K, Re [2025] EWFC 139 (B)

IN CONFIDENCEThis 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, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT CREWE
[2025] EWFC 139 (B)
Between
The FatherApplicantThe Mother1 st RespondentK2 nd Respondent
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OF K
BEFORE HER HONOUR JUDGE HESFORD
_____________________________APPROVED JUDGMENT FOLLOWING WELFARE HEARINGDATED 16 MAY 2025HEARING DATES ON 6 & 7 MAY_____________________________The father appeared in person for in personMr Brindle (instructed by Ms Stoller of Poole Alcock) appeared for motherMr Heaney (instructed by Ms Burns of Moorcrofts) appeared for child via her GuardianMs Withington appeared for Local AuthorityDate 2025-05-16

HHJ Hesford :

[1]This is an extremely difficult case, with issues which are both unique and complex and is the father’s application for contact and parental responsibility. It concerns K, aged about 4.[2]This judgment deals with the welfare issues following the fact-finding judgment which I delivered on 5 August 2024 and should be read in conjunction therewith. It is deliberately detailed due to the mother not being present for the majority of the hearing (at her choice). I do not intend to set out the factual background in detail, but I did not find the findings which the mother sought against the father to be proven in the previous hearing. I did make findings against the father in relation to one incident of harassment of the mother in April 2021 and of abusive behaviour on one occasion in December 2020. I also stated that neither party was a particularly credible witness. Despite these findings (or lack thereof), the mother still maintains that her allegations are true.[3]Following the fact-finding hearing, the matter has been considered at length by a plethora of professionals, including a clinical psychologist, social workers and the guardian. At the time of this final hearing there had been no direct or indirect contact between father and child. Indeed, the mother has only allowed the guardian to meet K once despite requests and only then after an order requiring access.[4]This matter has been proceeding since early 2021, over four years, and indeed for all but two months of K’s life. It is absolutely vital that these proceedings should be concluded.

THE PARTIES POSITIONS

[5]The father seeks direct contact with K on a regular basis and to be fully involved in her life. He seeks an order for parental responsibility and a declaration of parentage.[6]The mother has been opposed to any involvement of the father with K throughout these proceedings, and until the pre-hearing review, had insisted that she personally must have absolutely no direct or indirect involvement with him. In her final statement of 30 April 2025, she suddenly sought to be involved personally with facilitating electronic indirect contact but this could not include photographs and would be only on a 3 monthly basis, with very little input by father or herself. She would not agree to a Family Assistance Order, nor would she agree to any life story work. She would agree to the father having parental responsibility but strictly in name only, he would have no power to actually exercise it. She wanted the non-molestation order to continue.[7]The mother’s position changed again during the hearing, this position being made clear to the court in her evidence in chief following the evidence of the psychologist. Now after four years of refusing to consider any form of contact, she was suddenly agreeable to a Family Assistance Order, to the local authority undertaking life story work and to monthly indirect electronic contact. She sought to direct the precise terms of the family assistance order, remained opposed to the father having a photograph of K and her position on parental responsibility was unchanged.[8]The local authority recommended in their addendum Section 37 report dated 22 April 2025 that as a minimum there should be a Family Assistance Order for 12 months to support and assist the family, to include regular Child in Need planning reviews/meetings and Child in Need visits, with ongoing direct work with K and ongoing information gathering from relevant agencies including school and health. They would undertake further work depending upon whether the court ordered direct or indirect contact, and this would include preparing for and supervising family time and undergoing direct work with parents and K to help her build a relationship with her father and understand his role in her life including a life story book. Any response to this from The mother that resulted in harmful behaviours towards K could mean an increase in threshold for K to child protection planning level.[9]The Guardian recommended indirect contact between K and her father on a monthly basis including photographs and for the local authority and maternal grandparents (in due course) to be involved in facilitating this. There should be life story work with K including a life story book and The father should also receive reports from school. He should be awarded parental responsibility without restrictions.

