BL v MK [2025] EWFC 489

[2025] EWFC 489IN THE FAMILY COURT No. LE22P00522(Sitting in Leicester)Date 25th May 2025
Before
MS HANNAH MARKHAM KC(In Private)
Between
BLApplicantMKRespondentTHE CHILDREN (by their Children’s Guardian)Respondent__________MS BARNETT (direct access) appeared for Applicant for The First Respondent did not attend the hearing and was not representedMS HOWELL appeared for Guardian and solicitor Ms Louise Newcombe.Leicestershire County Council was unrepresented.Before H Markham KC sitting as a Deputy High Court JudgeFINAL HEARING 22 MAY 2025DHCJ H MARKHAM KC
[1]I remain concerned with the welfare of three children. Child A aged (8), Child B aged (6) and Child Caged (5).[2]Their parents are BL who I shall refer to as ‘the father’ and MKwho I shall refer to as ‘the mother’.[3]The children are also parties and are represented in these proceedings by their Rule 16.4 guardian[4]This is a final judgment for Child arrangement orders following applications made by the children’s father. The proceedings have been before the court now since August 2022, which is some 33 months and over half of Child C’s life The impact on the parent, on the children, their parents and their siblings has been profound and the consequences for each of them lifelong.[5]In considering the length of these proceedings I was mindful of how the court has been careful to manage allegations, to assist the parents to co-parent, but also that delays occurred in early hearings when allegations were not in my judgment case managed with an eye to the very serious allegations which were being made by the parents. The DFJ took over case-managing the proceedings in October 2023 and allocated it to me as a Deputy High Court Judge in early 2024. Judicial continuity has in my judgment assisted both in terms of progress but in the court endeavouring to assist a family to move forward and to protect the children whilst so doing. In my previous judgment I set out my concerns about the litigation history and repeat it in this final judgment. I do so as in my judgment it is important to reflect upon those cases which require a fact-finding hearing and early resolution of stark factual matters and allegations. Delay in not grappling with those core issues at an early stage risks a profound impact on the subject children, as has happened in this case. Litigation Background:[6]Accordingly in my view it is imperative to record in this judgment that there have been previous efforts by the courts (at that stage the Magistrates) to bring finality to the proceedings, notably on 20th December 2022, when it is recorded by the magistrates that:[7]The allegations of misconduct made by the father against the mother have led him to the view that whilst the contact between mother and the children should still be maintained, that arrangement should be managed in order to minimise the risk of potential emotional harm and/or alienation to the children, whilst risk assessments are being undertaken. Otherwise, it is possible that the current living arrangements would place the children at an unacceptable level of risk, a risk which he is not prepared to accept and believes the children would not wish to take either.[8]Whilst the parties have separated and there are agreed arrangements currently in place, the court is of the view that, in light of the submissions made by both parties today and the Bundle, there is a real risk of emotional harm to the children if these allegations are left unexplored, given the seriousness of the allegations. The court does not agree with Mother that these allegations should be left and for proceedings to continue on the basis that these events did not occur. The court believes that threats to kill and allegations of a sexual nature are indeed very serious with the potential of having a serious negative impact on the children’s relationship with their father.[9]The court is of the view that a fact-finding hearing in this case is necessary and proportionate to explore potential hostility from Mother in minimising contact arrangements between Father and the children and indeed these allegations are crucial and must be determined as they have a direct correlation with the welfare of the children.[10]I must record that it is clear that the nature and scope of allegations in this case, in particular when set against the background of parental discord and disruption to arrangements for the children, were such that a fact-finding hearing was clearly necessary. The delays have in my view caused harm to the children and have also impacted on the ability of the professionals to support the family and identify safe arrangements for the children.[11]Notwithstanding the magistrate’s clear views, the allegations and management of them then changed direction following the mother’s proposals to the father in January 2023. By order of the magistrates dated 28 March 2023 the fact-finding hearing was not pursued and that order records that: · The mother has made plain since 1 September 2022 that she is not seeking to suggest that the father poses a threat to her or the children. · For the avoidance of doubt the mother reiterates that now. · The mother recognises that in the course of a difficult breakdown of the parents’ marriage and with the children aware of their arguing (them having heard it), they may well say things as a result of misinterpretation, manifestation of their own stress and anxiety or by picking up on adults’ emotions and that questioning in relation to it can cause a child to exaggerate, embellish or indeed fabricate. · The mother regrets questioning Child A in the way she did · The mother accepts that it may have made him feel uncomfortable and was inappropriate; and · The mother accepts that such should not happen again and freely gave an undertaking to that effect on 13 September 2022.[12]The mother made the following further concessions: · The mother believed that the father and Child D may have been conducting an inappropriate relationship; · It was not appropriate to seek to raise a topic as sensitive as this via messaging, at any stage. · It was not appropriate to name the WhatsApp group involving the father, Child D and the mother as sex. · The impact of it upon Child D is likely to have been profound. · It was wholly inappropriate. · The creation of the WhatsApp group was likely to further distress Child D and likely to have been emotionally damaging to her. · The mother accepts that she has no direct evidence to support her belief. · The mother does not invite the court to make a finding that an inappropriate relationship between the father and Child D has taken place and she does not seek to rely on this allegation. · The mother does not assert this issue means the father should not spend time with the children or that is a reason to seek to curtail his time with him in any way. · The mother wishes to invest in the father as a co-parent and the effect of the mother’s position is that the case must proceed on the basis that it did not happen and any assessment undertaken or proceeds on that basis, including the section 7 report. It will be for the Cafcass officer to consider the implications, if any, for the children of the conflict between the mother’s view and the fact that there is no evidence that such has taken place.