been put in place around the girls, and most significantly, to the mother, that at this time, all three girls are living with their mother. They are happy and settled, caring, affectionate and kind to one another and to her, having fun singing and dancing with their mother and each other, but also responding to the boundaries that she sets for them. In discussion with the social worker and the guardian, they present as expressing their wishes and feelings with openness and honesty.

[36]Nonetheless there are underlying fragilities and vulnerabilities. They miss their brother very much. They have been living in temporary accommodation, and have had to move house four times this year. Those house moves have also entailed school moves. This has disrupted their learning, their friendships and their sense of security. They will likely face another move in the near future. In recent years they moved to Pakistan, then came back to England with their father, leaving their mother stranded without them. They then experienced ten months without seeing her at all, and thereafter when they saw her, presented as highly emotionally conflicted and troubled; propelled, as the Court found, by fear of the father’s disapproval, into performatively rejecting her, shunning her, and being rude and aggressive towards her. They do love their father and have been raised to respect and honour his views and opinions. But those views were in conflict with what they knew in their hearts about their mother; that she loved them and cared for them.

[37]It will take many months, even years, for them to process their own experiences for themselves and to make sense of them. [Child C] has generally settled well into life with her mother and sisters, but she can be easily upset if she thinks her sisters are talking about her. The girls can compete for their mother’s attention.

[38][Child A] is in a different position because he remains fiercely loyal to his father and fiercely rejecting of his mother, whom he continues to refer to as ‘evil’. His sisters wrote him letters in which they told him they loved him and missed him, reminded him how he had always stood up for them and taken care of them, and how they hoped to see him. His response was to say, ‘nice try’. He did not credit [Child B] and [Child D] with having written the letters themselves, and suggested their mother had written them instead.

[39]On a balance of probabilities, I find that [Child A] was in touch with his father by email or otherwise through use of his laptop, when he was in the first foster care placement. From the evidence I have read and heard, I also draw an inference that [Child A] met his father in person during that time. My reasons are as follows: - [Child C] told the guardian that [Child A] had been in touch with his father on his laptop. She recalled their father saying things like, ‘fight’, ‘be strong’, ‘come back’, and that he had said that [Child B] and [Child D] ‘betray you’; - The foster carers told the guardian on 28 April 2025 that they overheard [Child A] and [Child C] talking to their father in the first weeks of the placement; - There is evidence that the foster carers were not imposing boundaries around [Child A]’s use of his devices. In her statement of March 2024, [Ms M] describes an unannounced visit on 3 January 2025. The foster carers are said to have reported that ‘[Child A] had initially been content to see his mother in early January but changed his mind after a brief phone call with his father. They also mentioned that [Child A] speaks to his father mainly in his bedroom and sometimes while walking around the house. Both children were observed using laptops and Nintendo devices in their rooms unsupervised. The foster carers reported hearing and observing [Child A] talking to his father on the phone but had not intervened.’ - Once the local authority was able to access [Child A]’s mobile phone, the call logs showed multiple missed calls recorded from the foster carers phone on 25 and 31 December and 2 January. The foster carer had said that the children had not left the house during this time. [Child A] blocked the foster carer’s number on 31 December and was declining calls. The inference is he was not at home with them and they did not know where he was; - The foster carers continued to report that they believed the children were in contact with their father through his laptop (on 21 January 2025). - On 21 January 2025 [the mother] reported that [Child D] had told her that [Child C] had whispered to her that their dad had said they have to stop speaking to their mum because he could only get them back if they did not talk to her. - When [Child A] did meet with his father in contact their interactions suggested that these were not the only times they had been in touch. On 22 January 2025 the father made a supervised call to [Child C] and [Child A]. [Child A] is reported to have not been surprised to hear from him. On 21 January 2025 he took a photograph of [Child A]’s notebook. They then played a game of chess in silence for an hour; - On 28 April 2025 the foster carer reported to the guardian that [Child C] said she did not want to live with her mother because she had been given a ‘dirty house by the council’ and that her mother did not have enough money to look after them. The mother’s statement of 10 April, which the father had seen, raised concerns about her housing. The guardian found [Child C] to be defensive when asked how she knew about her mother’s house. The guardian concluded that it was unlikely that [Child C] would have assumed on her own that her mother had been housed by the council or that it would be ‘dirty’. Looking at these pieces of evidence in the context of all the evidence, I find it more likely than not that [Child C] came to know that the mother had been given a council house through contact with her father, and that her negative opinions about it also came from him. - [Child A] did eventually surrender his laptop but has not given any log in credentials. When his phone was accessed, WhatsApp and email access had been disabled. The inference to be drawn from [Child A]’s heightened distress and aggression at his devices being taken away, at his lack of co-operation in providing access, the subsequent deletion of the apps, is that he was using them to contact his father, and that he did not wish the local authority to find out.