THE EVIDENCE

[10]There is a significant bundle of evidence. I will not address the written evidence unless specifically relevant to the oral evidence and the decisions. Each party has filed many statements throughout this matter. Most of the evidence was not actively challenged and was consistent or unchanged in oral evidence. It has all been read, considered and taken into account.[11]I have heard live evidence from the father, mother, Dr Craig, the social worker and from the guardian. Mother’s evidence was remotely given, but the balance was in person. Mother only attended for her own evidence as per the fact-finding hearings. The oral evidence in this matter was pertinent, persuasive and influential.[12]The mother was supported by her intermediary and as she is a vulnerable person, special measures were in place in accordance with previous hearings. These included restricting some evidence from the father, ensuring that they could not see each other in the courtroom or on screen and the mother not attending fully. The court asked the father’s questions of the mother. DR JAMIE CRAIG, PSYCHOLOGIST[13]Dr Craig filed one report and answered questions, his written evidence was clear and detailed. I have briefly addressed here only the most relevant comments in the summary report disclosed to the father to maintain confidentiality, but there is a very detailed and significant report in the bundle, approximately fifty pages in length. In summary, he found that the mother’s accounts of her mental health were confusing and contradictory and “… it was challenging to be confident about the extent to which she genuinely experienced current distress and impact on her wellbeing due to the OCD symptoms she reported. Regardless of the level of OCD symptoms, what was evident however was the potential for secondary gain in reporting such symptoms, and control / demand avoidance and validation this has enabled her to feel.” She acknowledged that her thoughts and ideas (such as these proceedings being covered in semen) were unlikely to be based in reality but this did not stop her repeating them. He continued “She was highly sensitised to being viewed as manipulative and controlling but these features were very evident on assessment. “She made many highly inappropriate boundary violations and was provocative, making accusations of highly unprofessional and unethical behaviour. She appeared to have little regard to how she was experienced or concern for the likely impact on others of some of what she said. There were several flashes of her angry, confrontational manner in our assessment – she often raised her voice and was angrily dysregulated.”[14]She sought to take control during the interview process, used graphic and coarse sexual language, and refused to take responsibility for her own actions. She had a tendency to threaten and bulldoze to get her own way. She had “longstanding difficulties in maintaining mutual trusting relationships stretching back into her childhood, marked difficulties with emotional regulation and a history of self-harm/threats of self-harm as a communicative act.” She was clearly unwilling to support K having a relationship with her father or even a knowledge of him. She would not engage with treatment.[15]“She is in my view a poor historian and I did not always believe I had a candid account” and “She appears to have found a powerful way to ensure care, control and validation when reporting obsessional thoughts, a potential secondary gain. This echoed with my own judgment in the fact-finding hearing where I did not find any of her allegations proven and found her not to be a credible witness, with her evidence riddled with contradictions.[16]Dr Craig was a very impressive witness. He was balanced, thoughtful and child focussed. I have no difficulty in accepting his evidence. His oral evidence was entirely in line with his written evidence and he expressed appropriate concerns for K’s wellbeing, together with strong support for the local authority to continue its involvement with K and her mother. His oral evidence was given before the mother’s latest change of position as set out above in paragraph 7 above and he was unaware of her further change in position.[17]He considered the mother to be manipulative and able to control her approach better than she claimed, indeed she had done so historically but here was deliberately choosing not to do so. She tried to induce fear in others if something which she did not wish to do was suggested. He was of the opinion that she was very clear that she would not be willing to engage in treatment as this would take away the barrier of contact for the father; she was unwilling to change as this was her way of controlling professionals and making them do what she wanted. It was only when she perceived a threat to something that she did want, that she would change, such as agreeing to indirect contact when there may be a threat to her caring for her daughter if she did not agree. She was motivated only by negativity, not by reward, “if I give enough, it will get them off my back”. Her very recent agreement to the indirect contact (on her own terms) was a position she had taken to avoid something worse happening.[18]He considered that despite two full fact-finding processes where no findings were made, the mother still believed that she could get what she wanted by insisting they remained her beliefs. He considered this to be a very unhealthy model for the mother and for K whose identity needs were not being met. This caused him significant concern. He was also worried about K’s future development, when she did not acquiesce to the mother’s wishes, with the mother’s tendency to use threats and coercion against K being a significant concern. He was concerned about how she would respond if K dared to say that she wanted to know her father. Her similar patterns in the past meant that it was highly likely that she could be very angry and she could say frightening things to K. It was likely that she would make highly dramatic, factually incorrect, critical or angry comments about the father and affect K’s sense of identity. She needed support and work but he had no optimism that she would seek this. K would have to learn to adapt to her mother’s behaviour and not provoke her, she would know not to ask and would not feel secure.[19]It was extremely challenging to know how mother would react if direct contact was planned, as she exaggerated her symptoms and threw them out as a blockade when challenged. There would likely be an angry response and dysregulated behaviour. It was important that professionals should remain calm and measured and not give in or collude with the mother’s threats as this would serve to reinforce her behaviour. He opined that she would never facilitate direct contact, there was no point in expressing hope for the future. Mother did not want to change, as her behaviour was serving a function for her now, it was working. Her claims that she has never exposed K to her issues meant that either she managed her behaviour better than she claimed or she was not actually managing it and thus there were real concerns for K if mother was dysregulated.