[17]It was against this background (what are called by father’s counsel the ‘first set of allegations’) that the second and third set of allegations were then made. These include M’s assertions that the children (Child A and Child B and Child C) had made allegations of a sexual nature to her, and as a result contact between the children and their father was again stopped.[18]The father on 2.10.23 issued a C2 to suspend and/or vary the current child arrangements order dated 20 December 2022 for an interim live with order in his favour.[19]There was a hearing on 6 October 2023 before the magistrates when the December order was suspended, the case transferred to a District Judge and an order imposed that the children live with their father. On 9 October 2023 with input from an officer of Cafcass the joint lives with order was reinstated and the matter then re-allocated to HHJ Patel. I pause here to note that a record of that hearing has DJ Mody stating that “I feel horrified for these children. They are being dragged in and out of applications that both of you are making.”[20]HHJ Patel then considered the arrangements for the children and made substantive case management directions at a hearing on 25 October 2023. The live with order of 20 December was once again suspended and orders made that the children live with their father and spend time with their mother (as they continue to date to do). The Cafcass Officer became the children’s Rule 16.4 Guardian and a prohibited steps order was made preventing the mother from questioning the children or making recordings of them about the time they spend with their father.[21]The case was allocated to me in December 2023 and on the 15th of that month I gave a judgment relating to interim child arrangement orders. The orders I made have subsisted until after the fact-finding hearing, meaning that the children for a period of time spent no more than 3 nights at a time in the care of their mother both in term time and in school holidays. That changed in light of the findings I made and the risks of harm arising from the findings in this case.[22]It is important to record that the children are part of a larger sibling group of 7: 3 of whom remain living with their mother. The eldest whom I shall refer to as F is now over the age of 18 and left her mother’s care on her 18th birthday and resides elsewhere. None of the subject children have seen her since that date, some 2 years ago.[23]I heard this matter for what was listed as a composite fact-finding and final hearing over several days at the beginning of October handing down a draft judgment on 16 October 2024 and then a final judgment was handed down post a further hearing on 17 October 2024.[24]It is important to note that when coming to the fact-finding hearing I was faced with 2 sets of allegations, one from each parent, and they each individually, not least when taken together, provided a stark and concerning factual divide between the parents and their respective positions, views of one another and of each’s conduct towards each other and towards the subject children.[25]I was struck that Child C at only 4 years old had had significant disruption to arrangements and time with his father, and latterly changes to the time he spends with his mother and older siblings. Child B was at the time only 5. There had been suspension of the time the children see their father on at least 3 occasions. The last being in early autumn 2023 when the mother raised the most serious of allegations against the father, that being that he, the father, had sexually assaulted Child B and encouraged Child A to do the same and or that he, the father, coached the children to tell their mother that they have been sexually assaulted to provoke a reaction in her, to in effect gaslight her.[26]Against these the father’s allegations ran to some 16 factual allegations of harm. They focused on matters such as assertions that the mother has emotionally/psychologically abused the children in deliberately questioning them to coerce/coach them to make allegations against the father such as: threatening to assault their mother i, and that the applicant has sexually abused his stepdaughter F. The allegations also include the recent allegations that the applicant sexuallyabused Child B and also forced Child A to sexually abuse Child B[27]At the conclusion of my fact-finding hearing I found that the parent’s relationship had been characterised by abusive behaviours and that both had at time behaved in ways which they went on to regret.[28]I did not find that the father had behaved in the way alleged by the mother and significantly I found that the mother’s belief system in relation to the father is damaged and her evidence to me and her closing submissions reinforce that finding. The mother’s negativity towards the father has clouded her judgment in a harmful way and her children have suffered as a result. I find that she questioned the children within that emotional state and in so doing coached and led them to say things that were and are not true. I relied too in reaching this finding on the children’s own assertions to the school and to professionals about their mother questioning them.[29]I found that the father had insight into the impact of his behaviours and the abusive environment on the children, but the mother did not. I remained very worried about the children and the ongoing risks of harm including risks that the mother would continue to questions them and that the children would remain embroiled in her conflict and clouded negative view of their father.[30]I also found that that in light of the mother’s oral evidence and lack of insight, it was likely that the mother has continued to question/pressure Children A,B and C , when in her care, and the children cannot talk about their father or their lives with him freely or indeed at all. There are many cameras in the mother’s home and the mother’s view of the father is, I find, palpable to the children.[31]I accepted the father’s evidence supported by that of the guardian and social worker, that Child B has shown fear and upset about going to her M’s house and that Child Aseems weighed down.