BS and MS (Shared Care), Re [2025] EWFC 323 (B)

[2025] EWFC 323 (B)Case No ZC23P01869
IN THE CENTRAL FAMILY COURT
Between
The FatherApplicantThe MotherRespondent
BEFORE DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE R EVANS
APPROVED JUDGMENT(Handed down on 4 July 2025)Deirdre Fottrell KC (Counsel) for ApplicantKayleigh Long (Counsel) for RespondentThis judgment was given in private. The judge gives permission 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 this judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.INTRODUCTIONDate 2025-07-04
[1]I am concerned with the children, BS and MS.[2]The children are British-born to the parents (hereinafter ‘M’ and ‘F’). Both parents have settled status within the United Kingdom (UK).[3]The parents are separated since 2022 and both live close by to one another in the London area. They are both employed and are in receipt of good incomes. Their civil partnership was formally dissolved and a financial settlement was achieved.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4]Ultimately, I am concerned with F’s application dated 14 December 2023 for a shared “lives with” Child Arrangements Order’ (CAO) in respect of both children pursuant to section 8 Children Act (CA) 1989.[5]These proceedings are the first, and I hope for the children and their parents’ benefit, last of their kind.[6]The procedural route for these proceedings appears to have been as follows:a. The application was issued on 14 December 2023.b. Following initial directions on issue, a First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment (FHDRA) took place on 25 April 2024 at which the Court gave leave pursuant to Family Procedure Rules (FPR) 2010 rule 25 for the instruction of an independent social worker to complete a section 7 CA 1989 report. Further, it was recorded that M considered that F posed no sexual risk but had raised issues about F’s associates in 2016 and 2023.c. On 7 August 2024 a Dispute Resolution Appointment (DRA) took place at which the Court directed a progression of the time that the children spend with F which included overnight stays, time during school holidays and a term time arrangement progressing, by Easter 2025, to alternative Fridays to Sundays. An addendum section 7 CA 1989 report was directed and the case was listed for a Final Hearing, the Court considering that a 10-month delay would be beneficial to see how the staged increase in time spent with F bedded in. It is evident from the Court’s judgment that it did not want to proceed with haste in terms of a progression of arrangements. The parties, at that stage, were also agreeing to engage in systemic therapy.[7]The case has been listed before me today for a Final Hearing with a time estimate of two days. F was represented by Ms Deirdre Fottrell KC and M by Ms Kayleigh Long of Counsel.[8]Unfortunately, the trial bundle did not reach me until after 10:00pm on 2 July 2025 and that I eventually received it was in no small part due to the efforts of the advocates. The bundle far exceeds, completely unnecessarily and contrary to para 15 of the Order of 7 August 2025, 350 pages. It is not the function of the Court to absorb each and every document and indeed, that is why PD27A FPR 2010 exists. As such, reading was confined to the parents’ evidence, the section 7 CA 1989 reports, the strategy meeting minutes anything I was taken to during the course of the Hearing and the documents from both Counsel.[9]In addition to reading the documentary evidence, I heard evidence from the independent social worker, William Walker (hereinafter ‘the ISW’) and submissions from both Counsel.[10]I am very grateful to the parties and Counsel for their input and participation. Despite the difficult circumstances and long history, I could see that every effort to focus on the issues before the Court was made. That was again, largely assisted by the very skilled representation afforded to both parties.

THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS

[11]Against that backdrop I have to consider the positions of the parties.[12]F seeks an Order that the children live with both parents with an equal division of time.[13]M had, at the outset of this Hearing, sought an Order that the children live with her and spend time with F on a slightly reduced basis from the existing arrangements set out below and some time during school holidays.[14]However, following the evidence of the ISW, M’s position altered to one of agreeing the broad strokes of a shared care arrangement with there being dispute between the two as to matters ancillary to the substantive Order.

THE ISSUES

[15]The issues therefore changed by the conclusion of submissions.[16]As such, it being agreed that the children should live with both parents on an equal division of time, the issues were:a. what the arrangements for the school summer holidays in 2025 should be;b. whether F should be permitted to take the children abroad (Spain) during the 2025 school summer holidays;c. whether the implementation of the shared term-time arrangement should be staggered from September 2025 to January 2026; andd. whether there should be recitals that: i. the parents be mutually expected to allow the other to care for the children instead of other child care arrangements (such as a nanny); and ii. F must complete the “Triple P” parenting course.[17]As to the minutiae of the Order such as collection and returns, handovers of passports and the like, I indicated that following handing down of this judgment I would hear and determine any outstanding issues. It is my hope however, that consideration of the contents of this judgment may encourage the parents to resolve those issues together.

BACKGROUND

[18]The background, in so far as it is relevant and uncontroversial can, in my judgment be summarised as follows:a. The parents met initially in or around 2005 and the relationship commenced sometime after, in or around 2011.b. They cohabited and eventually entered into a civil partnership on 29 March 2021, by which time, BS had been born.c. The family are largely unremarkable in terms of a social care or forensic history but in 2016 F was arrested and then subject of no further action by police in respect of an allegation of possession of indecent images. Neither parent appears, from the third-party material that I have read, to suggest that there is any culpability attached to him.d. The parents separated in 2022 arising from F’s infidelity. Initially, they managed by the children “nesting” at the family home, F having secured accommodation elsewhere and him visiting the children relatively frequently. M applied to dissolve the partnership on or around 10 November 2022 and thereafter F moved out.e. In or around the summer of 2023 F fell into difficulty with business associates and following the same went abroad meaning he had limited time with the children.f. The parties initially settled their finances in September 2023.g. Beyond two or three sessions, mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution has not really taken place having been contemplated from November 2023 and at various stages thereafter.h. Obviously the proceedings commenced in December 2023 and the Court process involved safeguarding enquiries from CAFCASS that alluded to F’s previous arrest in 2016 and of difficulties with associates in 2023. No references were made to domestic abuse or violence by either parent and the recommendation was that the parents complete the Parenting Together Programme.i. As alluded to, there was a FHDRA in April 2024 and the situation that had existed for a time by June 2024 F was taking the children to school/nursery several mornings per week as well as some time on a Friday afternoon and spending most of Sunday with them. Following the Hearing in August 2024, overnight contact commenced with a night every weekend spent with F.j. From September 2024 the parents engaged in joint therapeutic intervention which came to an end in February 2025 when M declined, in effect, to engage further.k. In November 2024, M made an allegation to Local Authority (hereinafter ‘the LA’) that the children were behaving in a sexualised manner and it was alleged that F had been abusive to M too. This was reported to the police and the LAl. On 30 December 2024 M applied for a Non-molestation Order (NMO) on an ex parte basis due to the alleged threats and coercive behaviour that she was experiencing in her communication with F. That was resolved finally by way of undertakings from F and no findings on 7 February 2025. M appeared, from what I have seen, to agree disclosure of those documents into these proceedings.m. It is understood that F had the children for periods of two nights at Christmas 2024. In January 2025, the children’s arrangement progressed again and by Easter 2025 the children were spending two nights with F every other weekend. Over Easter, the children were with F for two blocks of four and two nights. He has continued to take the children to school three days’ per week.n. M sought an urgent variation of the arrangements implemented by the Court in the Order of 7 August 2024 by way of Form C2 application dated 23 February 2025. She sought to pause matters until the Court had investigated everything, ‘fully’. No listing followed that application.o. The investigation by the LA in respect of M’s November 2024 allegations led to no further action, the children’s school and nursery indicating there were no concerns as to their presentation. The case was closed on 17 March 2025, the LA having resolved that there was no risk of harm to the children and no basis for its continued involvement.p. In May 2025 there was an event at MS’ nursery whereby the parents were told MS and another child kissed on the mouth. The granular detail of that was unclear.q. Unfortunately, another strategy meeting took place on 23 May 2025 due to a referral from the independent social worker, to whom M had shared audio and video of recordings in which MS was said to have alleged that F had kissed him with tongues. That had its origins in the events at nursery and the independent social worker had invited M to speak to MS about what had happened and whilst she did that, she further did so and that is what was what led to the audio and video to which I have referred. Threshold for further intervention was not met, the section 47 CA 1989 concluded with no further action and the arrangements were to continue. The SW intended to share the information for further advice. M did not accept the recommendation of no further action and initially refused to allow the children to go to F over the May 2025 half term.[19]The background to which I have referred is a summary. I have not referred to every issue as it is unnecessary and unhelpful to do so. That is not to say that I have not fully considered the background to the application.

