DD (A Child), Re [2025] EWFC 500 (B)

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.Case No LS21P01669
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT LEEDS
[2025] EWFC 500 (B)Date Date: 29.8.25
IN THE MATTER OF DD [A Child]
Hearing 16.6.25
Before
HHJ Greenan
Between
DDFApplicantDDMFirst RespondentTHE CHILDSecond Respondent
JUDGMENTIntroduction
[1]In this case I am making a decision about DD, who was born in early 2020, some weeks before the first Covid lockdown. In the months following her birth, contact between her and her father, DDF, was sporadic and eventually ceased entirely by October 2021. Efforts to resolve matters through mediation concluded in July 2021, and in November of that year, DDF applied for a Child Arrangements Order, a declaration of parentage, and parental responsibility.[2]The mother, DDM, opposed these applications, citing concerns about the father's alleged drug use. This led to a series of court hearings and directions, including drug testing and the filing of witness statements. A hair strand test confirmed low-level cannabis use by the father. Despite this, supervised contact was cautiously introduced, initially at the mother’s home and later at neutral venues such as P Play Gym.[3]Throughout 2022 and into 2023, contact arrangements were inconsistent, often disrupted by procedural delays, health issues, and administrative errors. A Section 7 report was ordered in May 2023, and supervised contact was arranged through Families Forward. However, further delays ensued for a variety of reasons including missed deadlines and miscommunications between the court and Cafcass.[4]In early 2024, concerns arose when the mother took DD abroad without confirming a return date. A risk assessment was filed, and the court ordered that the father be allowed fortnightly supervised contact upon DD’s return, with interim video calls in the meantime. A declaration of parentage was agreed upon in March 2024, and further assessments were ordered to evaluate the family dynamics.[5]The situation became more complex when the mother reported the father to the police for rape by “stealthing”, without informing the court. These allegations led to the father’s arrest and the imposition of bail conditions that restricted his contact with DD. Despite this, drug testing in September 2024 showed no recent substance misuse, and the court resumed supervised contact at Families Forward.[6]Given the ongoing tensions and serious allegations, the court ordered a psychological assessment of the family. Dr. Downs was appointed to conduct the assessment, with costs shared between the parties. The assessment was delayed but eventually completed, and the court authorised its disclosure to the police and the father’s criminal solicitor.[7]In early 2025, a new Guardian, was appointed. The court directed that she be allowed to meet DD and observe contact sessions. By March 2025, the court accepted the Guardian’s recommendation for a gradual transition to unsupervised contact. The father was granted parental responsibility and undertook not to use illegal substances or drive unsafely during contact. The mother was ordered to facilitate contact as per the court’s directions.[8]A consent order in April 2025 allowed the father to share relevant information with the police. The matter returned to court on 16 June 2025 for further consideration. I then listed the case for a final hearing to be dealt with on submissions.

The law

[9]DD’s welfare is my paramount concern and I take into account all the matters set out in the checklist in section 1 of the Children Act 1989 which are: (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.[10]I note that although section 1(2A) of the Act provides that:
“A court, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (4)(a) or (7), is as respects each parent within subsection (6)(a) to presume, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child's welfare.” section 2B makes clear that “ “involvement” means involvement of some kind, either direct or indirect, but not any particular division of a child's time.”