[32]It is important for that full judgment to be read into this judgment.[33]At the conclusion of that judgment, based on the findings I made, I ordered that the time the children should spend with their mother should be supervised pending further assessment and further consideration by the parties and then the court of welfare matters. I ordered all parties, including the Local Authority to prepare documents addressing me on their proposals for the way ahead and whether final orders should now be made. I pause to re-state that the children are part of a wider sibling group of 7; their older 3 siblings were in the care of their mother and spending time with their father. The oldest sibling left home at age 18 and lives elsewhere All 6 children (save the eldest) are subject to local authority child protection plans. N was, until January 2025, the allocated social worker for all of the children. R became the children’s newly-allocated social worker in January 2025; her team manager is P Those siblings now live with their father and do not see their mother. There is a real and pressing need for better arrangements for the children to see each other.[34]At the time of handing down that fact-finding judgment I made the following observations and findings within the welfare aspect of the case (which I reviewed in November 2024). i. “I have made a number of findings in relation to the mother. These will be hard for her to read and to contemplate. She loves her children and believes she was trying to keep them safe from an abusive father. I have found that she lacks insight into her harmful behaviour and that her negative views of the father are fixed and present an ongoing risk of harm to the children. ii. It is my current assessment that the children have a clear need to be protected from ongoing harmful behaviour and that the mother is not able to do this. I find that the father is able to meet the children’s holistic needs, including their emotional and psychological needs. I am clear that he does not present a risk to the children. iii. It is in the welfare interests of the children for the time they spend with their mother to be supervised pending further assessment. The risk that the mother will question the children, or encourage her older children to do so is in my judgment real and poses a real risk of harm that I cannot ignore.” iv. The children should, if supervision is available (either through a third party or the LA), see their mother each alternate weekend - as currently happens - and for an extra day in each week of a school holiday.[35]I listed the matter again in November 2024 to review the welfare aspects to these proceedings. I had made it plain to the parties that I was both worried about the children’s emotional needs and risks arising from their mother (her behaviours and thought processes), and about how relationships (in particular between the children and their mother) could be preserved moving forward.[36]Coming into the case on 5 November the position appeared bleak. The mother had seemed to have taken a clear and fixed view that she would not see any of the subject children and made it plain that she felt that the court had reached wrong conclusions and that she feared she would be labelled ‘crazy’ (her word) and the children would continue to suffer from conflict and harm from this ongoing litigation. I was advised that the older children were now weekly boarding and ).at weekends they were currently staying with their father.[37]The LA advised that the children remain on the Child Protection register at least until the next review hearing in December and, if they were removed from the register then, they would be deemed ‘Children in Need’ for at least 12 weeks. The LA and in particular the then allocated social worker N remained at that time committed to work with the children and their parents.[38]The father urged me to bring these proceedings to a conclusion at that hearing, asserting that both he and the children needed litigation to stop so that they could begin to make sense of the lived experiences and seek support. The father understandably wanted to know what could be said to the children and how their needs might be managed. He urged me to make no orders in relation to contact, particularly in light of the mother’s stated position.[39]The Guardian set out that she was ‘saddened’ by the mother’s stated position and that she had hoped that there could be a way she and the father could be both a part of their children’s lives. She expressed that she hoped the mother would reflect and change her position. The Guardian also set out that: Had the mother been willing, the Guardian would have been advocating for an expert assessment of the mother to see how she may be helped to move on with her thinking about the father so that contact could safely move on from being supervised.[40]In short, all parties started the hearing inviting me to conclude proceedings on the basis that the mother would have no part on the children’s lives, the father could make decisions about the children and there would be no contact with the mother (save as agreed with the father). The father had been in touch with the father of the older children and together they discussed ensuring that the siblings could spend time with one another.[41]I made it plain that I would not be content to simply leave these children in this situation. I reminded myself that Child C was then only 4 years old. Child A was already very unhappy at the changes he had endured in regard to where he lived and how much time he saw his mother and siblings. I was clear to the parties that I would need persuasion that this route was in the best interests of the children. Ms Barnett on behalf of the father properly and fairly advocated on behalf of her client, reminded me of the risks of harm to the children arising from ongoing litigation and the prejudice delays might cause to them. She highlighted the ongoing impact on the father and the need for his position to be protected, he being the carer for the children at the moment.[42]The father was then (as he remains at the date of this final hearing) plainly exhausted emotionally by the proceedings and drained financially. I considered then, and was in no doubt, that the father needed the pressure of litigation to be concluded. The children were at that time more supported by the LA and there is a good working relationship between both parents and N and between the children and their social worker. I was however troubled that were proceedings to simply conclude then, that necessary work and advice would be lost to the children, their parents and professionals and positions may remain stuck.