[20]On cross examination by counsel for the mother, his position was unchanged. He did not agree that the mother’s behaviour in having outbursts, making threats about decontamination, bleaching, even razoring K, etc was ritualistic but was more compulsive and he stated that whilst he was asked to believe these things by mother, at the same time she was contradictory. Questions appeared to be being put to him on the basis that it was factually established and accepted that she had already done some of these things, and he stated that he was not aware, only that she herself had stated so. At this point I interrupted the cross examination as I was concerned that matters were being put to Dr Craig as proven or accepted fact whilst they had not actually been established as such by this court. I wished to avoid his evidence being potentially tainted by relying on unestablished facts as proven facts. I established that the court had not adjudicated upon this issue at all, that the court had only dealt with the factual matters within the limited spectrum of the fact-finding hearing. There was no doubt that the mother made various claims of the need to bleach and de-contaminate and claimed that she had done so, but the court had seen no independent evidence that this had actually taken place, nor had it made any rulings upon the mother’s evidence (or indeed any other evidence) regarding matters concerned in the welfare hearing as it had not heard the same. Dr Craig agreed and confirmed that he was wholly unaware as to whether she had taken action to decontaminate or merely claimed to, he did not know what she did. He was clearly concerned about the mother having a history of claiming and reporting matters which were not true or accurate and held a considerable degree of scepticism as to her claims.[21]The mother would, he considered, continue to complain, argue and make accusations against professionals or would complain that her mental health was suffering to get them to back off. He accepted that there were no parenting concerns at present but in a very tightly controlled way, she was calling the shots. His speculation as to how matters would develop in the future was based on his assessment, experience and how children develop. He doubted that K would feel able to talk to professionals and considered that the mother may physically move to attempt to avoid scrutiny.[22]He was very surprised that mother had offered to facilitate contact herself, this was another contradiction. However he believed that indirect contact would not happen without professional involvement, there had to be an independent person involved for this and the mother would continue to raise further barriers. This involvement would also provide a basis to raise concerns and father would have a point of contact. THE FATHER[23]The father had filed several statements and his oral evidence was very short as neither the mother nor the Guardian had any questions for him. He confirmed his agreement to the orders recommended, save that he sought direct contact in the future, and that he sought unfettered parental responsibility and photographs. He would not share these on social media. He had no intentions of interfering in the mother’s life and it had never crossed his mind to try to find them. He just wanted a relationship with his daughter which should start as indirect but move to direct at some point in the future – there should be a plan for the same. He was happy to agree to give undertakings in similar terms to the present injunction order, namely, not to approach mother or K and not to go to the school unless specifically invited to do so. THE LOCAL AUTHORITY[24]Mr [social worker], the Local Authority Practice Lead has been working with the mother since late 2024 and has developed a working relationship with her. He will remain the allocated social worker under the family assistance order. His evidence was entirely professional, balanced, clear and child focussed and I accept it.[25]He confirmed that the local authority would undertake as much work as necessary to support mother and K in the life story work and the indirect contact. A significant concern was how the mother responded to K’s questions about her parentage which were likely to come soon if they had not already. Whilst they had no concerns at present about K’s emotional health, the mother’s responses to her likely questions could destabilise her if they were not handled appropriately by the mother. The local authority would provide support to limit the impact of the same. He was clear that if the mother failed or refused to co-operate with the contact and life story work, the matter could be escalated to Child Protection status and if necessary, all steps up to and including the issue of care proceedings as K’s emotional wellbeing could be at risk of significant harm. If the mother moved away, they would ensure that any new school or local authority were updated and provided with the life story and other relevant information. He was clear that if the mother moved home or school (to thwart any order), this would negatively impact K’s emotional health and may meet the public law threshold.[26]The local authority was firmly of the opinion that the father should be able to have unredacted copies of school reports and that he was entitled to know the school’s identity. It was in K’s best interests for him to have this information so they he could be properly involved with the professionals And the indirect contact, and also since he was being denied the opportunity for direct contact. The life story work was of vital importance for K. The father should also be able to receive and keep photographs of K and share these with his family, although not on social media.[27]He could not recommend direct contact which would be the normal outcome as sadly this was a unique case, the mother would put barriers in place and they could not overcome her mental health problems. He stated that when K develops she could rebel against her mother, if her questions and the contact arrangements are not dealt with properly. THE GUARDIAN[28]The Guardian was an impressive witness and it was clear that she had given the matter very considerable thought not just in her written evidence but also in her oral evidence to the court. She dealt in detail with the matters which were significantly disputed, being the issues of the fettering of parental responsibility and the provision of photographs for the father as well as the question of contact. The evidence in relation to parental responsibility was treated as being split into two basic sections, entitlement to information and decision making.[29]So far as parental responsibility was concerned, she was absolutely clear that this should not be fettered in any way. There was no justifiable basis for the father to receive only redacted copies of school reports from the local authority and have no knowledge of where K attends school. This information was part of the indirect contact and life story work and he should receive it from the school as an independent third party. If the local authority bowed out in 12 months time, then the father would still have an ongoing relationship with the school for information sharing and it would enhance the indirect contact, with information about what and how K was doing for his letters etc. She accepted the mother’s claimed perception of risk, but there had been no live risks caused by the father throughout the whole of these proceedings. Further, the court had explored this with the father and he had offered an undertaking and stated clearly that he did not intend to cause any disruption. This should be sufficient to allay the mother’s worries. It was argued and put to the guardian that he should not know the school as the mother could leave and move away and choose to home school and this would cause harm to K. The Guardian was satisfied that the local authority were involved, would remain so for at least a year under the order and with the Child in Need procedures and if she did take such action, then the local authority could be trusted to take whatever steps were necessary to protect K including escalation to Child Protection measures.