The history of this case

The history of this case

[11]The history is outlined above. This case has gone on for much longer than is satisfactory. When these proceedings began, DD was not yet two. She is now 5 ½. Well over half her life has been blighted by disputes between her parents about what role, if any, her father should play in her life.[12]The excessive length of this case has resulted from a number of factors, including: an almost complete lack of judicial continuity until the beginning of 2024; several changes of guardian as a result of matters outside the court’s control; the mother’s unexpected departure with DD on an extended holiday to the Antarctic in late 2023; changes in the mother’s position and in particular in her unwillingness to consider any unsupervised contact.[13]During most of the time both parents have been unrepresented. The father’s initial application was prepared by a solicitor and he had solicitors acting for him until about September 2023. The mother had counsel acting for her at the hearing on 17.4.23.[14]A safeguarding letter was prepared by Cafcass on 7.1.22. The mother raised concerns about the father’s drug use and poor driving history. She did not believe that he really wanted a relationship with DD and thought that he was being pushed by his mother. The father said that the mother was controlling and had behaved aggressively towards his new partner and him. He accepted occasional cannabis use. He said that his driving convictions were from some years ago. He wanted to be involved in DD’s life but felt that he was being alienated from her life by DDM.[15]The author of the safeguarding letter recommended drug testing of the father and advised that he should give an undertaking not to use drugs for 24 hours before any time spent with DD. She recommended that some contact should start, supervised by another adult, possibly the mother.[16]The parents came before a Justices Legal Advisor for a FHDRA on 12.1.22. At that stage the mother was opposed to any form of direct contact. The court ordered drug testing of the father, and put in place an arrangement for video contact to take place twice weekly. Both parties were ordered to file witness statements and the case listed before lay justices for a DRA in 3 months time.[17]With hindsight it is clear in my view that a section 7 report should have been ordered at this stage and the case transferred to a higher tier of judge, in view of the level of disagreement and the strength of the mother’s opposition to any direct contact.[18]On 28.2.22 the father provided a hair sample for testing for cannabis and cocaine. A report from Alphabiolabs was filed dated 7.2.22. The father told the sampler that he used cannabis regularly. The sample was divided into three one month segments. The testing of the oldest segment (Oct to Nov 21) indicated a high level of cannabis; the middle segment (the following month) a medium level; the most recent segment (Dec 21 to Jan 22) a low level. No cocaine use was identified.[19]On 19.2.22 the father filed a detailed witness statement in which he set out his view of the history of their relationship and his attempts to maintain a relationship with DD after she was born.[20]On 1.3.22 the mother filed a witness statement in which she also set out her version of the history of the relationship. She said that in the period after DD was born he had been “a great Father” but that problems had started during lockdown. She had been very upset that he had done a DNA test. She expressed the view that “ideally I would like the judge to dismiss this case and let DD and I get on with our life”. She referred to her difficult relationship with her own father and the ways in which she felt he had let her down.[21]On 7.4.22 there was an abortive hearing which took place before DDJ Trent rather than lay magistrates. It appears from the order made that the judge had not received all the relevant documents and the case was only listed for 30 minutes. This resulted in an adjournment for 10 weeks.[22]By the time of the next hearing on 20.6.22 it was recorded that the father had visited DD at home on two occasions and spent time with her briefly. DJ Uppal made an order in which he included in lengthy recitals the differences which the parents had with each other and his urging them to focus on what they had in common, that being DD. He ordered ongoing contact on a weekly basis for 1 hour at the mother’s home, supervised by the mother, and ordered what seems to have been intended as a review hearing with position statements filed beforehand, in four months time. This arrangement was ordered by agreement, the court recording that the home visits thus far “had gone well and both parties believing the way forward was for contact to take place supervised by the Respondent mother”.[23]The next hearing was conducted by DDJ Mawdsley on 17.10.23. The judge had not been provided with the bundle. The arrangements put in place in June had been working to an extent but the mother would still not agree to any unsupervised contact. (During this period the father was in the habit of bringing DD and her mother fish and chips for tea on a Friday, and it is from this that DD’s nickname for him apparently derives.) Furthermore at the hearing the mother made an allegation that the father had been recording conversations with her and that she felt so violated in her own home she would not agree to any future contact there. She offered monthly visits at a play gym as an alternative. The father accepted that he had recorded the mother but said that he had done this because she had filed a position statement stating that he had shouted and sworn at her which he denied. In view of the difficulties the court ordered a contested hearing. This was another missed opportunity to order a s7 report. The parties were ordered to file availability for a final hearing. The court also ordered that contact should take place in the interim for four hours a month at a play gym, with the mother present.