[40]The mother became emotional at points in her evidence, particularly when thinking about hers and her daughters’ continued separation from [Child A], and about his isolation, but was overall measured and clear in the answers she gave. Compared to her situation a year ago, her life is transformed, and she is now living with three of her children. Given where [Child C] was only a few months ago, and [Child B] and [Child D] were in January, it is a radical change.

[41]That the girls have settled so well in her care is a testament to the strength of the relationship she had with them prior to their separation in February 2023. It is also a testament to her patience, love, kindness and constancy to her children throughout the time that they outwardly and vigorously rejected her.

[42]In my earlier judgment I wrote this about the mother: The challenge she faces is hard, but there is some reason to have confidence in the mother. In difficult and painful circumstances, she has shown exceptional resilience, patience, and understanding. She has shown unwavering commitment to her children. She has worked well with professionals, been reflective, listened to advice and where a change has suggested, or the impact of something she has said has been pointed out to her, she has made a change. She was the children’s sole parent for the early years of their lives, met all their needs and supported them in their education. Although the contact sessions have been difficult, she has demonstrated her abilities to engage with her children in games, puzzles, trying to get them to recall memories of their times together, or to remind them of their likes and dislikes. She has responded to the moments of affection that have come her way with warmth. She has learned to govern her own emotions so as not to put pressure on the children, and to prioritise their welfare by trying to protect them from her distress.

[43]It would appear that this confidence has been well placed. The guardian describes the way in which she has coped as nothing short of exceptional. Despite the traumatic experiences of her childhood and marriage, and her continued isolation from her family, she has found the resilience and resolve to provide a loving home for her children on limited resources.

[44]She has confidence that she will be able to offer a home to [Child A]. She thinks that it would be valuable to see him together with his sisters. There is an argument that, as before, this would be an opportunity for her to show [Child A] her steadfastness, her acceptance and her unconditional love for him. However, she accepts [Ms M]’s assessment that [Ms M] would like to build trust in her relationship with [Child A], and does not want to jeopardise that by putting pressure on him to spend time with his mother when he is adamant he does not want to do that. The mother agrees to go at [Child A]’s pace, and therefore agrees not to press the local authority for contact at this time.

[45]The guardian has been allocated to the case since the start of the private law proceedings. So this is her third set of proceedings. She has been an advocate for the children throughout, and has assisted me greatly in her full account of each of the children. She has described not just what they have said, but the manner in which they have said it. She describes little details of the children’s behaviour that she has observed, which give an insight into their experiences and a glimmer into their inner worlds. She articulates clearly and with insight how thess observations have fed into her analysis of the bigger picture.