[30]In respect of decision making, she agreed that the parents would not be able to discuss and agree issues, but fettering the father’s input was not the answer and was not appropriate, it was too broad and trying to consider every potential scenario or being too prescriptive was likely to prove more problematic. She did not accept that it was necessary at all for the mother to have specific sole power to authorise medical treatment as if an emergency arose, the professionals on the ground would act with her in K’s best interests in any event and father would be told afterwards. What was needed was a sensible and pragmatic response, with careful planning and discussion during the local authority’s work to encourage communication and avoid future issues. Mother should not be allowed to choose the schools to the exclusion of the father, nor should she be able to change schools without his agreement. She fully supported the continuation of the Prohibited Steps Order to prevent this.[31]She agreed that the father should be able to have photographs of K and he could show these to his family. It was submitted on mother’s behalf that she could dysregulate if father received photos and this would put K at risk, so surely it was better to refuse photographs, protect now and prevent this possible harm. The guardian was clear that no findings had been made, there had been no issues with the father’s behaviour during the case and what the mother claimed was not factually based. If mother did dysregulate, then the local authority were involved, school would be aware and they could take appropriate action. The photographs were an integral part of the indirect contact and life story work and would enrich the father’s letters, with him knowing what K looked like. She had given considerable thought to achieving involvement of the father with K in the least intrusive way for the mother but foundations needed to be built. Photographs were part of this. There should be no social media sharing.[32]It was vital for the mother to have support and guidance from the local authority and to accept the same. THE MOTHER[33]The mother’s oral evidence was given in the same manner as during the fact-finding proceedings and as I described in that judgment. She showed no fear, appeared confident but was emotional at times, appeared rehearsed at other times and was very casual on occasions, even when emotion would have been expected – such as talking about “contamination” which she claims to find to be such a significant issue. She was very matter of fact, almost blasé, when talking about this, she did not show any emotional upset, merely describing in few words what she would do.[34]She was taken through the detail of her most recent change of position. She wanted only monthly meetings for K during the family assistance order and was adamant that the father must not have a photo of K. This was, she said in her evidence in chief, because she did not see how it would benefit K and she was concerned father would post it on social media. She became very tearful and needed a break as soon as the cross examination by the Guardian’s barrister was about to begin. The mother is an intelligent woman and I have no doubt that she recalled that the cross examination in the finding of fact, then by Mr Carey, was thorough and he appropriately challenged much of her evidence. By the time she was challenged on the reasons for opposing photographs her reasons for opposing had multiplied and now developed into claiming to believe that he should not have a photograph because he would use it for sexual gratification. She sought to add previously unstated claims and reasons for this and whilst accepting that there is not a shred of evidence to support her contention, with father having been thoroughly background checked, her response was that “there are a lot of people out there without a criminal record” which was clearly a suggestion that father simply had not been caught. In my judgment, this was another example of the mother attempting to manipulate the process by making vile and unfounded accusations designed to shock and support her narrative. For the record it is wholly rejected by this court and further damages her already poor credibility. She very clearly does not like to be challenged in any manner. All of this accords with the assessment by Dr Craig.[35]When questioned about K’s future development and the possible impact upon her of knowing very little about her father and being aware that he knew very little about her, she showed a significant lack of awareness and understanding of child emotional development and identity issues. She was wholly unaware or deliberately dismissive of any potential harm to K by not being allowed to see her father until she was an adult and evidenced no ability or thought on how she would properly, rather than dismissively, deal with K’s questions. She was unable to give any valid reasons why K when older, example aged 13, and vocalising a wish to see her father, should not see him. Her response to that question, when pushed, was that it was better than herself being sectioned and K removed, again resorting to the threat or stonewall tactics highlighted by Dr Craig. The majority of her responses related to the effects upon herself and not K throughout her evidence. She said that “if K hated [her] for this so be it”.[36]Even now she showed a startling and concerning lack of understanding of the emotional awareness and development of four-year-old children, who at that age are usually starting to understand the concept of families and to develop curiosity about the same. Mother’s response of denying that the issue had ever arisen sounded implausible unless K has no friends and has never watched children’s television where these issues are constantly addressed. The mother’s response “she does not know he exists” was very troubling and I have no doubt that the mother would prefer it to stay that way. Certainly if not now, then very soon K will be asking questions and the mother appears wholly unprepared or unwilling to deal with the same. I was pleased to hear that she has a good relationship with the social worker and may accept support but I have to question whether she means this at all or is simply saying it to impress or sway the court. I have little faith in her telling the truth. She refuses to accept that she was not believed during the fact-finding process (twice) and still insists that her version is true. Her changes of position when backed into a corner do not suggest positivity but are in line with Dr Craig’s assessment, negative motivation and the making of allegations.[37]When asked the purpose of indirect contact, her response was immediately “I’m not the one who recommended it”, although she then added that “if I can cope and if it’s safe it could connect a child with a biological father but not if it upsets me”. She would agree to parental responsibility to identify the father on paper but that was it. He must not be allowed to exercise it and must not know where they lived or where K went to school. She repeated comments from the previous hearings of the father being on best behaviour during these proceedings and frequently made mention of the fact that he had harassed her, although this was on one occasion, over 4 years ago and has never been repeated. The father has behaved impeccably during these proceedings, even when faced with the provocation of appalling allegations and hostility. SUBMISSIONS[38]I heard short but precise submissions from all parties in relation to the disputed issues of parental responsibility, photographs, prohibited steps order/s and injunction orders as well as the principle of direct contact.[39]In summary all parties save the father agree that indirect contact can be the only outcome, and that there cannot be a plan for developing to direct contact as there was no basis for this to happen. Despite the father’s submissions as to the same, he appeared aware that the unanimous opinion was against him.[40]Mothers was the sole voice seeking to fetter parental responsibility and prevent photographs to the father and in seeking the continuation of the injunction order. Mother was also opposed to the making of a Prohibited Steps Order preventing her from changing schools and the court was actually cautioned against making the same as she was not present, not on notice of this and it would be unfair.