[24]Those interim arrangements did not work: the parties were not able to agree on times or a venue. The father complained that the mother tried to arrange joint attendance at events instead of trips to a play gym, and when the father tried to agree dates for the latter, would only put forward weekdays, when the father was at work.[25]At some point a date for a final hearing was allocated of 18.5.23, 7 months from the last hearing. The reason for the delay is not explained. No proper directions for the filing of evidence had been made and the father applied to court on 8.3.23 for a hearing to consider the format of the hearing and what further evidence might be required.[26]On 22.3.23, without a hearing and on the basis of correspondence from the parties, DJ Rana ordered the exchange of witness statements before the hearing on 18.5.23.[27]On 18.5.23 the case came before DDJ Burnam. It did not proceed as a contested hearing and the court ordered the preparation of a section 7 report by 10th August 2023. The order contains various recitals including forthcoming holidays for the parents. In addition, arrangements were put in place for contact to take place on a supervised basis at Families Forward, a contact centre. There was no Cafcass officer present at this hearing, so I assume that the referral to Families Forward was suggested by and made by the solicitors then acting for the father. It is not clear whether this part of the order was made by agreement, although there is a recital indicating that both parents agreed to attend the contact centre on their own.[28]The order also records forthcoming holiday dates for each parent.[29]Those sessions began on 20.7.23 and detailed reports have been provided. It is apparent from those notes that DD was happy to spend time with her father, but did not really know who he was. She referred to him by his nickname. By 23.8.23 the contact staff were stressing to the parents the need for DD to understand that DDF is her father.[30]There followed a significant delay in preparation of the section 7 report. When the case came before DJ Heels on 7.9.23 Cafcass had indicated that they had not received the order of 18.5.23 and no report had been prepared. DJ Heels conducted what she describes in the order as a mini-trial to try to narrow the issues. The extent of contact was still in issue as was the granting of a parental responsibility order. The district judge noted “the lack of trust and potential for hostility from the parents giving rise to the risk of significant harm to DD”.[31]She made a further order for a s7 report with a filing date of 23.11.23.[32]In early November Cafcass notified the court that the court’s order of 7.9.23 had not been received until 4.10.23 and the filing date could not be complied with. As a result on 8.11.23 District Judge Akers set a new date for service of the s7 report of 10.1.24. That is eight monthsafter it was originally ordered.[33]Ms A was appointed by Cafcass to prepare the report. On 5.1.24 she filed a section 16A risk assessment in which she raised concern that she had had a recent telephone conversation with the mother during which it had become apparent that DD and her mother were outside the UK on an extended trip, potentially not returning to the UK until the spring. Ms A indicated that she could not complete her enquiries without an opportunity to meet DD.[34]I am aware that the mother disputes substantial parts of what is said by the CAFCASS Officer in her s16A risk assessment. The mother maintains that she had made the court aware that she was going away for a period. At the time this case came before me in January 2024 I caused searches to be made in Leeds and Huddersfield for the email which the mother said that she had sent saying that she would be away in December, but it was not found. The only email which could be found from the mother mentioning the trip was dated 19.12.24, sent after the mother and DD had left. I note that this holiday was not listed in the recital to DJ Burnam’s order of 17.5.23, although that order did record holidays in the latter part of 2023. It also appears that Families Forward, who had been supervising regular fortnightly contact since July 2023, were not aware that the mother was going to be out of the country. Families Forward record in their notes of 13.12.23:
“We received an email on Sunday 10 December from DDM (which we read when we returned to the office on 12 December) advising she and DD would be on an Antarctica expedition so not able to attend the session. She advised she had told DDF’s solicitor about this some time ago and it had been booked in June 2021. DDM did not give details when she was due to return to the UK. She was emailed to request this information but has not yet responded. DDF was updated about the cancellation and unaware of the trip.”