[43]Ultimately, and following ongoing communications over the course of the day, the landscape shifted and the mother agreed to engage in a family psychological assessment such that she and the Guardian supported by the LA invited me to order such an assessment as necessary. The father agreed to engage but pressed a conclusion to the proceedings. It was flagged that he ought not to be psychologically assessed but that he would engage in the assessment. This route was, the Guardian submitted through Ms Howell, a way to try to assist children and parents to make sense of the lived experience, look at what was needed for the family and what was needed to move the time the children spend with their mother onwards and back towards a more usual arrangement. The Guardian was of the view that this should happen within proceedings.[44]The matter was adjourned and Dr Y a consultant clinical psychologist was instructed to provide an assessment. Both parents did engage and a report was prepared for the court on 8 February 2025. It is to the credit of both parents that they engaged in that assessment.[45]It is important that whilst the report of Dr Y in many ways was adopted by the parties, each flagged some concern about the degree to which this expert had properly read and considered my judgment addressing the facts (what may be called the fact-finding judgment). In a position statement dated February 2025 the father properly highlighted some aspects of the reports in which either Dr Y mistakes findings I have made or has not properly understood them. A good example of this is Dr Y’s use of the word alleges when referring to allegations the mother continues to make against the father without properly directing herself to the findings I have made. Further she appears to have allowed the mother to continue to advance her case and allegations against the father by showing text messages without proper challenge in a way which gives rise to some concern about her understanding of the approach to the findings I made and then of her assessment of the father.[46]An example is set out by the father in his position statement to me and I adopt it into this judgment: Para 44 In this paragraph it is stated that ‘it is reported that the children have been so involved in the dispute that they have been coerced into saying bad and emotionally abusive things about their father ........The mother then alleges.......This involvement of the children, where they feel stuck between the parents is highly emotionally abusive’. The court has found the mother to have been highly emotionally abusive. What the mother ‘alleges’ has been found not to be true-that I have not done this.[47]Further in many places in the assessment Dr Y refers to ‘the parents’ when discussing the findings giving the impression that she has not differentiated between very serious findings made against the mother when none of the same nature and type were found against the father.[48]It is imperative that experts consider with care judgments which deal with findings of fact and in particular in complex cases such as this. Assessments of the parents must be predicated upon the findings of the court and an expert must be careful not to overlay those finding's with their own assumptions or assessments of the facts, it can (as it did in this case in relation to the father) lead experts to recommend a parent engage in work and or therapeutic support which does not sit with findings made. I have formed the view that it would not be right to name this expert in the judgment as they did not attend court to give evidence nor were they given any notice of the fact that criticisms of them may be set out in a judgment which would be published.[49]I was troubled that others not involved in this case may read that assessment and draw from it an assumption that findings were made against the father when they have not been and that some allegations remained just that (and had not been proved) when in fact findings had been made. For this reason, I reviewed my earlier decision to permit disclosure of the report to ‘the trust’ and or more generally. I set out below those parts of the assessment which are important to the future care of the children with important caveats which must be noted where relevant. Any professional who works with the family and who may have access to this report must read too both of my main judgments (fact finding and this one). It is imperative that there is no confusion as to findings made or nor made (as is important to note) in relation to the allegations and assertions by the mother in this case.[50]I note the following from the assessment, conclusions and recommendations of Dr Y: · All 3 children are currently failing to reach their full potential. Child C appears to be a very active but somewhat withdrawn child. Child B is a very watchful child, and she is pseudomature fluctuating from behaving as a much older child to a much younger infant. She appears to be socially and emotionally immature. Child A is a highly anxious child who is plagued with shame and guilt feeling that he is responsible for the families’ difficulties. Child A is struggling in school, and he spoke about how intrusive thoughts are interfering with his ability to concentrate. · All three children have not seen their mother since before Christmas and they miss her terribly and are suffering as a result of not seeing her. · The children’s mother is a bright intelligent woman who loves her children. However, she is also a woman who experiences considerable emotional difficulties. It is highly likely that she has very complex mental health difficulties which are directly attributable to an alleged abusive childhood. Over the years she has been diagnosed with depression, anxiety and ADHD. In this report it is suggested that she is best understood as a person who has complex PTSD and that there is also a possibility that she has a co-morbid bipolar condition. · As it stands there is considerable concern about the mother’s welfare and there is an urgent need for her to be assessed and treated by a multi-disciplinary team. · The mother continues to believe that the father remains a dangerous manipulative man who is focused on acquiring control of the children’s trust fund money. She believes that if she is seeing the children he will continue to weaponise them in order to hurt her. She believes that by not seeing the children she is protecting them. · The father presents as an intelligent pleasant man who wants the best for his children. He denies that he presents a risk to the children and that he has any interest in the children’s trust funds. He acknowledges that he is not coping with parenting 3 traumatised children, and he is requesting additional support. The