[46]For example, in her most recent report and in her oral evidence, she described the differences she has seen in [Child C] as she has moved from her first foster placement to her second foster placement, and then to her mother’s care. The guardian said it was troubling to see [Child C] in the first placement, using adult phrases, swear words, and continuing to speak in a strident and harsh way about her mother and siblings, who she accused of ‘betrayal’. In comparison, within a short time of being in her new placement, the guardian observed that [Child C] was presenting in a way that was much more congruent with the nine-year old girl that she is. She is using softer, more ageappropriate language, wanting to play with toys, and feels free to be affectionate towards her mother, as her instincts guide her, but where before she felt constrained by her father’s disapproval.

[47]The guardian’s analysis, contained within her two documents, and elaborated on in the evidence she gave to the Court, was powerfully persuasive. It is informed by deep knowledge and understanding of the children, of their experiences over the past few years and their needs. She has weighed all relevant factors carefully in the balance and meticulously considered the question of contact from all perspectives. I place significant weight on her conclusions, which were well-reasoned, and supported by the evidence.

Analysis

[48]The issue of contact is complex, and is affected by a number of different factors, many of which will change over time.

[49]On behalf of the local authority Mr Perry’s essential submission is that the progress for the girls – in terms of implementing the local authority’s care plan - has only been made because they have been removed from the father’s sphere of influence, and then supported to rebuild their relationship with their mother.

[50]He submits that progress can only be made for [Child A] if he too is removed from his father’s continuing and negative influence.

[51]The point of the care plan is not simply to transfer the children from the home of one parent to another. It is not right to understand this case as a battle between parents for the custody of their children, which the father has lost and the mother has won. The public law proceedings were brought because all four children were suffering significant emotional harm, and were at risk of further significant harm, as a consequence of their father’s past actions and continuing behaviour towards them and their mother. The purpose of the care plan is to enable the children to process and recover from their experiences, and to be raised in an environment where they are safe, and feel safe and secure, physically and emotionally, and where they can thrive in all aspects of their lives.

[52]Their mother has demonstrated that she has the capacity to support all her children in that process.

[53]Their father remains locked in a battle for the hearts and minds of the children.

[54]He has not shown any insight or understanding of the impact of his actions upon the children or their mother, has not taken responsibility for what he has done, and continues to maintain that all he has done is to bring the children to this country in order to give them a better future.

[55]This narrative was expressly rejected by Henke J in her fact-finding judgment. It is an illogical position to take, given that the children were settled and established in this country, and it was the father who brought them all back to Pakistan, took them out of school, and kept them there without informing their teachers in England that they were not coming back. It ignores the fact that he stranded their mother in Pakistan and separated her and the children.

[56]Since the girls have been living with their mother they have been visibly and increasingly happy, settled and relaxed. In conversation with [Ms K], the specialist practitioner who is supporting them and their mother, they have started to talk about some of the memories they have of living in Pakistan with their mother and father, and living in their father’s sole care. What they have said has served to confirm the previous findings of the Court. They have talked about their father repeating information to them about their mother that was not true, but led them to question their own memories. They have talked about arriving in England, not knowing whether their mother was, feeling scared and confused, but feeling too afraid to ask. They have talked about the distress they felt when they were having contact with their mother, because they knew that if they interacted with her, even just by smiling, their father would find out – either through [Child A] or from reading the notes – and they would then be punished by having devices confiscated, by being ignored or being made to stand with their backs to the wall. These accounts have come to me as hearsay evidence. They have not been fully investigated or tested in Court. However, it is of significance that the accounts come from more than one child, and that they are entirely consistent with the findings that have been made, and the descriptions of the professional witnesses about the likely emotional impact for the children of having to manage this highly charged and difficult situation.

[57]All three girls have made it clear that they do not wish to see their father. [Child B] is described by [Ms M] as being ‘clear and unwavering in her response: she stated that she does not wish to see her father and does not feel safe in his presence. She expressed profound anger and sadness regarding the lies her father told them and the time she lost with her mother. [Child B] firmly rejected the idea of letterbox contact, explaining that she would not trust anything he wrote.’