[35]Following receipt of the s16A Risk Assessment the case was referred to me and I listed an urgent directions hearing on 23.1.24. At that point the mother and DD were on a boat in the South Atlantic. The mother told the court that she was intending to return to the UK on 7.3.24. The father made it clear that he did not wish to disrupt the trip. He had been made aware that this expedition was planned at some point in the future, but had not been told the dates and did not know that the mother and DD had left the country until after they had done so. The mother told the court that in an ideal world she would want DD to have no relationship with her father.[36]By the time of this hearing Ms A had filed her s7 report dated 8.1.24. The mother had told Ms A that she did not believe that the father could safely look after DD on his own and that she remained concerned about cannabis use. The contact records indicated that the father displayed a positive ability to parent DD during supervised sessions and there were no records of him appearing to be under the influence of substances. Ms A expressed concern that the parents’ relationship history affected the dynamics between them, and this was having a direct impact on DD and was interfering with her relationship with her father. Ms A recommended a live with order in favour of the mother, and the commencement of unsupervised contact with the father, moving on to overnight stays after six weeks.[37]It was clear that there was no agreement between the parents on a way forward and I listed the case for a contested hearing before me on 17 & 18 April. I ordered the parents to file witness statements. I ordered an addendum s7 report dealing expressly with the father’s applications for a parental responsibility order and a declaration of parentage.[38]I made an order for weekly contact by video until the mother returned to the country, with direct supervised contact recommencing when she returned.[39]This trip resulted in a 5-month gap in the attempts to develop a relationship between DD and her father.[40]Ms A filed her addendum on 14.3.24. She had still not been able to meet with DD: attempts to arrange such a meeting following the mother’s return the week before the report was filed had been unsuccessful. I am aware that DDM does not agree with Ms A about the reasons no visit was arranged. Ms A complains in her addendum of hostile emails from the mother. She expresses concern that the mother is highly stressed at times and that DD may have been exposed to her heightened anxiety. She noted that the order for contact by video had not been fully complied with and that there had been no arrangement for direct contact since DD returned to the UK (though of course that had only happened the week before). She recommended that a parental responsibility order and a declaration of parentage should be granted.[41]The case came back before me on 20.3.24 for a pre-trial review. The father broadly accepted Ms A’s recommendation. The mother did not. Her position remained that she would prefer DD to have no relationship with her father and would prefer a “clean break”. She objected to a Parental Responsibility Order but agreed to a Declaration of Parentage.[42]The mother indicated her unhappiness with the work of Ms A. She had complained about her to Cafcass and to Social Work England.[43]I canvassed with Ms A whether, in view of the mother’s position of not supporting any relationship between DD and her father, and the apparently intractable nature of the dispute, this would be an appropriate case for DD to be made a party and to have a guardian appointed under FPR 16.4. Ms A did not regard that as necessary at that stage in the case.[44]The case remained listed for a final contested hearing. I ordered a further s7 addendum to be prepared once Ms A had had the chance to meet DD. I made a Declaration of Parentage by agreement.[45]It was at this hearing that the mother told the court that she had been so distressed by being required to attend a court hearing while at sea on the Serenade of the Seas that she had considered throwing herself and DD into the sea. I regarded this assertion as a piece of hyperbole, intended to show how frustrated she was by the process, rather than a threat to be taken literally.[46]The contested hearing began on 17.4.24. DDM was represented by experienced counsel instructed on a direct access basis. During her evidence, in cross-examination, Ms A conceded that she had not read the Alphabiolabs HST report and that if she had, she might have recommended further drug testing. In addition she indicated that in her view DD should be made a party and have a guardian. She agreed that, in view of her strained relationship with the mother, she should not take on that role. It was clear that on that basis the contested hearing could not proceed to a conclusion and that the court would have to make an order appointing a guardian and giving a direction for further hair strand testing.[47]An application was made for HST of the father by the newly appointed guardian and I approved that without a hearing on 25.4.24.[48]On a date which is unclear Cafcass appointed Ms Q as DD’s guardian. She filed a detailed position statement on 20.5.24 in which she recommended that contact should become unsupervised.[49]On 22.5.24 the case came before me for directions. It appeared that agreement between the parents was unlikely and I listed a further contested hearing on 22nd, 23rd and 25th July.[50]On 28.5.24 the mother quite properly raised with Cafcass that there was a personal connection between Ms Q and DDM: Ms Q herself had not been aware of this as the connection was via Ms Q’s husband.