court has found that the father is not a risk to the children and that he has no interest in their trust funds, rather he has been focused on protecting them and meeting their needs. · The children have reported that they are scared by their paternal grandfather, who shouts and there appears to have been a recent incident when father pushed the children into another room to stop them misbehaving at the grandfather’s house. No findings were made in relation to this allegation and this is denied by the father. The court placed no reliance on this report or the alleged behaviours of the paternal grandfather. · This report concludes by suggesting interventions for every member of this family. The court did not agree with all recommendations for the father as it was troubled with the assessors lack of analysis of the father’s conduct as found by the court. In particular the court did not agree that the father needed to attend the Freeva course. · It is concluded in this report that if the children are to recover from the parenting that they have received to date it is important that they experience better than good enough parenting going forward. In order for them to benefit from the love and care of both parents, it is vital that both are fit and well, to this end it is hoped that the children’s trust funds recognises that all of the family needs therapy. It is very difficult to get timely therapeutic help on the NHS being able to access therapy outside of the NHS will greatly help them. The court found that the father has the parenting skills to meet the needs of his children.[46]Following on from the recommendations of Dr Y the Local Authority offered the following support and signposting for the family: · Referral to the Solihull Parenting Programme (this can be for both parents in light of the recommendation by Dr Y); · Referral for Child A to the ‘Feeling Safe Programme’ (N.B. only Child A is eligible due to his age.The local authority recognises that Child A may find it difficult to attend this course due to school finishing times). · Completion of final safety planning in respect of any proposed future contact with the mother. · The family to explore and fund any further therapeutic intervention/counselling as identified by Dr Y.[47]I noted that whilst some of this could be actioned (and indeed was at the date of this hearing), if the mother chooses not to engage there is little this Local Authority can do to compel her to and I find they were right to be cautious as to how they worked with the mother in light of her mental health issues. This final hearing:[48]This is a sad and complex case, the conclusion of which is that the mother did not attend this final hearing in May 2025 and made it clear that she could not engage further in any litigation or in efforts to move to spending time with her children. I was told at this final hearing that the pressure of this litigation was having a serious impact on the mother’s mental health. Based on all I have read and know about this mother I take this statement from her very seriously and remain mindful of Dr Y’s assessment of her. The mother met with the Guardian on 27 March 2025 and expressed how she had felt placed under emotional pressure to agree to engage in the court process. She expressed she could and would do no more.[49]When the matter was restored for a hearing before me in February 2025, I had again hoped that with support, guidance and time the mother may agree to see the children and or take steps to move towards being able to do so. I had to balance the ongoing harm to the children and their primary care giver of adjourning the litigation and reviewing it. It was a very nuanced decision and I have a judgment setting out my decision basing it on the mother’s attendance at court and her agreement to engage in some work to support her children who were missing her dreadfully and suffering emotional and psychological harm as a result.[50]Dr Y had made it plain that the separation of the children both from their older half siblings and their mother was having and would continue to have a profound impact on the children. She opined that: · Research indicates that the separation of siblings is linked with long term emotional harm. The children did not have any contact with their older siblings for many months and even though they see them at school they live apart. · In this case there are indicators to suggest that the older children often cared for the younger ones providing them with love and security. · The mother is now refusing to see the children. The loss of these key relationships: the mother, the siblings and the relationship with V the nanny, is likely to have resulted in the children feeling bereft, lonely and to have a sense of blame and shame. The children’s separation from these key individuals is likely to have caused long-term emotional harm to the children.[51]In February 2025 the Guardian explored what she felt the children needed from both their parents so aid them to move forward and to be provided with care which was more than just good enough care. She recognised that the mother may not be able to engage in direct contact with the children and advised as follows: The Guardian would wish father to consider sending a letter and preparing memory boxes for the children if she remains of the view that she cannot engage in other contact. She hoped that the mother would see her GP, share the judgments and report of Dr Y and engage in therapeutic help for herself.[52]Of the father, the Guardian noted that he needed to engage in support around domestic abuse and managing anger for his, recommending: The Guardian supports the recommendations of Dr Y that father seeks assistance with verbal anger, first engages with work regarding domestic abuse and seeks talking therapy via the GP. She also supports the recommendation that he engages in a parenting course such as incredible years.[53]The mother remained clear in her views that she felt that the children were at risk in the care of their father. She did not accept that the court had got it right in the findings it had made and she was clear that her remaining in the children’s lives in a situation where they lived with their father and could only see her in a managed way was harmful to the children. She decided it was better not to allow the conflict to continue so she would withdraw. She had in a handwritten note for that hearing told me that:
“I am very aware of the distress my absence will have on my children” “I love my children very much and if the court will not help us it leaves us with no other options than the one I have given. I do not think for one second this is. Good option. But it is the only available to me now.”