[58]The guardian noted a contrast between the way in [Child B] expressed her wishes and feelings to her in January 2025 and in September. In January 2025, she is described as ‘making a noisy display of emotion in front of her siblings’ when the guardian shared the letter I wrote to the children explaining the decision I had made to separate from their father.

[59]In September, she described a genuine display of emotion from [Child B], who cried quietly and with her eyes looking downward when contemplating the prospect of being made to see her father. [Child B] is noted by the guardian to have said she did not want to see her father because,‘you have done so many bad things and you have ruined our life and mum’s life’. This was a phrase the mother used in evidence, and it was suggested therefore that [Child B] was effectively speaking with her voice. I note that [Child C] is noted to have said on 21 February 2025 about the social workers, ‘you guys you have ruined my life’. I cannot say that this is a phrase that [Child B] is more likely to have got from her mother than from her sister. I accept the guardian’s evidence that [Child B]’s wishes and feelings as expressed to her in September are genuine, and are based on her experiences.

[60][Child D] has also described feeling scared of her father and does not wish to see him or receive any letters.

[61][Child C] has told the guardian that she feels safe in her mother’s care. She has shared memories with the guardian about seeing her mother in contact, and how she smiled when she saw her mum, but when she got home she was in trouble with her dad who was angry with her, telling her he got sent the files.

[62]She does not wish to spend time with her father in person, although she is open to receiving letters, cards or gifts.

[63]Unlike his siblings who until February 2023 were raised mostly single-handedly by their mother – she lived in Pakistan for the first five years of the marriage, and the father visited for about a month a year – [Child A] lived in England with his father from the age of three. As the oldest child, and the only son, he has a longer-established and closer bond with his father than his sisters. That will exist whether or not he continues to see his father.

[64]The overwhelming evidence is that it would be emotionally harmful for any of the girls to spend time with their father even in a supervised environment. It would be against their expressed wishes and feelings. They are at risk of feeling fearful and anxious in his presence. There is a risk that they will once again be manipulated, become conflicted and confused; their father has shown no sign that he will present in a different way to them. Their rehabilitation to their mother is still in its early phase, the risk that contact with their father will destablise and undermine their progress is high.

[65]Should the placement fail, it would be nothing short of catastrophic for these girls who have already suffered significant disruption and turmoil in their young lives.

[66]Although [Child A] actively wants to see his father, and says he is not scared of him, his behaviour has always been aligned to his father’s position, and his father’s influence upon him is clear. He is at risk of continuing to be subject to his father’s manipulation, with the consequence that his emotional development will be hindered, his relationships with his siblings damaged further, and the prospects of him being able to repair his relationship with his mother in jeopardy. If he is not able to move to his mother’s care, then he will remain isolated from her and his siblings and will likely remain in longterm foster care.

[67]There are no measures that could be put in place that would reduce these risks to a manageable level, because the father cannot be trusted to work openly and honestly with the local authority, and because he does not acknowledge that there is any need to parent the children in a different way. He has not shown any evidence that he could provide them with the reassurance that they would need to feel that they were safe when they saw him.

[68][Child A] and [Child C]’s first foster carers seemed to be aligned to the father’s perspective and resistant to, at times obstructive of, the local authority’s attempts to progress their care plan.

[69]There is some evidence that since he has been placed with new carers, [Child A] is becoming a little more receptive to attempts to engage with him. [Ms M] described some of the conversations she has had with him; she feels that she is building some trust.

[70][Child A]’s laptop was removed from him on 8 May – the day that he moved to his new foster placement. For the first two weeks there he refused to leave the house, stating that he would not leave until his laptop was returned to him. However, he did then start to go out into the community when he got some pocket money, and agreed to go to school.

[71]While there are some positives, the professionals are concerned that he is in limbo and implementing the care plan for him remains significantly challenging.