[51]Cafcass management therefore made arrangements to allocate another guardian. By early June Ms G had been appointed as DD’s guardian.[52]In June 2024 a statement was filed by the solicitor for the child from Ms B, the manager of Families Forward. She states: 4. Family time has been positive throughout our involvement. DD appears to enjoy the opportunity to spend time with DDM. Play and conversations have been appropriate, and it has not been necessary to provide any support or intervene once DD is settled. It is my opinion that supervision of family time is no longer necessary. 5. DD does struggle to separate from DDM at the start of family time to varying degrees. Sometimes she will settle quickly but other times she likes her mother to stay with her for a few minutes. 6. I am aware that DD has not been told that DDF is her father and from the outset of our involvement has referred to him as [by his nickname]. I have spoken with DDM about the need to be transparent with DD about this and explain who he is. DDM has asked for support from Cafcass about this…. 9. Family time took place on 19th June 2024 at a local soft play centre. DD appeared excited about the change of venue and was able to separate from her mother at the front entrance. She spent two hours there playing happily. While I remained at the venue throughout, my assistance was not required, and DD was settled throughout.[53]On 14.6.24 Ms G filed a position statement. She had done a large amount of work since being appointed. She met with the mother, who was opposed to family time moving on, but who provided material to help the guardian with life story work with DD. She met the father who said he would accept any professional recommendations to enable contact to move on. She discussed the case with Ms B who confirmed that there were no concerns about the quality of the father’s contact. Ms B had told Ms Q that DD still referred to him by his nickname and believed that the mother’s friend was her father.[54]Ms Q recommended that contact should progress at a suitable pace for DD. She noted that the parents had agreed that some sessions could take place at a soft play centre, albeit with Ms B supervising. Her recommendation was for Families Forward being used for handovers with the father spending time unsupervised in the community with DD.[55]On 21.6.24 the case came before me for a directions hearing. The parents had, with the assistance of Ms G, prepared a plan which allowed the father to spend time unsupervised with DD away from the contact centre. There had been a visit to a Playgym on 19.6.24 which went well. The mother spoke warmly of the guardian during the hearing. She said that she was grateful for her help in explaining things to DD, and that she (the mother) had felt she was being listened to. She was in agreement with the contact moving on to two-hour sessions of supported contact. An order was made by agreement which saw contact moving to taking place in the community but with handovers at Families Forward, with a session at the end of August at a play centre. I also made an order for further drug and alcohol testing of the father. The case was listed for further directions in September.[56]On that basis the contested final hearing listed in June was vacated.[57]At the time of the hearing on 21.6.24 the mother was aware that she had contacted the police and made an allegation of rape against the father. The basis of this allegation was that he had repeatedly, without her knowing, removed a condom during sex, a type of behaviour sometimes known as “stealthing”. This behaviour was alleged to have occurred during a period which ended eight years ago, before DD was conceived. This was not a new allegation: it was contained in the mother’s witness statement dated 1.3.22 at paragraph 5 and in that statement she discusses the fact that she was aware that this was criminal offence and something which she could have reported to the police. The timing of her report to the police, and her decision to agree at court to progress contact in circumstances where she knew that the process was about to be stalled by police involvement, is concerning.[58]The father denies these allegations. They remain the subject of police investigation.[59]I note that the mother’s medical records contain an entry dated 3.3.20, following DD’s birth, in which she states that she had not used contraception for many years because she believed that she was not able to conceive.[60]Contact did not progress as anticipated by the order of 21.6.24 because the father had been arrested and made the subject of bail conditions which prevented him having any unsupervised contact with DD. There was a contact visit at a Park on 30.7.24 attended by the guardian, who regarded the session as positive but noted that the father had difficult saying no to DD. He said that was difficult because he was worried that she might not want to see him.[61]Following this contact had to revert to supervised fortnightly sessions at Families Forward. It is worth noting at this point that such supervised contact had then ongoing since May 23, over a year previously.[62]On 29.7.24 the guardian did a life story work session with DD. DD said that [mother’s friend] was her daddy.[63]In September 2024 the parents both filed position statements. Both were highly critical of the other[64]On 17.9.24 the guardian made an application for a psychological assessment of the parents and the child, proposing that Dr Maria Downs, an experienced family psychologist, be instructed. The guardian filed a position statement in support of the application in which she expressed concerns about the obstacles which the mother was placing in the way of contact and noting that her most recent position statement portrayed herself as the victim of everyone (the father, his mother, professionals working with the family etc) and indicated that she wanted the father to have “zero” contact. She also expressed concern that the mother had not promoted a positive image of the father and had allowed DD to think that another man was her father.