[54]I reminded myself of the opinions and recommendations of Dr Y in particular that:• The children have secure attachments with their elder siblings, and it is vital that they have regular meaningful contact with them.• The children miss their mother, and reports suggest that of the younger children, Child A had the closest relationship with her.• Going forward it is in the children’s best interest that they have a relationship with their mother. In an ideal world they would have weekly “seeing” contact with her. In order to protect the mother, father and the children from false allegations it is likely to be advisable that at least during the initial phases that any contact is supervised.• It is hoped that after reading about the children’s need to see her that their mother will reconsider seeing them.• At the present time the mother reports that she is financially compromised, and it is therefore likely that she does not have the resources to get to contact or pay for the supervision of contact. It is hoped that the administrators of the children’s trust funds could recognise the vital importance of this contact and could provide the necessary resources for this to occur.[55]I was told though the Guardian that Child A did not believe the adults around him as to why his mother was not in his life. He could not believe that she was choosing not to see him. He was plainly suffering significant emotional distress and harm and had a real need for his mother.[56]It was in light of the ongoing risks of harm to the children and the impact of loss to them of their important relationship with their mother and siblings that I did again adjourn in February and listed the matter for a final hearing in July for one day. The parties all in court on that day agreed to try to move forward, the mother expressed she too would reflect on proving something for her children.[57]Sadly, however the mother decided that she would not engage any further with professionals nor take steps to make any type of contact with her children. It is important to record that I do not form a judgment in relation to that decision by her, she is as Dr Y opined someone who very likely and I so find, has complex mental health issues. She loves her children, but her own mental health needs impair her ability to think about the findings this court has made and frame the father in anything other than a negative light.[58]For the children, this judgment may become an important record of a significant period in their lives. At every stage there have been one or more professionals engaged in either protecting them and or representing them in these proceedings and all have held the children at the centre of their thinking and decision making. The Guardian has thought about each hearing for them and has tried hard to help their mother move forward. The social worker who was allocated for some time had spent time with the children and their siblings, creating a working relationship with both parents. The current social work team have also worked with the family with care and respect. The family were fortunate to have such professionals involved.[59]However there comes a time when both court and professionals have to agree that the purpose of proceedings has come to an end and finality and a break from litigation becomes the better choice for the children. The court’s role is not to pursue every possible avenue to persuade a parent to engage in the process, nor to delay for the sake of delay and a hope that something might change. By the date of this hearing in May, brought forward from June, it was clear to me, as it was to all involved, that the balance had firmly tipped in favour of concluding the case.[60]I am reminded of the sage words of Baroness Hale in Re G [§41] that:[41]Making contact happen and, even more importantly, making contact work is one of the most difficult and contentious challenges in the whole of family law.[61]Of course, in that case the statement was made in the context of one parent failing to make children available for contact, in this case it is the opposite situation, but the statement applies in my judgment with as much force in this situation as the other.[62]I look too to the line of authorities summarized by Lady Justice King in Re S (a Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 689 and that maintaining contact for children is desirable and almost always in the best interest of children. King LJ referred back to the following authorities [§§24-26] stating as follows: The courts have said time and again in any number of ways that contact is almost always in the interests of a child.

Lady Justice Macur in Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1147 said :

“A child’s continuing relationship with a non-residential parent is highly desirable and contact should not be denied unless the child’s welfare demands it. Domestic violence is not, in itself, a bar to direct contact, but must be assessed in the circumstances as a whole..”