THE RELEVANT LAW

[20]The broad measure of agreement means there does not need to be significant visitation of the legal principles. However, knowing that that this judgment will be read by the parents, I consider it helpful to set out the important principles that govern the issues that had, in totality, been before the Court. I hope that will assist the parents.[21]This is not a case were extensive findings of fact are going to be required but where I do make findings, I should do so on the simple balance of probabilities, neither more nor less: Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35 applied. In short, the party making an allegation seeking a particular outcome carries the burden of proof.[22]Part I CA 1989 is fundamental to almost every application before the Family Court concerning children. The key principles applicable to the proceedings with which I am concerned may be distilled as follows:a. The welfare of the child is paramount when determining any question as regards to his upbringing, section 1(1)(a) CA 1989 applied.It is perhaps the best illustration that cases of this nature are fundamentally not about winning or losing – in the end, the court has the single question to determine, namely: ‘what is best for the welfare of the child?’b. Any delay in the decision-making concerning a child is likely to be prejudicial to his overall welfare, section 1(2) CA 1989 applied.c. Unless the contrary is shown, the involvement of both parents in the life of a child will further the child’s welfare and involvement covers a broad spectrum, whether indirect to direct and does not mean a particular division of time. It is not a statutory presumption of shared care, section 1(2A) and (2B) CA 1989 applied.d. The so-called “checklist” at section 1(3) CA 1989 demands that where a Court is considering making an Order pursuant to section 8 CA 1989 the following considerations are made: “(a) the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding); (b) his physical, emotional and educational needs; (c) the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances; (d) his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant; (e) any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering; (f) how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs; (g) the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question.”e. There is then the ’no Order’ principle in that the Court should not make an Order unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no Order at all, section 1(5) CA 1989.[23]Section 8 CA 1989 provides the mechanism for making any Order for a child to live with or otherwise spend time with, in this case, a parent. In making any Order pursuant to section 8 CA 1989, the Court also has at its disposal a range of supplemental powers contained within Part II CA 1989. In particular, I can make an Order pursuant to section 11(7) CA 1989 which attaches directions to a CAO as to how it is to be implemented and conditions upon the parties.[24]In terms of shared care, there has been shift in approach over the last 20 years or so which is captured in miniature by Mostyn J in Re AR (A Child) (Relocation) [2010] EWHC 1346 at para 52 where his Lordship set out that shared orders were, “… nowadays the rule rather than the exception evenwhere the quantum of care undertaken by each parent is decidedly unequal.There is very goodreason why such orders should be normative for they avoid the psychological baggage of right,power and control that attends a sole residence order, which was one of the reasons that wewere ridden of the notions of custody and care and control by the Act of 1989. A joint/sharedresidence order is not inapt even if leave to relocate is granted.”[25]There is no presumption of shared care and the Family Justice Review (2012) was keen to focus on Parental Responsibility rather than, “rights”. The Review expressed the view that the importance of shared parental responsibility for children after separation should be reinforced by education rather than legislation. Instead, the Review recommended CAOs to replace residence and contact orders – a recommendation which was accepted by the government. It identified a need to foster a sense of parental responsibilities rather than parental rights, citing the views expressed in its interim report that:
“– there is too great a focus on parental rights rather than responsibilities, and that this goes with the now loaded terms contact and residence to the extent that the terms themselves foster a sense of winning or losing; and … instead the focus should be on encouraging parents to work out a plan that sets out the arrangements for the child after separation, including where the child will live.”
[26]When exercising its powers and making decisions concerning children, the Court will also have in mind the parties’ article 6 and 8 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Rights to fair trial and family life and the principle of proportionality. It is important however to emphasise the continued emphasis there is upon the rights of the child. In Yousef v, The Netherlands the European Court of Human Rights stated, “The court reiterates that in judicial decisions where the rights under Art 8 of parents and those of a child are at stake, the child’s rights must be the paramount consideration. If any balancing of interests is necessary, then the interests of the child must prevail.”[27]It is established principle that contact is the right of the child and not the parent, this being a right where a child has a right, where the parents are separated, to know the non-custodial parent and his brothers or sisters (Re S (Minors: Access) [1990] 2 FLR 166; Re R (A Minor) (Contact) [1993] 2 FLR 762; and A v. L (Contact) [1998] 1 FLR 361.[28]The Court of Appeal said in Re P (Contact: Supervision) [1996] 2 FLR 314, that it is almost always in the interests of a child whose parents are separated that he or she should have contact with the parent with whom the child is not living. Munby P has previously made clear that contact between parent and child was a fundamental element of family life and was almost always in the interest of the child (per Re C (A Child) (Suspension of Contact) [2011] 2 FLR 912).[29]Ward LJ in Re M (Contact: Supervision) [1998] 1 FLR 727 observed, "contact is almost always in the interests of a child and should not be prevented unless the order would hinder the welfare of the child … contact should not be prevented unless there are cogent reasons for doing so. … [and with reference to Sir Thomas Bingham MR (in Re O (Contact: Imposition of Conditions) [1995] 2 FLR 124) that] … “The courts should not at all readily accept that the child's welfare will be injured by direct contact. Judging that question the court should take a medium-term and long-term view of the child's development and not accord excessive weight to what appear likely to be short-term or transient problems.””[30]In L v. F (Relocation: Second Appeal) [2018] 2 FLR 608Peter Jackson LJ reiterated the following core principles:a. every case whether public or private – the Court’s ultimate task was to identify the available options and to select the one that best met the child’s welfare needs [paragraphs 47-49].b. The Court’s powers when considering what arrangements were best for a child were broad and the authorities showed that the principle that shared care should not be ordered where the parental relationship was bad no longer followed.[31]In the case management and decision-making concerning this application I should also have in mind PD12B Family Procedure Rules (FPR) 2010 and the general principles that make up the overriding objective.[32]Ms Fottrell KC reminds me that the Court should follow the recommendations of a section 7 CA 1989 report in the absence of compelling reasons, clarified by the Court of Appeal in G-C (a child) (contact[33]fundamentally, the role of the Court is to apply the welfare checklist to each and every case, to each and every child – that is what makes children different and unique.[34]Finally, I should emphasise that where the Court is making an Order it should strive to ensure that where possible it is an Order that has long-term effect and limits, as much as reasonably practicable, the need for the parties to return to Court in the future.