[65]At a hearing on 1.9.25 I approved the proposed instruction of Dr Downs. The mother declined to provide full financial information on which I could assess her ability to pay, so she was ordered to pay one-third of the cost of the assessment.[66]Although the mother was not in support of a psychological assessment being carried out, she did not specifically object to Dr Downs being selected to carry it out.[67]On 1.10.24 the mother filed a statement in which she said “it has been proven beyond all doubt that DDF is a convicted killer, a rapist and a drug addict”.[68]Dr Downs’ report was filed on 26.11.24. With appendices it runs to 94 pages and is a thorough document.[69]In relation to the mother, she notes that the mother was seeking to create a positive impression during assessments which made a comprehensive psychological assessment difficult. She identified narcissistic and histrionic traits, and noted that the mother’s score on the anxiety index was elevated. She regarded traumatic experiences during the mother’s upbringing as having an impact on her functioning and relationship patterns and recommended Cognitive Analytical Therapy, though she wondered whether the mother would engage with this as she regarded the current proceedings as the cause of all her problems. Dr Downs suggested that the current situation as likely to be reactivating emotions and physiological reactions to the mother’s own childhood. The mother was likely to struggle to separate DD’s needs from her own.[70]In relation to the father she also notes that his responses indicated a wish to create a positive impression which means that caution needs to be used in interpreting results. She identified compulsive, narcissistic and histrionic traits. He had had a difficult time when his parents split up when he was 21. Her view was that he would also benefit from CAT to enhance his insight into his experiences and to develop more adaptive healthy patterns. This would assist him in sustaining changes in relation to drugs. In her view he was in the Action stage of change in relation to drugs, though he told her that he had had a relapse and used cannabis and cocaine after being told that his unsupervised contact with DD was being stopped.[71]DD was unable to identify to Dr Downs who her father was. She said she did not have a daddy. During contact with her father, very positive interactions were seen, and he was attuned to her needs. She had formed an attachment to him. Dr Downs advised that the absence of her father from her life was likely to have a strong impact on DD’s identity.[72]Following receipt of Dr Downs’ report the mother filed a position statement indicating that she would not agree to any unsupervised contact.[73]In late 2024 the then guardian Ms G left Cafcass and a new guardian, Faye M, was appointed. The mother was, quite reasonably, unhappy at another change of guardian. Ms M, in her position statement filed on 24.2.25, apologized for the number of different guardians and acknowledged the impact this was having on DD and the parties. The mother was resistant to Ms M meeting DD and the guardian had to apply to the court for directions to enable this to happen. At a hearing on 11.2.25 the father also expressed concern about the length of the proceedings and the impact on DD, but did support her meeting the new guardian. While I understood the mother’s reluctance for DD to meet another professional, Ms M could not do her job properly and progress the case without meeting DD and observing her with the father.[74]In early 2025 the father’s bail conditions were varied so that he could have unsupervised contact with DD.[75]The case came back before me on 6.3.25. Before the hearing I received a detailed position statement from the guardian. She set out discussions with the mother in which the latter had expressed, seemingly in the same discussion, different views about what should happen next, at one stage appearing to accept that contact should move on and at another indicating opposition to any unsupervised contact.[76]The mother raised a longstanding allegation against the father which is that he had threatened to jump off a Bridge (a well-known landmark) with DD. The father has consistently denied this allegation: his version is that before DD was born, at a difficult time in the relationship, he had told the mother that he would rather jump off the bridge than have a baby with her.[77]The mother has also alleged that the father has threatened to kill DD. This is a new allegation and, although the mother has said that she has material to prove this, it has not been produced.[78]The guardian discussed with the mother whether she was trying to encourage or reinforce DD’s understanding of DDF as her father. She concluded that this was not happening.[79]In discussions the father indicated that he simply wanted to have some involvement in DD’s life and to find some way of conducting handovers so he is not at risk of further allegations from the mother.[80]Ms M attended a contact session at Families Forward. The contact was of good quality and the very experienced supervisor, Ms B, did not regard supervision or support as being needed. The only issue was handovers.