[25]More recently

Lord Justice Christopher Clarke in Re R ( A Child)[2014] EWCA Civ 1664 said:

“[16].. the court has in a series of cases stressed the importance of contact between parent and child as a fundamental element of family life, which is almost always in the interests of the child, and which is to be terminated only in exceptional circumstances, where there are cogent reasons for doing so and where there is no alternative”
[26]If, as I find, the fact that there will have to be long term supervision of contact is not in itself a reason to refuse face to face contact, the court must identify and set out, by reference to the evidence, its reasons for refusing contact. In addition, where, as here, the judge has the benefit of a specialist risk assessment and two reports from an experienced CAFCASS officer, it is important that the judge’s reasons for rejecting their recommendation are clearly articulated in the judgment. The judge did not give any reasons for rejecting the recommendation of Mrs Oliver other than to comment that “I do not think that Mrs Oliver really addressed that” ( ie supervision) “on a long term basis”.[63]Having reviewed more recent jurisprudence this approach has not changed, although more may now be understood as to the impact of experiencing abusive behaviours on children. In this case supervision of the time the children spend with their mother would, in my judgment be necessary, but it would not have been a bar to supporting the relationships between the children and their mother in light of the findings I have made against her.[64]Turning to events more recently, the children had been, after being de-registered, deemed Children in Need. The last CIN meeting took place in May, but the allocated social worker and team manager attended this last hearing and confirmed that they would continue to offer supports post this hearing, in particular to Child A and would assist in signposting the father to any further supports.[65]The Guardian’s last position statement provided updating information on each of the children. It is sad and worrying to read how hard the children find not seeing their mother and how acute the loss of her still is to them.[66]In particular the court was advised that: · Father has sourced play therapy for Child B and C and and CBT for Child A following the recommendations from the family psychologist report. · School have commented that Child C has been more unsettled in recent weeks and has been asking more about mummy and when he will be seeing her again. School have put support in place for him around this. and when he speaks about mummy they offer him a session. He seems to feel better after he has had support from a key worker and had a discussion about the feelings he has about his mum. · Child B is getting on well in school, although the school express concern that she internalises a lot of her worries rather than speaking to adults about this. · Child A is getting on well in school and is now able to identify triggers to his emotions which is a positive step forward for him. He is still working with ELSA and enjoys this support in school. He knows he has access to support in school and will access this as and when he needs to. · Sibling contact is going well in school. The older children will go over to the junior school and sit and play with the children and do reading and homework with them. The Guardian understands that Child A talks to the older children a lot about mum and they have been very good in answering his questions and they have spoken to him about mum’s mental health. He has responded very well to these discussions. The children all seem to get a lot from this contact. · Father has confirmed he is in regular communication with the older children’s father and will organise sibling contact during holidays.[62]It is my judgment vital that sibling contact is supported, treated and being so very important for the children and that both father and the father of the older children can ensure that the children’s relationship is protected.[63]I encourage father to share this judgment with the father of the older children and he has my permission to do so. It is, in my judgment, time for the adults caring for the children to understand what life has been like for all of them and how they have been harmed by the mother’s behaviours, even though she loves each and every child and would not have wanted to cause any one of them harm.[64]Within all of the allegations and accusations there has been one which the mother has held to, even in the last months of the court process. This relates to a financial trust of which the children are beneficiaries. Much has been said about this trust throughout the court process. I understand that at one stage the trust provided financial support to the mother in these proceedings. When invited to financially assist both of the parents post fact-finding they declined to do so. The mother in short believes strongly that the father has been intent on securing the management of and money from the trust. She believes and has stated on many occasions that this has been his driving motive. I make it plain that I do not find any evidence of this and note that the trust has and retains control over how monies are paid to the children. They have agreed to fund therapy for the children and were also willing to assist in funding supervision for time the children may have spent with their mother if she chose to do so. There has been no evidence in my judgment of the trust and the father collaborating nor of the father seeking payments from the trust to his own financial gain.[65]I am clear that notwithstanding the findings I made and the admissions made by the father about his behaviours, his conduct and focus has been during my oversight of this case, child-focused. When at times he has presented as frustrated, angry or upset, it has been within a context which is understandable, when faced with the nature and type of allegations he (and indeed his children) have had to endure. He is aware that he must be careful not to allow his negativity towards the mother to be felt and or experienced by the children. I am satisfied he has and will continue to access therapy and support to ensure that this does not happen. He knows the harm that this will cause his children.[66]I have of course, in reaching decisions about what final orders to make, have had regard to the welfare checklist. The best interests of each of these three children have been the centre of my thinking and assessment. I am mindful that they may one day wish to read this judgment, to see if there is in it information which may help them make sense of their childhood, the loss of their mother and the experiences of harm they have endured.[67]I have considered with care each element of the welfare checklist and in particular the risk of harm to them, which in my view currently come from their mother’s view of their father and her emotionally harmful parenting of them. The children are safely cared for with their father and there are no plans to change either their home or their schooling. There is no significant change to their day to day lives. A home with their father meets their needs to be cared for by a parent, and management of contact with their mother would protect them from harm from their mother. As already set out above, there is a risk of harm to them in losing contact with their siblings but I am satisfied that their father will do all he can to prevent that from happening.