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

[41]I have of course in mind throughout my consideration of this case the applicable provisions of the Children Act and in particular Section 1 and the Welfare Checklist: When a court determines any question with respect to the upbringing of a child…. the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration. I will address the welfare checklist shortly.[42]Section 1(2A) of the Act confirms that there is a presumption that the involvement of a parent in the life of a child will further the child’s welfare unless the contrary is shown. I stress that “involvement” means “involvement of some kind, either direct or indirect, but not any particular division of the child’s time”.[43]Section 1(2) confirms that delay is likely to be harmful to a child.[44]The father does not have PR as he was not named on the birth certificate and there is no agreement to the same. Parental responsibility is defined in s 3(1) Children Act 1989 as being:
"All the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property"
. The term 'parental responsibility' attempts to focus on the parent’s duties towards their child rather than the parent’s rights over their child.[45]In H (Minors) (Local Authority: Parental Rights) (No.3), Re [1991] Fam. 151 the court decided that there were three material (though not necessarily exhaustive) tests:a. the degree of commitment the father has shown towards the child;b. the degree of attachment which exists between father and child and;c. the reasons of the father for applying for the order (a genuine motive). Commitment is not measured in terms of financial contribution.[46]In practice, it is quite rare for courts to refuse parental responsibility if these tests are satisfied but of course these cases are decided on individual facts.[47]Contact arrangements should, of course, be based upon and centred around the child’s welfare.[48]Section 16 Children Act 1989 deals with Family Assistance Orders. These are short-term court order which can last for up to 12 months and are designed to give families extra help after the case has finished. In this case it is proposed that the order will be directed towards the local authority who must advise, assist and befriend the persons named in the order – here the parents and K. Consent to the order is required and mother’s very late change of position now allows the order to be made. A plan should be prepared in due course.[49]I must also bear in mind the Human Rights Actand I must have regard to the respective rights to respect for their family life of K and her parents under Article 8 ECHR; while having in mind that where any balancing of rights between parent and child is necessary the interests of the child must prevail (Yousuf v Netherlands [2003] 1 FLR 210). Such intervention or intrusion as the Court decides upon into that family life must be necessary and proportionate to the harm that would otherwise be likely to be experienced by the child. Where the maintenance of family ties would harm the child’s health and development, a parent is not entitled under Article 8 to insist that such ties be maintained (see Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no.41615/07, 6 July 2010; S 136; R. and H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35348/06, 31 May 2011 S 73).”[50]I am satisfied that the hearing has been Article 6 compliant despite the restriction of some information from the father.[51]There are many other cases decided by the higher courts which are of relevance to the issues herein and they have been considered. I do not intend to set them out unless I expressly refer to them.