[81]The guardian recommended that contact should move on to unsupervised daytime contact. She stated: The CG remains concerned that the mother is determined to ensure that [DD] is not able to have a relationship with her father. She has been clear that she will not agree to unsupervised contact. The mother has failed to enforce the narrative drawn up by the previous Guardian, in relation to DD’s paternity.[82]She also recommended that both parents should show the report of Dr Downs to their GP and try to obtain a referral for the therapy suggested by her.[83]The mother filed a position statement for the hearing on 6.3.25. She was highly critical of the father for having “subjected....their child to a Psychologist entering their school”. She complains that the fortnightly sessions at Families Forward are interfering with DD’s other activities. She hopes the law will be changed so that there is no presumption in favour of contact.[84]At the hearing on 6.3.25, after considering all the material before the court and the position statements of both parents, I made an order for contact to move forward on a stepped basis. A clear schedule was included in the order. In addition I made a parental responsibility order in favour of the father.[85]The case was listed for a further Dispute Resolution Appointment on 16.6.25. The guardian saw both parents and DD again in the interim. A family friend (and DD’s godfather), Mr B, had been identified as a person who could assist with handovers. This was a welcome development as in the past it had been difficult to find any family member or friend who was acceptable to both parents. It was also agreed that the father’s cousin, Mr L, could assist if Mr B was not available. Both Mr B and Ms L had been the subject of safeguarding checks. The guardian had a detailed discussion with the mother about the logistics of contact and how to fit around DD’s many activities. The mother suggested that the father could take DD to Saturday morning football.[86]The father told the guardian about activities he was doing when he saw DD and that in his view contact was positive.[87]Families Forward reported that contact remained positive but that the mother remained very anxious. The father had been sending messages and photographs throughout the day to Ms B, who then sent them on to the mother, to demonstrate that DD was safe, which had provided some assurance.[88]Based on those discussions the guardian prepared a plan for contact going forward, starting on 17.5.25. That would have seen the father spending time in the community unsupervised from 10am to 5pm, with the first session starting and finishing at Families Forward, but the fortnightly sessions after that taking place in the community with Mr B assisting with handovers. In the longer term the plan was for these sessions to take place on alternate weekends and also to alternate between Saturdays and Sundays.[89]Contact took place in accordance with that plan on 17th May. On 31st May however, when the handover should have taken place in the community, it remained at Families Forward. The mother had not supplied the father with contact details for Mr B, so the father was not able to get in touch with him to make arrangements. The mother also said that DD had not seen Mr B for about a year, and she wanted them to meet so that she would be familiar with him. In addition the mother said that she planned to near Families Forward anyway on 31st May. Fortunately a slot had remained booked at Families Forward so the handovers were able to take place there.[90]Both parents filed position statements prior to the hearing on 16.6.25. The father expressed hope but also concern at the prospect of the case concluding – he believed that there would be ongoing problems with maintaining a relationship with DD and that he might have to re-apply to the court.[91]The mother filed a lengthy position statement. In this she repeated an offer made on more than one occasion previously to pay the father a sum of money (on this occasion £15,000) to “walk away”. She suggested that contact had to continue it should progress on the basis that the father see DD at a one of a list of pre-selected public places, with a third party doing the handover.[92]At the hearing on 16.6.25 the guardian believed that an agreed position, in principle at least, had been reached on a way forward in line with her proposal outlined above. That was not the case however and it was apparent that a decision would need to be made. Both parents and the guardian expressed a wish that the case be dealt with that day, albeit the father was still concerned about his position once the proceedings ended.[93]The case therefore proceeded on the basis of the guardian giving evidence and being asked questions by both parents, and both parents making submissions.[94]The guardian indicated that her recommendation that contact move to unsupervised remained the same. She was aware about the issue in relation to DD attending activities and suggested that the father take her to her clubs when he saw her on a Saturday. The 31st May visit had used Families Forward as a handover point because Mr B was unwell. The next session had not taken place because the mother and DD were attending a wedding: this had been communicated in advance.[95]The mother had raised concerns that the proposed alternative supervisor, Ms L, used cannabis. The guardian had indicated that she could speak to Ms L about this, but the mother objected to that so it had not taken place. She proposed that Mr B should be sent a copy of the plan and provided with contact details for both parents.[96]She agreed that there should be a recital in the order about the mother referring to the father positively in front of DD. The mother had agreed that she did not refer to the father as “dad” to DD. She wanted to reinforce the importance of the undertaking which the father was giving about drugs. He had said that he had last used cannabis on 6th May.