THE EVIDENCE

[35]I have read the evidence to which I have already referred and referenced within the background. I will set out the key evidence below.

The ISW

[36]I heard oral evidence from the ISW. The key aspects of the ISW’s 12 July 2025 section 7 CA 1989 reports are as follows:a. Extensive enquiries were undertaken and it was apparent that the children had secure attachments to both parents with them both seen to be happy and settled within their parents’ care.b. The report highlighted that that parents’ homes were within sight of one another’s.c. BS had some understanding that the parents fighting was the cause of separation and she was otherwise keen to visit family abroadeven though, she said, M did not want to. She talked of missing both parents when with the other and reported M had told her she would not be staying overnight with F until she was 10. BS denied pulling her pants down with reference to an allegation made by M and BS described M as being worried about a lot of things with F having no worries at all. She was in no way worried about staying at F’s and indicated she would like to spend time equally with both parents.d. School and nursery had no concerns as to the parents and the children.e. F was enthusiastic and committed to shared care which he was able to manage his work commitments around. F identified that the children would likely want to see their parents getting along and felt that M did not want to make any real progress. M, on the other hand, had a more conservative position, preferring the status quo at the time of some time in the week and time at weekends with her unsure about the holidays other than it needed to be gradual. She wanted the children to be happy and was protecting, she said, the children from the proceedings. She was worried about F not changing his behaviours and alleged F was harming the children by bringing them into the conflict with BS blaming her for the separation. She was also concerned about F discussing things such as going abroad with the children.f. F had made some poor decisions such as asking BS not to tell M about a dress he had referenced cutting up. M was worried that BS had made comments about calling her when at F’s and she was worried about the emotional impact upon her. M alleged BS had pulled her pants down with it insinuated that F slapped her bottom – both parents had recognised that she pulled her pants down and were encouraged to address it. M felt that F was also neglecting the children with F saying, in terms he is not given the opportunity to as M will not give him information. Were the concerns addressed, M had no issue with progressing arrangements. F was troubled by the arrangements for nannies without recourse to him.g. M recognised the children loved F but assessed him as having been inconsistent in his presence emphasising he needed to be responsible rather than just fun. M described co-parenting as a nightmare but indicated that there had been a good period of co-parenting. F similarly recognised M’s love for the children but considered her strict and regretted that they did not speak. The nanny described F as discourteous and the children a little dysregulated following time with him.h. It was recognised that a progression would mean a change in circumstances for the children who were otherwise well-adjusted and not considered to be at risk of harm. The ISW considered that the children, yearned for a strong and evolving bond with F. A change of circumstances required confidence in F’s ability and he considered some of M’s worries to have weight but not a degree to prevent progression of the relationship. The ISW identified that the parents needed to change their approaches in a number of ways which included F not sharing information with the children and M trusting him. The parents’ insight needed to develop.i. Surveying the issues as he saw them, the ISW had a, ‘fondness’ for what the parents had achieved and hoped that the proceedings would serve as a reminder for them to endeavour to function appropriately. He was of the view that the children yearned for strong relationship with their father and felt M needed to trust him and he needed to demonstrate he could be a responsible parent. They needed to work on supporting one another and M needed to extrapolate her feelings towards F from the children’s.j. A gradual increase was urged from August 2024 which included the commencement of overnights initially, thereafter extended time at the weekends and two consecutive nights by Easter 2025. The ISW envisaged a shared care arrangement commencing in September 2025. The arrangements were to pause in the event of, for example, the children’s presentation changing. An Order was invited on a shared basis and the parents were encouraged to engage in sending each other updates and photographs and complete the Triple P course. A parenting plan was also encouraged.[37]The Court directed an addendum report from the ISW and that was completed on 3 June 2025. Its focus was on progress and final recommendations. In short, the key parts to take from it are as follows:a. The LA assessment from 13 March 2025 had been thorough and the ISW had repeatedly liaised with the allocated social worker. Co-parenting sessions had not been productive with M and F defensive and reactive respectively. F considered M to have been malicious and M accepted the no action outcome of the report.b. BS was seen to be a determined little girl who knew what she wanted and that personality was well-managed by F. She also expressed joy at staying with F but would not engage in discussions. He highlighted that BS was unhappy with her family in direct work.c. The ISW had encouraged M to speak to MS about the kissing at nursery and she had been reluctant but was given advice. When seen in her care, the children presented in a similar excitable way and the home was similarly well set up for them. Good observations of M’s parenting were observed. In M’s care, BS identified wanting to spend a lot more time with F albeit that was attributable to the fine array of confectionary that she considered would be at her disposal.d. The ISW was concerned and surprised as to M’s filming of MS saying F had kissed him with a tongue which required the ISW to contact the LA. His efforts to engage MS were unsuccessful and he had not been aware of M audio recording MS as ultimately shared with the social worker.e. There was an unusual situation whereby M was alleging the nursery were refusing to engage with F which was not corroborated by the nursery who described him as “polite”. Nursery reported excitement from MS for seeing his father. BS was spoken of in similar positive terms by her school and was said to be making good progress with additional support. BS’s school-based therapist had no concerns and M was described as pro-active with both parents responsive.f. In terms of the therapy, feedback was that M had often cancelled and that M felt the therapist was on F’s side. The observation was that F had sought to adapt and engage with the therapy and M struggled more with no eye contact, eye rolling, silence and sarcasm creating a difficult atmosphere. It was considered that M was resisting and F was insisting. M was considered to feel betrayed by F who she considered a bad or unworthy father who was creating a false impression of himself. There were no concerns as to the parenting from the therapist but she was worried they were parallel rather than co-parenting.g. Discussions with the previous nanny highlighted a change in BS’s behaviour and her presenting as more sad.h. The ISW’s discussions with M revealed her to be more solid in her convictions against F with her perceiving the children being at greater risk than the previous year and she felt unheard. She was anxious about the increasing presence of F in the children’s lives. M made a number of allegations which included F undressing BS, urinating in front of her and the children being more dysregulated before spending time with F. She said that the children were not doing well at school which was attributable to the circumstances. She did not consider F would be available for the children due to work and travel and was worried about MS’ growth. M said the children’s behaviour had become disruptive and extreme with her hit and punched. She sought to suspend overnight time with F and instead F have a Saturday or Sunday each week or a Friday afternoon. She supported holiday staying contact after F’s completion of a boundary course. She considered F irresponsible in opposing time abroad and felt she had exhausted all options in terms of attempting to co-parent.i. F on the other hand considered M to be thwarting his efforts to spend time with the children underpinned by malicious allegations. He described the staying contact as transformational. F reported inconsistent messages from M. He raised that BS had called him a liar because M had told her he was. F also raised a number of issues about the time the children were with M such as her shouting at them and seeing M in a state of undress.j. The ISW reflected upon the emotional shielding deployed by BS and the impact of the proceedings upon the children generally with M asserting sexualised behaviours. M’s issues, he considered, were entangled in a history of trauma, betrayal and on-going battles for recognition and validation. The parents had different styles and M was deeply worried by it with M feeling she was not listened to. The ISW was mindful that M’s actions had the capability of applying undue emotional pressure upon the children and cautioned against any long-term similar behaviour. F’s journey had been one of growth and it was felt that he had at times been dismissive of M’s concerns which strengthened the divide. All that said, F’s commitment had been commendable and he had sought to address some of the issues raised by M and demonstrate that he did not pose a risk.k. In terms of recommendations, the ISW proposed a shared care arrangement. He suggested a week on / week off arrangement in the school summer holidays for 2025; up to 10 days with each parent at Christmas 2025 and Easter 2026; and up to two weeks from summer 2026. In terms of the term time arrangements, he proposed that the children spend from school until 6:30pm on Wednesdays and Thursdays with alternative Friday from school to Monday to school. From January 2026 he envisaged a 2 / 2 / 5 / 5 split over a fortnightly rota.[38]The ISW gave oral evidence.