THE WELFARE CHECKLIST

[52]I will now consider the “Welfare Checklist”:(a) the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of her age and understanding); K is too young to have a full understanding of her situation and express her views. K has only been allowed to speak with her Guardian on one occasion although she has spoken to social workers. I can presume that K would wish to have some form of a relationship with her father, in a way that is safe for her and ensuring her needs are met.It is K's basic right to know who her father is, what he looks like, understand her biological make up and have any questions answered about her father in a truthful and child centred way. It would have a negative impact where she to believe that he did not care and had abandoned her. It would also be harmful if she was to be told untruths about the father by the mother.(b) her physical, emotional and educational needs; No particularly complex needs have been brought to my attention in respect of K. She presents as a healthy and well cared for child, who is happy and enjoys a close and warm relationship with her mother and maternal grandparents. She is bright and intelligent, well stimulated intellectually and has a healthy curiosity about her environment. She will be commencing junior school in September from reception/nursery. It is clear that K’s basic needs are being met. The Guardian is concerned that her emotional needs are not being met and I agree with her analysis, thus:
“K has no knowledge about who her father is and neither has she ever met him or been shown photographs of The father. K is at an age (and has the intelligence) where she will start asking questions about her birth narrative, the circumstances of the same and the identity of her father. The mother’s fixed position on what she believes to be the reality - though factually erroneous, raises real concerns that K shall be provided with a flawed version of her birth narrative”
. Despite the fact that the mother has twice been through the fact finding proceedings in detail and her allegations against the father have not been upheld, she continues to treat them as the truth and simply will not or can not accept that people will not believe her and act upon her beliefs. Research shows that children benefit from having a relationship with both parents andK would certainly benefit from having a relationship with both parents as she grows up. The issue for me to decide is how this can be best managed and developed during her childhood until she is in a position to make her own decisions. For her to do this, she must have knowledge of her father and access to information about him, hence the suggestion of life story work. (c) the likely effect on her of any change in her circumstances; At the present time K is thriving and there appear to be no static risks within her daily lived experiences. There would be a substantial change in K’s circumstances if I was to accede to the arrangements suggested by the father. He proposes that K should spend time with him, away from the mother in a gradually increasing pattern in line with K’s needs. K has never spent any time in his care and has never seen him, indeed she is unaware of his existence. Introducing contact will be a significant change for her. K is growing up and before long she will wonder about her father and want to know the position. This will be a change for her and the sooner this is addressed, the sooner she can learn and adapt. (d) her age, sex, background and any characteristics of hers which the court considers relevant; K is a young girl of approximately 4 years. Her identity is likely to be quite confusing for her as she grows and develops since she has no knowledge that she has a father, who he is, his name, where he lives, what he looks like, his age or any other matters. She should be afforded the opportunity to know these biological links as this naturally forms part of her identity. There are no other particular characteristics which differ her from any other children of her age. (e) any harm which she has suffered or is at risk of suffering; In the earlier fact finding hearing I declined to make the findings sought by the mother. Had I done so, there could be no argument that K could be at risk of harm in her father’s care due to the nature of the accusations. I did not, however, completely exonerate the father from historic poor behaviour, making very limited findings against him in respect of harassment of the mother on one occasion and abusive behaviour on another. It is important that I note that only these findings were made, as the father has stated on several occasions that the court has found that he does not pose any risk or danger to K, indeed this is repeated in his final statement. Such finding was not made by the court, either directly or by omission, and his belief in this is troubling as it demonstrates a lack of true understanding of how he could pose an indirect risk to K in the event that her mother was traumatised by his involvement with K. I do not suggest that he would ever deliberately seek to harm K, or even her mother, but harm could potentially occur, nonetheless. There is the risk posed by the mother’s lack of acceptance of the findings made by the court, and her reluctance to engage with support, particularly that offered by CAFCASS on K’s behalf, and her previous refusal to agree to a Family Assistance Order. The reasons given in her statement simply did not add up – I consider that what she truly wants is to be completely left alone, her contact proposals were almost exactly this, absolutely minimal. Her sudden change of heart may be more based on the acceptance of the likely court decision on the basis of the evidence rather than her seeing this as a benefit – in effect paying lip service – negative motivation again. She had been so adamant that she wanted no local authority or professional involvement that it is hard to understand the true reasons for this complete reversal of position. There remain considerable concerns about K’s holistic wellbeing in her mother’s care as I have addressed throughout this judgment. These do not relate to her physical care but to her emotional and holistic care and will become more and more significant as she grows older and starts to ask questions. If the mother does not handle these questions properly K could be harmed further, either by the portrayal of her father as a monstrous and dangerous figure, a paedophile and rapist, which is clearly mother’s stated (and unfounded) belief, or by believing that she has been abandoned by him. I am entirely satisfied that K should have ongoing social work and holistic support and that she needs to be aware of her father and history. Supported life story work will assist with this. I agree with Dr Craig and I simply do not believe that the mother will ever promote K’s father to her on a positive basis, most likely she would never share any positive information with her about him at all or even perhaps deny his existence. These concerns, which will increase with time if not addressed soon, led me to give serious consideration as to whether a Supervision Order should be made to enable the work and support but as mother ultimately agreed to the making of the Family Assistance Order, I would prefer her to accept the court’s decisions in this matter and work positively with the local authority under that Order. The local authority can be trusted to work in K’s best interests. If, however, the mother refuses to undertake the work or fails to comply with the court orders, then I consider that the emotional risks to K would likely be significant enough to consider Public Law Involvement and ultimately this could lead to the removal of K from her care. That is not a step which I wish to happen and it would not be done lightly, but this court is deeply concerned about K’s future emotional development and these concerns are shared by the guardian, social worker and Dr Craig. (f) how capable each of her parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting her needs; The Mother presently cares for K very well and there are no concerns from professionals about the physical care K receives as I have set out already. Mother, however, has a lengthy, significant and worrying psychiatric history and there are concerns both about her own future mental and emotional health and that of K. As the guardian records “the mother advances the fragility of her mental health as a barrier towards the father having contact with K. She has raised the issue of “contamination” as so significant such that her reality is that if K has contact with her father, she will be returned to her “contaminated”, and it will be the case that K will suffer harm when the mother “decontaminates” K”. A particularly relevant matter in this case is the mother’s ability to meet K’s emotional needs and there are grave concerns held in this regard by Dr Craig and the Guardian, particularly as K grows older and becomes naturally more challenging. Knowledge and acceptance of self identity is a clear need for every child. If the mother is unable to promote a positive role for the father in K’s life, in whatever form this role may take, there may well be lifelong implications for her. How this would manifest is unknown and would largely depend upon the mother’s actions henceforth but this could range from K suffering from insecurity, rejection, having a negative view of her father from her mother’s narrative, through to being physically harmed by her mother. Dr Craig was clear that K would have to learn to modify her own behaviour so as not to provoke the mother and it would be a disqualifying experience for her. I share the concerns held by Dr Craig and the Guardian about mother’s future parenting capacity and K’s future emotional health and whether the mother is able to meet those needs without ongoing professional support. Dr Craig was of the opinion that without professional support the mother would not comply with any contact arrangements. The Father has never had contact with K, he has never cared for her. He has had no other children and as such, his parenting capability is wholly unknown and untested. There is nothing, however, in either the findings made or the assessments within these proceedings that suggests that he poses any direct risk to K herself or that he would not be able to meet her needs, with support, in developing a relationship with her. (g) the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question. I have the options of making various orders under the Children Act – I can make a Child Arrangement Orders under Section 8 of the Act determining who K should live with and if and how she should spend time with the other parent. I can make the order as sought in respect of parental responsibility; I can make a prohibited steps order restricting father’s exercise of parental responsibility. I can continue or amend the existing Prohibited Steps Order preventing the mother from changing K’s school without notice to the local authority or make a new PSO. I can continue the existing non-molestation order, discharge it entirely, or relace it with undertakings. I can make a Family Assistance Order as the mother will now agree to the making of the same and her consent was necessary. I could consider making no orders, in line with Section 1 (5) of the Act which requires the court to ask itself the question whether to make an order would be better for K than making no order at all.