[72]In June [Child A] met [Child D] and [Child B] at a pizza place, but did not take his coat off, refused food and drink and was withdrawn and avoided eye contact. He refused to accept food and gifts from his mother. His sisters persisted and he did in the end ask a few questions and mentioned that he was looking forward to starting school the following week. He did say he would be open to another session. He had a more positive online contact with [Child C] a few days later.

[73]On his first day at his new school on 17 June he failed to return home at 4pm, and was collected from the police station at 7.54 p.m. He has not said where he was. He has apparently spent long periods unsupervised during the summer holidays when he says he is at the park, but there is no clear picture of what he has been doing or who he has been with.

[74][Child A] is bright, well able to use technology, and spends his days at school where he has unsupervised access to phones and computers. His carers can make sure that he is collected from school or that his use of the school bus is carefully monitored, and they can put in some house rules, ultimately it is likely that if he is determined to make contact with his father then he could probably find a way. There is an argument to say that it would be better therefore to facilitate that contact so that at least the local authority can observe their interactions and monitor the information that is shared between them.

[75]Further, there is an argument that spending time with the father will support and nurture the children’s identity as members of the paternal family. The children previously spoke positively of their aunt and cousins who they lived with, or very close to.

[76]However, in her careful and considered analysis, the guardian concludes that this would not be in the children’s best interests.

[77]She relies on Dr Williams’ advice, in his written reports and as shown in the notes of the professionals’ meeting that he attended in January 2025. He is recorded to have said:

‘there should be no doubt that contact with father must be severed. The children need to understand their father has used coercive control with all of them> He used it with the school. He seduced everybody into believing he was the archetypal father but what the court found is that he is highly abusive and manipulative; a dangerous man who does not hold his children’s emotional welfare at the forefront.’

[78]She notes that [Child A]’s consistent position is that he wants to see his father and to return to live with him. Although she acknowledges [Child A] is a bright and articulate child, it remains her assessment that he is not able to think critically about his own circumstances. [Child A]’s maturity needs to be considered in the context of Dr Williams’ conclusion .. that the emotional harm done to [Child A] has compromised his ability to know, let alone speak, the truth. [Child A] remains wedding to the narrative set out by his father and is unable to take on board the findings made by the court around his father’s actions.’ She considers [Child A]’s attitude towards his sisters remains blaming and negative, and he does not credit them with having genuinely expressed feelings, for example in his response to the letters they wrote him.

[79]In all the circumstances, she recommends that on balance, ‘it would be the better option for the local authority to refuse direct contact arrangements in order for [Child A] to understand that all the professionals around him are very concerned about his father’s influence on him and to give time for [Child A] to access the targeted therapeutic support he will need to start to recognise the coercive control that has been exerted upon him.’

[80]I have had regard to the framework set out at paragraphs 36 and 37 of the Family Procedure Rules. I have considered each of the matters at paragraph 37 generally throughout this judgment.

[81]Paragraph 36 says that the Court should only make an order for contact if it is satisfied that the physical and emotional safety of the children and the parent with whom they are living can, as far as possible, be secured before, during and after contact, and that the parent with whom the children are living will not be subjected to further domestic abuse by the other parent.

[82]In the past the father used the children as a means of perpetuating domestic abuse against the mother. The emotional harm he has caused to them and to her is incalculable and will be life-long. Even if contact were to be supervised, the children will continue to be at risk of emotional harm from their father because his influence over them has been so strong, their fear of him remains, being in his presence is likely to trigger memories of the conflicting and difficult feelings they had when they lived with him and were expected to reject their mother, and they remain at risk of once again being manipulated by him. The mother’s physical and emotional safety is at risk. She would not be able to trust that the father may discover details of where she and the children live, or other information about her. She would be living in constant fear that the children might once again fall under his influence and be separated from her, physically or emotionally.

[83]For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the children’s or their mother’s physical and emotional safety could be protected if direct contact were to take place at this time.

[84]Having regard to all the circumstances, considering each of the factors on the welfare checklist, and with the children’s welfare my paramount concern, I have reached the conclusion that the local authority should be permitted to stop all direct contact between the children and their father.