[39]In his evidence in to Ms Fottrell KC’s questions he confirmed the accuracy of his reports and reminded the Court of his extensive experience and the nature and extent of investigations with the family as well as the benefit of the additional enquiries from a wide range of third parties involved with the family. He maintained his recommendations and identified the high level of care provided by both parents. The children were, he considered, doing well in the round. When asked about the risk of harm, he identified that the children were at risk of harm if they continued to be exposed to M’s views of F. When pressed as to the risk, he explained that M did not think F was going to harm the children but felt the children needed a primary base with her but if she continued to offer a message that F’s importance was less relevant, they would begin to pick up on that. In being asked about M’s ability to extrapolate her own feelings from the situation, he acknowledged that if it continued, it would be harmful for the children.[40]Recording MS was a subtle negativity and would give the impression that F had done wrong. He explained the negative connotations of that sort of continued conduct. He agreed that it was not good to give a child the impression they were unsafe in the care of another parent. In respect of the strategy meeting, the ISW explained he had been caught off guard by the events surrounding the recording of MS and was worried that the situation at the school needed to be investigated (relating to the kissing of another child by MS). The issue had been raised in a different way necessitating the November 2024 strategy meeting and he was aware of that. In the context of the police officer’s observations at the May 2025 strategy meeting, he did not align himself with the full extent of the opinion. He felt M had sought to get information and had done it in a way that was not helpful. It was acknowledged that the decision to record was troubling and that the idea of F kissing MS came from M and it could be seen in the context of coaching. If it were something M repeated, he considered it would be harmful. M, he agreed, required assistance not to repeat that sort of behaviour. He acknowledged that M appeared to be evidence-gathering elsewhere, particularly with the nursery and described the lengths she was going to as, “troubling”. It was important to balance out the negativity by spending more time with F in the ISW’s opinion. In terms of work to be done with M, the ISW recommended working with a parenting professional to understand developmental changes to assuage her anxiety about the children’s presentation.[41]He recommended she engage in therapy and some co-parenting work. M needed, he considered, to be more curious about what the children say and do rather than reaching sinister conclusions, which he had witnessed. The wider-canvas evidence was of F providing good care and M had been unwilling to accept that reality. In terms of M’s proposals, he considered it was a basis for her reflecting M’s concerns. M’s proposals, he agreed, were, retrograde. It was said that 13 overnights over 14 weeks of school holidays was, “extraordinary” and the risk from not moving things on was that M could become further entrenched. The plan from the ISW was to move to full weekends starting in September 2025 getting to shared care by January 2026. He was taken to F’s proposals in terms of school holidays and could not see a problem with them.[42]When questioned on behalf of M, he had not seen M act inappropriately and she was committed to protecting the children from adult issues. He noted that both disputed their behaviour at handovers which both found challenging at times. In terms of the concerns M had that he felt held some weight, they related to F’s parenting style and the lessened boundaries in his home. Their parenting styles were not, in his view, vastly different but he had recommended a parenting plan so that it could be upheld but they were not there yet. He recognised they had made a significant start on the parenting plan. It was positive that M had promoted the relationship despite her concerns. He did not feel able to agree that M’s concerns were valid as the behaviours alleged had not been observed. He acknowledged the children may be more challenging in M’s care due to that being their primary base. When asked about the concerns that F needed to address behaviours he had observed himself (such as closing the bathroom door, ensuring appropriate television shows). He had wanted F to be more firm and put boundaries in place. The ISW considered that F had prioritised other intervention over the Triple P course but he considered F still needed to complete it. He could understand M’s view. There still needed to be time for F to complete courses before the arrangements are implemented in September and there was significant time between now and January 2025 for F to take things on board. He considered F had acknowledged some of M’s concerns such as closing the bathroom door and he gave real examples of F’s parenting of BS – he had started to make attempts and it was going to be a process as he spent more time with the children. When it was suggested that there was a way to go, the ISW did not consider they were significant changes. Changes made sooner rather than later was likely to assist with their presentation. The proposals within his report, were, in his view, safe. F was more concerned with practical arrangements whereas M was more focused upon the children’s presentation and F needed to not consider M was always controlling and to acknowledge her worries. Change had been seen in that F was less defensive but the interactions with M had not been observed.[43]It was accepted by the ISW that M felt there were more issues in relation to the children but it did not seem from his triangulation that things had changed on the ground. The issues about how the children were cared for remained problematic for M. He acknowledged that there would be dysregulation at times going between homes. He did not consider there a real risk that things were going to get worse. The children were going to have brief periods of dysregulation potentially and were hoped to be short lived. He struggled with M’s view as to BS struggling at school as his discussions were quite different. He considered that M saw anything problematic as attributable to increased time with F. He considered that M’s feelings were imported into other systems to ensure their emotional regulation is done in a way that makes sure they are heard and understood. Making allegations about things that had not happened such as the teacher being concerned about F’s aggressiveness was an example of M projecting. In considering moving things on, he had weighed in the balance M’s account as to the extent of BS’s dysregulated behaviour. He was mindful it was M’s account and broadly speaking F did not share those concerns save an occasion of running on the street and BS wanting to take a toy. The parents needed to work on those issues. His impression was not of BS being a child that has meltdowns. What M was alleging had to be seen in the round and against other information about the children. He was mindful M was likely to get the brunt of the children’s behaviours as their primary carer. M potentially needed support with that. He did not share the view that the children were not coping with the arrangements. M’s initial concern had been around F’s availability due to work but that was no longer the issue and it was his ability to care. He did not consider the co-parenting was that strained as compared other families he had worked with and he recognised some positive efforts on the part of the parents. The Court process had a huge impact upon the parents. September was an opportunity for F to demonstrate that he can do what needs to be done.[44]In terms of the safeguarding intervention by the LA, he considered M was right to highlight BS’s behaviour but maybe not right to highlight it as sexualised behaviour. The behaviours were something that parents should be alert to. In terms of boundaries, F needed to ensure that he was on top of any inappropriate behaviour. He could understand M’s concern that F had not taken on board recommendations. He confirmed that the SW was aware of BS poking F in the bottom.[45]In terms of the kiss at nursery, he had been aware two incidents of a kiss at nursery. At the strategy meeting it was conveyed as an attempt. He had made a number of enquiries and the outcome was that MS had not been seen kissing and both children were about to kiss. It was not considered that M had embellished the kissing at the nursery. He had encouraged M discussing it with MS as he was not getting anywhere. He did not consider it had been unwise. M did a very good job of discussing the matter with MS and explaining to him about what he should not be doing. It was clarified that the SW was aware of the information from the nursery prior to the discussion he had with M and it was his email to the LA after the recordings that led to the section 47 CA 1989 investigation. The ISW’s focus had been on seeing that M could manage a difficult situation well, which she did. After the conversation, he assumed it was done. He accepted she may have had the impression that he wanted to get to the bottom of it but he would have asked questions himself. He had told M not to record BS previously and her actions in recording MS were out of context. He was surprised to hear that M was concerned about his attendance at the strategy meeting and confirmed that attendees at the meeting were at the context of how the information came about. He did not believe that M was coaching the children. In terms of the progression of the plan, he did not agree it had been fraught on the ground – it had been between the parents, but the children had been able to carry on with the arrangements. The children were doing well, there were some areas of support needed but there were no safeguarding issues from school and nursery. There was definitely no sexual dysregulation from the school.[46]The ISW was of the view that BS was not of an age where she could fully appreciate her wishes and feelings or balance the benefits and detriments of the issues before the Court. When asked why further change should occur, he did not consider it, “destabilising” change and was more focused upon the parents’ willingness to accept the changes. Things had gone well but the parents’ experiences were different. When it was suggested there was a lack of analysis as to the benefits of a shared care arrangement, he explained the children’s experience with F was good but limited and good quality time was going to enhance a relationship. F had not been afforded the decision-making responsibilities that M had. He was, the ISW considered, in a position to do that. The children had adapted extremely well, adding time with F was a positive trajectory.[47]He felt that F completing the Triple P course was extremely crucial as well as work around boundaries. When asked why the transition could not occur completely by September 2025 given the plans for shared care over the summer, he considered that the summer period was an easier period. He saw the benefit of a longer transition period but acknowledged there were pros and cons to both approaches.