FURTHER DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

[53]The majority of my discussion and analysis is contained throughout the evidence and welfare checklist sections of this judgment and I do not intend to repeat it here. I will merely address a few pertinent points and where there remains dispute.[54]The mother, I suspect, will not be prepared to accept much of what I say in this judgment. She has her own narrative and sticks to it. She should however take some comfort from the fact that this judgment has been made and these decisions have been taken on the basis of what has been very robust and detailed investigation and assessment with input by many experts and professionals over a long period of time. The issues have been thoroughly explored in court on three occasions by very capable and diligent counsel. The mother will have the support of a very experienced social worker going forward, an expert who has K’s best interests at heart and can be trusted to act in those. There will also be the protection offered by the orders or undertakings.[55]I have already stated that I did not find the mother to be a credible witness. This view is shared by Dr Craig at least. I have seen no evidence from any independent source of the mother’s alleged and claimed behaviour with regard to contamination and bleaching. I simply have no evidence that this is true and my decision is based on the hypothetical risks to K, not on the basis that I find mother’s claims to be truthful. I bear in mind the analysis of Dr Craig and mother’s exaggerations, manipulations and deliberate blockading, together with the fact that no findings were made and also to a limited extent her demeanour giving evidence coupled with the evidence she gave, such as new unfounded untrue allegations against the father regarding the photograph. In short, I consider that she manipulates and deliberately creates barriers and adds new ones to try to get her own way. She makes threats as to what will happen if decisions go against her, but the court cannot be held to ransom by such threats. It is accepted that she does have mental health difficulties although her health is stable at present and has been for some time. DIRECT CONTACT[56]The Court must consider, on the one hand, the inherent value of the parent-child relationship, and on the other, the significance of any harm of a contact order on the child or the parent who principally cares for them. Where there is conflict the Court has to grapple with what is the best solution for the child.[57]The evidence of Dr Craig, the Guardian and the social worker is unanimous that direct contact would not be possible for K at this stage. I agree. The risks of this to the mother’s mental health are simply too great given her psychiatric history and the unpredictability that may come with her vulnerabilities, and it would not be in K’s best interests for the placement with her mother to be destabilised. The issue of direct contact is a much more significant issue that the other disputed matters as this would be a huge change for the mother and it is clear to the professionals that she would never accept it. There would be significant risks to K because there is no mechanism to effectively safeguard her throughout the time she will be in the mother’s care. The mother has already set out the harmful actions that she claims to be likely to take against K if contact was to be re-introduced. K is a very young child who is unable to exercise any levels of self-protection against her mother.[58]In coming to this decision, I have considered recent case law including Re H (A Child: Domestic Abuse) [2024] EWCA 326. I note of course that there are factual differences, as in that case physical abuse was perpetrated and here there has been no finding of domestic abuse but there are relevant welfare aspects and the court emphasised the need to prioritize the child's welfare and stability of care with the primary caregiver. The case highlighted the balancing exercise that faces courts in difficult circumstances when trying to consider direct contact between a child and a non-residential parent whilst also maintaining the stability of the placement with the primary carer of the child. It highlights the complexities of child arrangements in the context of (here perceived by mother) domestic abuse and mental health issues and the court's duty to safeguard the child's welfare above all else. The court of appeal set out again the relevant principles to be considered in such cases and I have considered them here. The court did order indirect contact to continue.[59]Jackson LJ was clear: “… the court must approach the fundamental welfare assessment that underlies every decision with full alertness both to the inherent value of the parent-child relationship and to the significance of any harm that a contact order may entail for the child or for the parent with care. Where these considerations conflict, the court must identify the best solution for the child or, where there is no good solution, the least worst one”.[60]I have also considered the judgement of MacDonald J in D v E (Termination of Parental Responsibility) [2021] EWFC 37 which included the following points:• The welfare of the child is paramount and the child’s best interests take precedence over any other consideration• Whilst there is a positive obligation to try and promote contact it is not absolute• Excessive weight should not be placed on short-term problems and the court needed to take a medium and long term view• Contact should only be terminated in exceptional circumstances and where there are cogent reasons for so doing and as a last resort• Has the court taken all necessary steps to facilitate contact as can reasonably be demanded in the circumstances of the case.[61]Having considered the unanimous and diligently prepared evidence of the professionals in this matter and applied the relevant law, sadly I must conclude that direct contact is not possible. The balance falls against it. PHOTOGRAPHS[62]It is agreed that K may have photographs of her father. These are to be emailed by father and the local authority may print these for her to see.[63]I am satisfied that the father should be entitled to photographs of K and to keep copies of the same. He may show these to his family members, but the restriction on publication which I will address shortly will apply to them. I accept and prefer the evidence of the guardian and the social worker that this is wholly in K’s best interests and will support the father in his relationship with her. It is vital that he knows what she looks like and no valid rational or factual reasons have been put forward to evidence any risk in father knowing what she looks like. In accordance with the Guardian’s report, the mother should send photographs of K for the father on a monthly basis, via the social worker. Father should also receive K’s annual school photograph (direct from the school) and the social workers should be permitted to take occasional photographs too to share with the father. It will help father with the distance if he can see K reading and reacting to his letters, for example. PROHIBITED STEPS ORDERS[64]I do not accept that the court needs to exercise caution in making a prohibited steps order preventing the mother from removing K from her present school as was suggested. This is not a new issue and the mother certainly was not ambushed or should be shocked by the same. She has been fully and properly represented at this hearing and throughout the whole case by solicitor and counsel. It was her choice not to attend for the evidence and to not be available if counsel needed to discuss matters with her. It cannot possibly come as a shock to her that the court could consider making orders which affect the exercise of parental responsibility, as she was proposing precisely that herself. The court has the power to make any Section 8 CA 1989 order during family proceedings if necessary for the welfare of a child. Over and above this though, is the fact that there has in fact already been a prohibited steps order in place since 14 November 2024 requiring the mother to notify the local authority of any change of school. The new order is unanimously recommended (save mother). No application was made to discharge the existing order by the mother.[65]I am entirely satisfied that such an order is required. The mother has specifically threatened to change school or move to home learning if the decisions in this matter go against her. The Guardian, Dr Craig and social worker are clear that such a change would cause emotional harm to K, she is settled and thriving in her present learning environment. The making of this order and preservation of K’s school will be an integral part and a vital component of the scaffolding which supports this family and the local authority with their family Assistance Order, life story work and indirect contact[66]I consider keeping K away from social media is entirely proper and will make an order prohibiting her photograph from being shared on social media by the father. I note he agrees to this and it is supported by the professionals. PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AND PATERNITY[67]The evidence of the Guardian and the local authority was very clear and in support of the father having unfettered parental responsibility. I accept that evidence and prefer it to that of the mother. It was clear, supported by detailed analysis and had K’s best interests as paramount. It stood firm during cross examination and the answers provided additional justification, especially the evidence of the Guardian, which was very impressive. The fact that agreement will be difficult is not a reason to prevent the father from exercising parental responsibility, if that was the case it would be disallowed or fettered on a very frequent basis. It is not.[68]Mother will clearly make the day-to-day decisions and in the case of urgent issues then the medics or other professionals can have input. Father should be notified as soon as practicable afterwards.[69]The father has acted with dignity throughout this matter, has taken no steps to alarm the mother and shown no indication that he was likely to do so. He willingly agreed not to contact the school or to try to see K at school when the court specifically questioned him about this. There are no grounds to sanction anonymity.[70]I do not accept that the concerns which prevent the court from allowing direct contact have as much significance in relation to these issues. The mother’s perception of risk is not evidence of the same and this court decides matters based on evidence and the child’s welfare. There is protection available in the manner of court order/undertaking and if the father was to try to get around this, he will be aware that this would backfire. I can not and do not accept mother’s threats to move school and house and try to go underground are considered as a risk such that it was a valid basis for making the order which she seeks. If she does attempt to do this, then it is a clear indication that she is prepared to put her own needs above K’s and cause K emotional harm. I would expect the local authority to immediately take appropriate steps without delay to protect K, as by acting in this manner, the mother will have become dysregulated and significant harm may occur to K.[71]The Guardian was clear than good planning through the Family Assistance Order process will support these issues in the future, even if and when the local authority are no longer involved. For example, the mother can set out what she proposes for schooling say six months in advance, such as secondary schools and other significant issues, with her reasoning for this. The father then has the power to object, if he has reasonable and justified grounds to do so.[72]Accordingly, father shall have unfettered parental responsibility. He will be entitled to know where K attends school. He shall receive reports direct and also be entitled to attend for a separate parents evening if the school, with the support of the local authority are prepared to facilitate the same.[73]There will be a declaration of parentage in favour of the father in accordance with Section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986. NON-MOLESTATION ORDER[74]In relation to the making of a non molestation order under s.42 FLA 1996, the court adopts a three-stage test, namely• Is there evidence of molestation?• Does the applicant need protection?• On the balance of probabilities, is a court order required to control the respondent’s behaviour? An applicant must be able to satisfy all three hurdles in order to succeed.[75]Here, the order has been in force since April 2021, 4 years in total. During that time the father has made no efforts to contact the mother, has not breached the order and has behaved in a manner where he cannot be criticised. He has willingly agreed to the extension of the order and has offered for the order to continue indefinitely. It is entirely appropriate for me to consider whether the order should continue as the mother seeks.[76]The father agreed, when asked, that he had no intentions of attempting to locate or attending at the mother’s house, K’s school or indeed contacting either unless specifically authorised and additionally that he would not allow his family to do so either. He was prepared to give an undertaking in those terms and fully understood the implications of the same.[77]In submissions, the mother sought for the continuation of the order, based upon the one single act of harassment 4 years ago and its effect upon the mother and her fears, as well as the father’s consent to the same. The Guardian considered that an undertaking would be sufficient.[78]I am not satisfied that the mother has shown any need for the order to continue. It is clear that the father is fully aware that he should not attempt to contact the mother or to approach her and there is nothing in his behaviour over the last four years which suggests that this is a likelihood. By its continuation, the father remains in peril, at risk of being arrested if accusations were made by the mother against him. I need to balance his human rights against the mother’s and I am conscious that whilst he offers to agree to an order, he does not have legal representation and has had no advice. The mother expresses worry and says that having an order would give her comfort. That is not sufficient and she passes no part of the three stage test which I have referred to already. I am not satisfied that there are any grounds to continue the injunction and I discharge the same. The father should not, however, take this as any permission for him to contact or attempt to trace the mother, he must not do so and runs the risk of a further application if he does. I will instead accept the father’s undertakings which can be given in person when this judgment is handed down. The terms will be as attached at the end of this judgment.