[85]This is the best means of progressing the care plans for all four children.

[86]Each plan has a number of elements to it. It is about rebuilding relationships between siblings, between the children and their mother. It is about enabling the children to have the time and space to process and recover from their experiences, to rebuild and repair the losses they have experienced in their relationship with each other, with their mother, and in their education, and abilities to make friends, and to build resilience so that they can in time contemplate restoring their relationship with their father and paternal family, but from a position where they can be their authentic selves, and not have to live as the version of themselves that he requires them to be.

[87]All of those things would be put at risk by the children spending time with their father, because he does not see or understand that this is what they need, and he is not at this time capable of supporting them to address these needs.

[88]There is no way of mitigating the risks, which remain even if contact is supervised and closely monitored.

[89]The risk is too high to run. All efforts to enable [Child A] to be reunited with his mother and siblings must be taken now. The longer he is separated from them, isolated, and still subject to his father’s influence, the harder it will be to implement the plan. The children’s placement with their mother is in their best interests and she is a very capable parent. Nevertheless she will need a lot of support to sustain it. She and the children deserve to be supported and protected from the father’s negative influence. If the placement does not work, there is a substantial risk that the children may be separated, and that they would not grow up within their family of origin. The impact upon them and their mother would be devastating, and lifelong.

[90]I recognise that stopping all direct contact prevents the father from exercising his right to a family life, prevents him from having a fulfilling, loving and meaningful relationship with his children, and in [Child A]’s case, is contrary to his firmly and consistently expressed wishes. However, as [Ms M] said, the reason for this lies with the father, who caused the harm and remains unable to take responsibility for his actions. I am satisfied that the interference with the father’s and the children’s right to a family life is a necessary and a proportionate intervention in all the circumstances.

[91]It is not for me to interfere with the process of drafting the care plan nor its implementation. Nevertheless, I note that the local authority accepts the guardian’s recommendation that contact should be reviewed not less than every six-months, and more frequently than that should circumstances require it. This is consistent with the guidance from the Court of Appeal in AU v Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, cited above, and which cited with approval the case of KA v Finland

[2003] 1 FLR 696

‘The minimum to be expected of the authorities is to examine the situation anew from time to time to see whether there has been any improvement in the family's situation. The possibilities of reunification will be progressively diminished and eventually destroyed if the biological parents and the child are not allowed to meet each other at all, or only so rarely that no natural bonding between them is likely to occur.’

[92]The local authority will continue to facilitate indirect contact. The guardian’s recommendation is that significant care should be taken around this for each of the children. I agree. If the children are not receptive to indirect communications, then they should be kept safely for them.

Other matters

[93]The father does not object to the continuation of a non-molestation order first made by Mrs Justice Lieven in September 2023.

[94]The parents are agreed that the port alert orders should also remain in place; for the girls for two years from now, for [Child A] until his sixteenth birthday. The local authority will apply to discharge them sooner if so advised.

[95]The children have been subject to consecutive sets of proceedings for the last two and a half years. The question of a section 91(14) order was raised, although no formal application has been made.

[96]It is foreseeable that at some point there will be an application to the Court to discharge the care orders. The Court will be concerned then not to re-litigate matters that have already been the subject of the court’s determination. However, the court would need to be satisfied there had been a significant change in circumstances before an application was allowed to proceed. There is no basis therefore for an additional section 91(14) bar to be imposed.

[97]Neither of the parents has made frequent applications within the proceedings. Unlike in private law proceedings the parents will have the Children We Care For meetings, and continuing contact with the children’s social worker throughout the life of the care orders. So they have a mechanism to raise concerns without having to apply back to the Court.

[98]In all the circumstances I will not make a section 91(14) order in this case.

[99]I will write letters to the children to explain my judgment and the reasons for it. Joanna Vincent Family Court, Oxford 9 October 2025