F’s Evidence

[48]F has produced written evidence but did not, as I have indicated, give oral evidence.[49]In his written evidence in June 2024 F acknowledged that his infidelity would have caused a breakdown in trust but he explained he had worked hard to develop the arrangements for the children for whom he outlined his great enthusiasm. He explained that the arrangements following separation and the so-called “nesting” proved challenging and upsetting for the children. He said that M became more restrictive following the financial remedy proceedings and did not allow arrangements to meaningfully move on with a nanny employed instead. Very positively, he identified some mutual flexibility as to the arrangements but was concerned nannies had been employed with no recourse to him. F outlined the arrangements involved him regularly seeing the children which included days during holidays. He was concerned as to the limitations on the children having the love and association of the paternal family and set out his suitable living arrangements. F pointed to his commitment to school events and expressed concern that M was effectively trying to sideline him and not ensuring that he saw the children by video for example when she went away with them. F suggested M had controlled his parenting with reference to “House Rules” that existed when they were together and considered their co-parenting dynamic to be poor with him of the view that M’s animosity was impacting upon her decision-making in respect of arrangements for the children. At that time, he sought shared care from September 2025. He offered a detailed account in relation to his 2016 arrest (indecent images) and was frustrated it was being raised. He explained events in the summer of 2023 which had since resolved and he regretted his decision-making in places, not least leaving the children for several weeks whilst he went abroad. He denied mental instability and denied being a risky driver pointing to all the times M has asked him to drive the children places. He denied being aggressive and hoped for improvement within their relationship. Further, he set out that he was able to manage his work arrangements around his care of the children.[50]F’s final evidence of 20 June 2025 impressed upon the Court how positive the arrangements for the children had been since the Order of 7 August 2024 with the time at school holidays particularly rewarding with photographs produced in support of his assertions that the children have much enjoyed the progression. Again, there was some evidence of positive co-parenting around the children’s birthdays. He alleged M had stopped sending updates as had been advised by the ISW and he was making efforts to engage with therapy and complete educative work. He indicated M had cancelled the family therapy in February 2025 and that steps had been taken to address some difficulties with BS’s reading at school. He indicated he supported the ISW’s recommendations and he sought a 2 / 2 / 5 / 5 pattern by January 2026. He made proposals for alternating weeks over the school summer holidays – he intended to go to Spain for a week with the children and in future, to visit family abroad– and he made proposals for other school holidays. He was troubled by false allegations he said were made by M which included the NMO made in December 2024, the allegation to the LA that the children were acting in a sexualised manner in February 2025 following an allegation in November 2024. He was very troubled by the events in May 2025 and accepted the ISW’s analysis of the impact of conflict upon the children. He was committed to co-parenting and bettering their lot as a family with him open to further advice and support.

M’s Evidence

[51]M has also produced written evidence and she also did not have cause to give oral evidence.[52]In her June 2024 evidence M said she was distressed as to the extent of the deterioration in the relationship. She did not agree F had been fully involved following separation and explained historically he had worked away a lot. She alleged he had pushed her during the 2018 incident and criticised his driving. M explained the breakdown of the marriage and F’s priority of a new relationship over the children. They had continued to undertake family events following separation and she supported him looking after the children. F would shout at her and threaten her with proceedings and from July 2023 she alleged F reduced his time with BS. She explained F’s disappearance in August 2023. M claimed to have sought to engage in mediation and claimed the children to have been very unsettled since his return in October 2023. When they did have mediation in January 2024, they agreed some core rules which she said were breached and there had been some family therapy. She did not accept criticism of nannies to cover childcare for just a few hours and she did not consider it realistic for F to care instead as she had established routines. She alleged F was less interested in MS than BS and struggled with him. F struggled to communicate with M and she pointed to the challenges that caused. He ignored her in front of the children. The arrangements in place, at that time, she said were appropriate – she wanted the children to have close relationships with F which needed to be built gradually and safely.[53]In her Final Evidence dated 20 June 2025 M raised significant challenges in arranging a nursery pre-school for MS. She did not think that the therapy sessions were constructive. M set out the children’s health circumstances and difficulties caused by F reporting bruising to the GP in July 2024. M said she found handovers extremely stressful and felt worried BS was being drawn into adult discussions. M believed BS was reversing her and F’s roles and she said that the nanny and school therapist both had concerns for BS’s emotional welfare. BS was said to be increasingly quiet and withdrawn and considered the, ‘… stepped contact arrangements, frequent handovers and transitions between two homes would be having an adverse impact …’. M traversed the difficulties in making arrangements with F and sought some flexibility.