DECISION AND ORDER

[79]There shall be a child arrangements order that K lives with her mother.[80]There shall be a Family Assistance Order to the local authority fortwelve months. It is noted and recorded that the Child in Need Plan will continue indefinitely, until no longer required.[81]The local authority shall undertake “Life Story Work” with K. The parents are to provide the local authority with photographs which will assist in the preparation of a “Life Story Book”. “The Life Story Book” is to be kept at school and must be handed over to any educational establishment which K transfers to.[82]There shall be a child arrangement order that K shall spend time with her father by way of indirect contact, in accordance with the Family Assistance Order and facilitated by the local authority, and thereafter as they shall direct, commencing on an electronic only basis:• such contact to be a minimum of monthly and to include updating reports to the father in respect of K’s health, education, welfare and interests every month. The mother shall include an up-to-date photograph of K in the report. The maternal grandparents are to be encouraged by the local authority to assist in undertaking this task in the future. The local authority will send these letters to the father, whilst work is undertaken with the maternal grandparents to prepare them to undertake this role in the long term.• The father shall write to K every month following receipt of the mother’s correspondence. The father shall include photographs of himself and any close paternal family members. The father shall send additional correspondence by way of letters/cards/gifts during special or celebratory occasions which the family celebrate. The local authority shall share this correspondence with K at school whilst work is undertaken with the maternal grandparents to prepare them to undertake this role in the long term.[83]There shall be a parental Responsibility Order in favour of the father. For clarity, he is given permission to know the identity of the school and to receive school reports and photographs and to receive verbal and written updates from school in respect of K’s development.[84]There shall be a declaration of paternity in favour of the father.[85]There shall be a prohibited steps order that the mother is prevented from changing K’s school without either the express written authority and agreement of the father or court order.[86]There shall be a prohibited steps order preventing publication of K’s photographs upon any form of social media by the father or any person on his behalf.[87]The non-molestation order dated 23 April 2021 is discharged.[88]The father shall give an undertaking to the court in the terms attached.[89]The father shall not unreasonably withhold his consent to the issuing of a new passport for K in the future.[90]No order as to costs save legal aid assessment.

ANCILLARY MATTERS

[91]Mother’s address shall remain private.[92]A copy of the guardian’s report should be provided to K’s school.[93]A copy of this judgment should be provided to any local authority in any area where the mother lives, during K’s minority.[94]A copy of the court order in this matter, together with the Parental responsibility Order and Declaration of Paternity shall be provided to the school which K attends.[95]This concludes the judgment. HHJ Hesford 13 May 2025