[68]After the fact-finding hearing I wrote to the children (seeking guidance from the children’s Guardian) and I told them I would write to them again and I have done so. It is not in the interest of these children to not have their mother in their lives, even if through indirect contact and regulated time together. However, this court cannot compel a parent into contact. It plainly would, in any event and in my judgment, cause harm to the children’s mother and risk much for the children were any attempts made now to compel her.[69]I must stand back and consider the Article 8 rights of each of the children and of their parents. It is necessary for me consider whether orders should be made, or whether there should be no orders in relation to the involvement of the mother in the lives of her children at this time. I have considered the capacities of the parents to meet the full needs of the children and find that the father is a capable and loving father. The mother too is a loving parent, but currently she is not able to meet the children’s emotional and psychological needs. To place them in a situation where she can harm them by sharing her views of their father would risk further harm to the children.[70]The children’s needs are being met by their parents and if there is no change to their current arrangements (which no person is advocating) then there is no risk to which I must have regard. They are safe and well cared for and accessing therapy and supports at school The children see their older siblings. A change for the positive would be some contact with their mother.[71]The father is not saying that the children should not have their mother in their lives: he remains of course very worried for the risks of harm she poses, but in my judgment is able to reflect on how to balance that harm and agrees that managed and carefully supervised contact would be in the children’s best interests. The Guardian too echoes this and would, were all things possible, have wanted the mother to be able to engage in therapy for herself and that she was able to have some form of contact with the children.[72]The children even at their young ages are able to articulate their wishes and feelings to see their mother. Child B perhaps of them all has been least vocal, she before had expressed some uncertainty at seeing her mother due to the harm I have found she was then suffering.[73]To that end the following orders are in my judgment a clear pathway for everyone to follow if and when the mother is able to re engage in the lives of her children. In the event the mother comes forward seeking to spend time with the children: a) Indirect time shall take place for three months. ‘Indirect’ means that the mother may send letters and cards to the children twice a month on condition that the items are sent to father who may screen the contents before giving them to the children. Father shall encourage the children to each respond. If suitable indirect contact has been maintained b) Supervised time shall take place as follows i. video calls once a fortnight for 8 weeks for up to 30 minutes on each occasion. All being well: ii. visiting time shall then take place once a month with a view to it increasing to once a fortnight. c) The supervision shall be carried out by a suitable organisation identified by the father (such as New Leaf). d) The above stepped arrangement/pathway is required before any unsupervised time thereafter be considered take place and this then, shall be arranged by the applicant father.[74]This is a pathway this court endorses, but the order shall provide that there is no order for contact and that any progression shall follow the pathway set out above.[75]The orders I make that the children live with their father hold the children’s lives experiences and cements that important relationship and provides certainty to them and to their father. Within that live with order he must however continue to share parental responsibility with the children’s mother. It is important and in the best interests of the children that their father is able to make decisions for them and take day-to-day parenting decisions around education health and welfare. While their mother continues to see the father as a risk, and while she declines to engage in the lives of the children, it is in my judgment necessary and proportionate that I make orders which assist the father to exercise his parental responsibility in a way which ensure the welfare needs of the children come first.[76]To that end I order that the father can make day-to-day decisions about routine health education and welfare matters such as and not limited to: · The children engaging in therapy which I expressly order today that the father has permission to arrange. · Which school activities the children engage in and which school trips they go on · Routine health and NHS-approved vaccinations · Routine eye and dental appointments. I further order that: In the event that the respondent mother remains absent from the children and there is a need to exercise parental responsibility from time to time in relation to matters including but not limited to: a) School, further and higher education choices and costs (save for routine matters) b) Where the children live c) Medical and health issues (except for routine appointments and minor matters) d) Travel abroad with the children over 8 weeks The applicant father shall have permission to make such decisions without the consent of the mother on condition that he has given notice to the applicant in writing on each occasion to her last known postal address by registered post and also her last known email address requesting that she respond in 14 days of receipt and she fails to do so.[77]Nothing in these orders shall be taken to prevent the father from making and taking urgent decisions as and if they arise.[78]It will be important for professionals working with the children to have access to the judgments of this court and the child-friendly letters/narrative I and others produce. Permission is given for GPs, safeguarding leads and the pastoral heads at the school to see these documents as well of course as any professional working with any one of the children and or their parents. I have already stated that in my judgment it is also important for the father of the older siblings to also see the courts’ judgments.[79]These proceedings have taken their toll on the family. I have seen and witnessed the exhaustion from both parents and have read about the emotional harm the children have suffered. There is now a time for calm and repair. I urge the father to manage his needs to enable him to continue to be the best father he can to three children who have clear emotional and psychological needs: it is likely these will manifest more as time passes.[80]To the mother I express a hope that she can navigate her needs and hold her children’s needs at the centre of her thoughts and decisions.[81]I express my gratitude to the social work team and to the guardian and the children’s solicitor Ms Newcombe who have worked tirelessly for the children they represent in this complex case and also to their representatives, in particular to Ms Howell and to Ms Barnett (who represents the father) who have assisted me immensely over the past year and 6 months.[82]I have provided an updated narrative for the children which will be sent to them once the Guardian has reviewed it.