Submissions

[54]I have already recognised the skill and care afforded to this case by the advocates but the decision for neither parent not to give oral evidence was a particularly well-judged one. I can say with a high degree of confidence that(a) it would not have helped either parent; and(b) it was very unlikely to have assisted me given the clarity and quality of the expert evidence.[55]On M’s behalf, I was told that she had shifted considerably and was upset that F had arguably moved the goalposts. She wanted F to complete the Triple P course which commenced shortly and took 14 weeks. M did not want issues to reappear. It was said that the 2 / 2 / 5 / 5 rota was a big change. M was willing to act reciprocally in terms of childcare. She wanted to be first port of call in terms of childcare. M agrees the holiday proposals generally as endorsed by the ISW. M sought for a Thursday to Sunday arrangement every other week. M agreed the Christmas and summer arrangements. M considers that a holiday abroad is too fast. She strongly opposed the summer arrangements this year. I was reminded that M had offered additional time at Christmas and it was clarified that M was offering overnight stays in addition to the additional arrangements.[56]On behalf of F there was some welcoming of M’s amended position. I was told not a single additional day was offered by M since June 2024 and that F was very anxious about the future. The summertime was to be used as a period of the children getting used to spending enduring time with F. I was told I should be worried that the children cannot cope with the arrangements moving on. It was said that if the term time shared care was not fully-activated in September 2025. There was a commitment to completing the Triple P programme and I was reminded that the ISW said that things could be cut up a number of different ways. F had no objection to the children going abroad. It was not agreed that things should be moving too fast too quickly. It was not agreed that there be a recital that the parents effectively utilise each other rather than childcare. In her submissions, both in writing and orally, Ms Fottrell KC said, and I summarise in my words, not hers, that M had effectively dragged her feet and sought to delay, frustrate and prevent the progression of the time spent with F which, but for the intervention of the Court at various stages, would not have progressed in any meaningful way.[57]M was concerned by inappropriate sexualised behaviours from the children and explained police encouraged her to contemplate a NMO. She was worried that the undertakings would expire in July 2025. She was unhappy the ISW had read the NMO papers and referenced having been referred to an Independent Domestic Violence Advocate (IDVA). She explained that the ISW encouraged her to ask MS about the events at nursery and the consequences thereafter (albeit I note she omits the discussions that took place with MS in the ISW’s presence as referred to within the ISW’s oral evidence). M pointed to having complied with the Court Order following the no further action outcome of the section 47 CA 1989 investigation. She rejected any assertion she had been coaching MS and was concerned as to how the narrative shifted in nursery (as was discussed during the course of the ISW’s oral evidence). She was worried about BS’s change in demeanour to the ISW and emphasised F had poor judgment and a lack of boundaries referring back to historic issues. M expressed worries about international travel and made allegations of litigation conduct. M claimed BS wanted the arrangements to stay where they are and felt a shared arrangement would not reflect the reality.[58]She said that the children had already, ‘endured’ significant transitions over a two-year period and further change was to be avoided with the ISW not understanding the harm that would be caused. Her proposals are set out and she suggested F have alternative weekends, Friday to Sunday with a potential day on alternative weekends to that as well with 13 additional (it was clarified) nights per year at school holidays. She supported F completing additional work.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

[59]Having read the evidence and heard submissions it falls to me to set out my findings and analysis in so far as they relate to the welfare considerations. Where I make findings, I do so in the knowledge that the standard is the simple balance of probabilities with no added gloss. Where I have preferred one version of events over another, it is generally because the account was better supported by other evidence and or the witness’ recollection was better or their evidence was better reasoned (as I will identify where necessary).[60]I should make clear that the task of the Family Court is to arrive at, as best it can, an accurate narrative of what has gone on so as to enable it to make informed decisions in respect of a child’s welfare. It should however, limit the findings to those which are strictly necessary to resolve the issues in dispute.[61]The reality in this case is that the issues were, by the end of the first day, significantly narrowed. I was asked, however, to provide a judgment given the issues that had come to pass over the preceding 18 or more months.

The Children’s Circumstances

[62]It is essential that I start with the central characters in all of this, the children.[63]I have read and heard a lot about BS, as the older and more articulate sibling, that is hardly surprising. She is a forthright little girl who knows her own mind. Adjectives used include delightful, bright and energetic and she is said to be full of curiosity and enthusiasm. I understand her to be a sociable individual who likes playing with her friends, fancy dress and going on days out. She enjoyed a number of extra-curricular activities such as swimming. School report her to have settled well since September 2023 and she has had some additional support and counselling. I would be cautious about further therapeutic being imposed upon BS as it will be important for the children to develop their own resilience and coping mechanisms.[64]BS’s autumn 2024 school report makes for positive reading as does the ISW’s enquiries of school and the nursery is also very complimentary as to the progress made by MS. No doubt they have two very proud parents. Again, sadly, the difficulties encountered by the nursery related to the adults, not the children.[65]I read that BS is an art champion two years in a row and that must be a source of immense pride to her parents, as must be the way she carried herself with the ISW. The ISW’s second report however, captures that the pressure of the proceedings whether by the ISW’s involvement or by proxy to her parents’ difficulties, is having an unhelpful impact upon BS as seen in her responses to the ISW – she circled a zero for how happy she was with her family. That, alongside the change in her presentation, is a most profound piece of evidence and will no doubt be a matter of great regret to her parents.[66]Turning to MS, I have read of his excitement and energy within his parents’ homes and he is said to have a, ‘… bright smile that lights up any room and his personality is a wonderful blend of playfulness and determination.’ He too enjoys activities and had settled well at nursery where he is a valued member of the group. I note from M’s evidence that MS has on-going monitoring via a range of services and those are managed well.[67]I also read and accept that the siblings enjoy a very good relationship which is pleasing to note. The ISW assessed the children as being settled and having adapted well to their change of circumstances.

The Parents

[68]It is perhaps an oversimplification to say that the parents do not get on and it is with great regret that they have spent so much of their time denigrating the other in their written evidence. I can only imagine how they would feel if BS or MS ever had cause to read the evidence.[69]When one looks at the ISW’s initial discussions with M there appears to be little movement on her part since last year and little recognition of the objective evidence, both then and now, that the children are settled and enjoying being in their father’s company.[70]During the course of the proceedings, M has made a number of allegations. I am not going to go through them slavishly because frankly, collectively or as a whole, when set against the corroborative evidence that the Court has as to the quality and consistency of care provided by F, they are not of material value to the overall determination. Some of the allegations are of considerable antiquity, not supported by wider evidence and indeed, with reference to the 2016 allegation concerning indecent images, she herself within the schedule two correspondence, dismisses the significance of the same. Further, she has flitted from being concerned about F’s business associates to being of the view that it is a product of his imagination. That is not to say that some of her worries are not important or material to the children’s welfare from time to time.[71]What is more troubling is the escalation in the allegations. No party sought findings in respect of the November 2024 and May 2025 local authority involvement. It again, must be a matter of considerable regret to the parents that professionals had to meet and discuss the safety of their children. On the evidence before me, the LA was entirely right to resolve that no further action be taken. It was suggested that the ISW should not have encouraged M to speak to MS about what happened with the kissing at nursery but it was advised in the context of it not being a safeguarding issue. That she did so well should have been the end of it. That she then audio and video recorded MS should, I find, be a matter of considerable regret on her part. In her evidence she flatly rejects she was coaching or interrogating him – if that is right, then these events should leave both parents in no doubt that similar events should not reoccur. The section 47 CA 1989 investigation resulted in no further action and that she initially rejected the notion that F’s time with the children could resume further gives cause for concern. That, along with the lack of validation from the nursery and school about their so-called worries about F, is indicative of the evidence the ISW gave about her projecting. He said that greater care needed to be employed by her about raising such issues so that actual issues do not go ignored. The police representative at the May 2025 strategy meeting was slightly more robust. For my part, these issues put the children at the cliff edge of suffering significant harm.[72]The consequences of allegations of this nature are dramatic – they can sever relationships, they can lead to irreparable parental relationships and they can cause enduring emotional harm to children. There were no safeguarding concerns following both investigations. That, in my judgment, has to be right and M needs to, with some haste, accept that. That is not to say that both parents need to be vigilant and protective of their children. There is however, a gulf in difference between such stark interpretation of events and reasonable and responsive parenting. The advice from the ISW to ask MS what had happened was normal, reasonable advice. It was dealt with appropriately and with skill by M – that is where it should have ended. That M does not have Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) training or had not been given sufficiently clear parameters does not in any way explain how such an articulate and competent parent proceeded in such a way. I hope this is a reminder to both parents to be cautious, to communicate, to not leap to conclusions and not allow their ill feeling cloud the preservation of their children’s welfare. Indeed, M’s comments about BS’s wishes and feelings in her Final Evidence require greater curiosity or reflection upon the fact that she is five or six – lots of children that age may not want to go to school or say unusual or inconsistent things. It is the job of the parent to filter what is being said and act responsibly.[73]In respect of F, he needs to reflect. His commitment of old has been regrettable and it has no doubt contributed to the mistrust that M has for him. However, he has worked consistently and committedly over the duration of these proceedings (and before) to evidence his want to fully participate in the children’s lives. It is a small positive of the delay occasioned within these proceedings that it has allowed him to do that. The commitment has been excellent. However, he too has been dismissive of M’s worries and it has only been when challenged by an external third party, i.e. the ISW, that he has had cause to reflect, amend his approach and concede issues. That he has been able to do that is again, a piece of the jigsaw that no doubt caused the arrival at a shared care arrangement. M’s frustrations about sweets and F’s different approach have some validity, albeit she has heavily authored the situation that we are in of his role having been quite limited. That said, F will need to be the boring parent too. By that, I mean he will need to demonstrate that he can impose boundaries on a consistent basis and try to ensure a broadly consistent message is conveyed to the children. At the moment, M has all the responsibility and is seen by him as authoritarian – she has to pick up the pieces more often than not and she does the majority of what may be termed as the less glamorous aspects of parenting. What he wants is not going to be constant fun, it will be hard work, emotionally draining and of course interspersed with moments of pure joy and elation. That is perhaps, a glass half-empty analysis of parenting but it is important to recognise the enormity of the responsibility and challenge that is parenting and recognises the anxiety M has that he commit wholeheartedly to his role. For that to happen however, things need to move on.[74]The need for these two parents to promote their children’s welfare needs above their own mistrust for one another, disputes and frustration carries with it the connotations of the imperative – they simply must do much better than they have been doing to date. Their therapist commented, “I accept that M feels utterly betrayed and has no trust towards F. I believe M is trying to create a narrative that he is a bad father, unworthy, or an unsafe father by being a version of himself she doesn’t recognise, as she feels he wasn’t this version in the relationship – a hands-on, interested dad. She doesn’t recognise this part of F. F and M are intelligent and want the best for the children. However, they don’t want to believe that the other parent wants the best for the children.”[75]I find that to be an insightful summary of the issues to which the ISW has given evidence. For my part, the parents need to be reminded that they have Parental Responsibility; the key word being “responsibility” and they need to pause and reflect upon their conduct towards one another at times because it is frankly by proxy conduct towards the children. I have referenced BS’s positive school report and also I remind myself of the unremarkable content of the direct work by the ISW – all too often the Courts and advocates will read about the harmful consequences of dysfunctional separated parenting upon children. I would implore both of them to appreciate that the consequences of continued animosity and conflict can have a lifelong impact upon, ironically, the two things that they love most in this world. Research shows that children in circumstances where their parents cannot behave in a way that is conducive to their welfare on separation are at greater risk of forming dysfunctional relationships, engaging in substance misuse and crime. I hope that lands heavily with both parents because it is entirely within their gift to reflect and recalibrate. The one Order that the Family Court cannot make is one that compels the parents to get along. I would hope, given how bright and articulated both are in combination with the exceptional representation they have, that their innate want for their children to be happy in their lives is enough. The reality is that both parents are stuck with one another – they will in all likelihood be at weddings together and become grandparents together – they do not want to get to a stage where the easy answer will be for BS and MS to not want them around because they are entrenched in their dislike for one another. In short, both need to do better. There are glimpses of what they can do when they work together or park the conflict and it is in no way controversial to say that the thing their children would no doubt want most of all from them is that they try harder. The ISW referenced the need for enhanced insight from both parents and I agree – I would urge them to revisit the initial report and the content.[76]All that being said, the Court is thankfully faced with making decisions in respect of two well-adjusted, bright and curious children who have two parents who love them with everything that they have. The children are, provided their parents are able to reflect and make any Order that the Court imposes work for them, going to have the most fantastic experiences and opportunities in life. They have, in short, every opportunity to meet their innate potential.[77]We are 19 months into proceedings that are relatively uncomplicated and, as with many, many cases of this nature, may have been avoided but for the complexities of human relationships and dynamics. The evidence is, I accept, that F has been able to demonstrate good, consistent and committed parenting over the duration. M similarly, has provided a safe and consistent base from which the children can enjoy their time with their father. The ISW told me they lived about a minute apart. The children, I understand and accept, want a full and meaningful relationship with their father – that should be a source of joy for both parents.[78]We are, in my judgment some considerable time beyond what I would have ever contemplated as being a proportionate staged progression when balanced against the needs and capabilities of these children. There is a real argument generally, but actually on the facts of this case, that the prolonging of the increase in time spent with F has fuelled further acrimony and conflict and undermined the parental relationship. The difficulties may have been fatal in terms of arrangements for other children. I also well acknowledge the ISW’s assessment that the paced or tempered approach has enabled the children’s transition to be very well managed, supported and ensured that there is an evidence base for saying shared care will work. I accept that. What I cannot accept however, is that the matter should be, for any real duration, drawn out any longer. I also do not accept M’s analysis that the increase in time spent with F has had an adverse impact upon the children. In my judgment, any risk of emotional harm would be at the altar of their inability to put their disputes, anxieties and ill-feeling about one another to one side.

CONCLUSIONS

[79]Against that which is set out above, I turn to my conclusions.[80]In doing so, I apply the findings and analysis set out above to the relevant law.[81]Ultimately, with almost all decisions focused upon arrangements for children, their welfare is their paramount consideration and visitation of the welfare checklist is essential.[82]Before getting there, I think it is important to emphasise that it is difficult to contemplate, for the Court and for the advocates, the burden of Private Law proceedings on core participants and how difficult a reality having to participate in Court proceedings about one’s child or children truly is. It is a huge interference into the lives of this family and other than Public Law proceedings and significant medical intervention, it is difficult to imagine a more challenging time for them. I would also want to note, with some considerable emphasis, that the outcome of proceedings concerning children is not a binary win/lose one. If it were, for my part, these two children have lost because their parents are not in a position to navigate their circumstances without great expense and the stark interference of the Courts. It is very much, however, within their gift, for reasons I have already given, to better their children’s lot in that regard and endeavour to get along. It should be to their immense regret that they are in the situation they are in and have spent so much money and exerted so much stress and effort.[83]I should also add that it is a matter of considerable regret for my part that the Family Justice System has not been able to conclude what are, with due respect to no doubt the parents’ view that these are profoundly important, straightforward proceedings. It is lamentable and the duration of the proceedings has, in my judgment, contributed to the instability, delay and harm that the children have experienced.[84]BS is a five-year-old girl, MS is a two-year-old boy. The children’s first language is English. BS is not being formally taught any other language. The children are not actively involved in religion, as they are non-practicing Christians. Both are fit and healthy children and nothing else needs to be said in the context of this application -their parents are able to meet their health needs. BS is having some additional support at school of a limited degree and is supported by a counsellor. They are, on the whole, happy and excitable children. Their wish, I consider, is that they have the love and association of both parents and have full and meaningful relationships with both of them – that should be an observation that carries with it no controversy. They would want to be safe and well looked after and they have been in both parents’ care.[85]In my judgment, the key aspect of the checklist that required engagement at the outset of the proceedings and now as it relates to the balance of issues to which I am invited to determine, is the likely effect upon the children of any change in circumstances. Both parents now recognise and agree a shared care arrangement – that reflects some acknowledgement of the objective evidence and the conclusion that I had arrived at, namely that these two children, for all of the reasons I have identified, are resilient and capable of enduring a change of circumstances in moving to a shared care arrangement. There is nothing in what I have heard or read that would cause me to depart from that arrangement – the ISW’s evidence was thorough and considered and on the generality of that proposal, I adopt his analysis. The children had, despite M’s anxieties or views to the contrary, settled well into the routine of spending more time with F and there is every expectation that they will do exactly that as arrangements move on. A change of circumstances means they have more meaningful time with their father, go on holidays, see the wider paternal family and have the balance of care of both parents. Any so-called period of them being unsettled or out of sorts is plainly outweighed by the overwhelming benefits to which I have referred. To put it colloquially, short-term pain, long-term gain.[86]To not move things on has the potential to be harmful to the children in the longer-term in limiting time with their father and the number of handovers and scope for dispute that currently occurs with the existing relationship is also likely to be more harmful than a 2 / 2 / 5 / 5 approach which carries with it reduced parental interaction which M has herself identified as a core difficulty and balances the children seeing both parents regularly.[87]In that context, I turn to the issues in dispute.

School Summer Holidays 2025 (and Holidays more Generally)

[88]The position is as follows:a. There is some force in M’s submission that there should not be an immediate change to whole weeks on and off to commence in a week’s time. The irony of that is that she has been reluctant to progress matters for a number of months. Understandably, F wants to move things on – he wants to go to Spain on holiday, he wants to enjoy his summer with the children and he is suspicious that there will be problems accompanying any slow progression.b. M urged upon me an increase to three nights per fortnight over the summer, F invited the implementation of the recommendations of the ISW.c. On further, discussion about the permutations open to the Court, F also appeared content with an progression to full weeks by August 2025. That is, in my judgment, what should happen. In particular, knowing that this arrangement is to arrive at a shared care arrangement, to which I will turn and my being of the view that there is an imperative need to move things on, the Order I will make will be: i. For the first four weeks of the school summer holidays (which will run Wednesday to Wednesday given the end and start of term dates), the children will spend four and then five nights with F on alternate weeks, Thursday to Monday, Thursday to Tuesday. ii. After four weeks, the children shall spend two whole weeks, Wednesday to Wednesday, with F. iii. If times are not agreed, collection and return in holidays will be 10:00am. iv. F is permitted to take the children on holiday abroad to Spain.d. For my part, it is difficult to contemplate, in the circumstances, how a Court could conclude anything other than a holiday abroad, in the manner described, is entirely consistent with the children’s welfare interests.e. Holidays abroad generally should be communicated to the other parent not less than 28 days before travel (in terms of the generality of country) and specifics such as hotels/resorts/homes staying at must be provided by 72 hours prior to travel.f. Both parents must ensure that the children speak to the other parent on at least two occasions via video calls when they are with them for periods of seven consecutive nights.g. Passports were referenced in submissions. They are, absent agreement to the contrary, to go to F no less than seven days prior to the holiday and any passport details must be provided within seven days of request. The passports will then go to M when she next requires them for travel and so on. For the parents’ benefit – the children’s passports are not currency, there is no stock to be held in holding them and if anything, they may consider them a liability in that it is one more thing to worry about. I sincerely hope that these parents know better than to worry about such an issue.h. I note that Christmas 2025 and Easter 2026 are agreed. If it is not agreed, the October 2025 half-term shall be split in half, M having the first week this year, F the second and that alternating each year.

Implementation of Term Time Shared Care Arrangement

[89]In respect of the term time arrangement, the ISW was cross-examined at length and I also raised a number of issues with him. The position I have arrived at is as follows:a. Weighing the competing arguments in the balance, I consider that the term time arrangement must commence in full from September 2025.b. I listened carefully to the ISW’s rationale for preferring the phased approach to January 2026 which largely focused upon the time it would allow F to complete the Triple P course and provided a staged progression.c. There are negatives to that approach and for the following reasons, I consider that the following factors tip in favour of a full activation of the arrangements from September 2025: i. the arrangements which everyone now agrees (and I find) should come to pass, would otherwise be delayed by another six months or so in the context of proceedings of considerable antiquity – I have already alluded to the impact upon BS of the proceedings and the arrangements; ii. the children will, by the September 2025 school term, have spent significant time with F and half of the preceding month with him; iii. F intends to forthwith complete the Triple P course and in my judgment that would work well alongside full and meaningful parenting the children; iv. to change the children’s arrangements materially half-way through the school year in January 2026 has the potential to cause more confusion; v. the incomplete activation of the arrangement increases the risk of the arrangements being frustrated; vi. the children are, in my judgment, resilient and will cope well with the change; and vii. given the pace of the change to date and the number of changes that there have already been, a further phase of changes over a four-month period is, in my judgment to be avoided and not consistent with their welfare needs.

Recitals

[90]Finally, on the issue of recitals or expectations, it is helpful to note that F will agree that the Order record that he intends to, forthwith, enrol on and complete the Triple P course. If he does not, that may be a source of great regret for him in the future and, for the benefit of repairing the relationship with M and optimising his parenting thereby minimising future issues, he will no doubt want to complete it.[91]As for whether or not the Court should record that both parents should utilise each other as a first port of call for childcare (instead of utilising nannies or similar) is not something that F agrees. It is utterly unhelpful to set out the tit-for-tat of what M did or did not do in the context of her having nannies. For my part, I am not minded to impose such an expectation. In particular:a. the time that the children are within each of their parents’ care is a matter for the parent and it will be for them to discharge their responsibilities appropriately;b. the relationship between the parents is currently of such a quality that I cannot be confident that to have such an expectation would carry with it consistency of arrangements and has the capacity to be confusing for the children;c. F is entitled, as is M, to make predictable and consistent childcare arrangements in the same way that many parents (and separated parents) do all the time;d. there can be no real confidence that such an arrangement would be predictable or otherwise lead to conflict; ande. there is nothing to stop the parents making such arrangements in the future and an indicator of the trust between them being rebuilt may be such an arrangement coming to pass.

The Final Order

[92]As such, the Court will make a shared lives with Order with the ancillary matters as set out above. The parents may, with the agreement of both parties, vary arrangements from time to time. For their part and crucially, their children’s, I would hope that they come to see the immense benefit that comes with flexibility. People will be ill, delayed, want to take holidays at different dates, have special occasions – family life does not always go hand in hand with the rigidity of a Court Order.[93]Finally, I want to thank both parents for their participation and wish them well in moving things forward. As I emphasised at the Hearing – it is essential that they comply with the Order and make sure that a positive environment is maintained for the children. I very much hope that they are able to co-exist at a level where their children can benefit from it and if any motivation was needed for that, they should remind themselves of the two wonderful children that they, together, brought into the world.

order

staying contact with father) [2013] 2 FLR 1307 as the Court being required to clearly set out any reasons for doing so. Obviously, the decision is with the Court and this is not trial by expert and I have in mind that the section 7 CA 1989 within these proceedings is under the umbrella of FPR 2010 rule 25 and as such all of the authorities as to expert evidence being an important, but not decisive, piece of the jigsaw.