[97]She was asked about the mother’s offer to pay the father to walk away. She said “I cannot begin to comment on how inappropriate this is”. It did not reflect well on the mother. She had never come across such an offer being made before. DD had developed a relationship with the father and it was time for contact to become unsupervised. In her view the proceedings, which had been going on for 190 weeks, needed to come to an end.[98]She had thought that she was in a positive place with the parents in conversation and believed there was agreement in principle. Both parents were being impacted by the stress of the proceedings.[99]She confirmed that she had no concerns about Mr B or Ms L doing handovers. The parents might need to find others to assist with handovers. The fact the police investigation was ongoing was not a reason not to finalise matters – it might go on for even longer. She suggested the parents should use the Talking Parents app (or a similar app) for communication.[100]In relation to the undertaking being given by father, she suggested that the mother should bring the case back to court if she believed it was being breached. She pointed out that Families Forward had had no concerns about the father’s presentation and DD was not reported as saying anything to the mother to suggest that he had been under the influence of anything.[101]The father told me that he felt like a passenger in these proceedings. He would like to iron out the hostility but he mother’s position statement was unpleasant reading and it felt as if she was pursuing a vendetta against his family. In relation to the mother’s suggestion that Ms L’s brother was a sex offender, he said that an allegation had been made against her brother 10 years ago, but he had not been charged with any offence and was not on the Sex Offender’s Register. Ms L did not live with her brother and he would not be involved in contact arrangements.[102]He said that the last occasion on which he had smoked cannabis was 6th May. He had heard nothing from the police since his last bail return date. Some points had come off his license in April and he would have a clean license from August 2025.[103]He indicated that he wanted the case to come to an end. It was having an impact on his life: he felt that he had stagnated and not been able to move forward at work because of this. He would not walk out on his daughter for any amount of money.[104]The mother told me following the first unsupervised visit the father had told her that he had been crying a lot. The father disputed this. He said that DD had told him “My mother says you are not very nice”. She complained about the fact that the father had received presents from his family for DD over the years but had not passed them on. She believed the father was still taking drugs. She believed that only indirect contact should take place, but if there was to be contact, she agreed with the guardian’s proposals. She was desperate to conclude matters, because of the impact the proceedings were having on her health. She had always thought the case was about money which was why she had offered money to the father to settle it. If an order was made, she could comply with it. The law[105]The court is required at all times by Practice Direction 12J during proceedings to consider whether domestic abuse is raised as an issue and, if it is, to consider whether what is raised is relevant to the decision about whether to make a child arrangements order, and whether a determination on the facts is needed. Cafcass at the initial safeguarding stage regarded the main issues in this case as drug use and the need for any relationship to develop slowly. In addition, there was a measure of agreement between the parents in the earlier stages of the proceedings that contact should commence, and the mother agreed to supervise contact herself, on her own, at her own house. At no stage has the court regarded a fact-finding hearing as necessary in this case and none of the professionals involved has recommended that findings needed to be made. Although the number of different Cafcass officers involved in this case is regrettable, each time a new Cafcass officer has become involved, part of their task has been to consider the issues in the case, including the allegations made by each party. None of those experienced Cafcass officers has suggested that the court embark on a fact-finding process.[106]Although the mother did not raise the stealthing allegations with the police until 2024, the factual basis on which that report was made was, as set out above, known to the court from early in the case. It has to be considered in the context of a relationship between the parents which went on for some years after that alleged behaviour, and where the alleged behaviour precedes DD’s birth.[107]Pursuant to section 1 of the Children Act 1989 DD’s welfare is my paramount concern and I take into all relevant information, in particular: (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. Discussion Ascertainable wishes and feelings[108]The guardian has been unable to obtain a clear account from DD of her wishes and feelings in relation to her father. The fact that DD has been brought up with little or no understanding of who her father is has contributed to that. When the guardian saw DD in May of this year, she was still referring to the father as “Chipman” although she said that she knew he was her dad. She was under the impression that her father lived in town and that this would make seeing him prevent her going to her clubs. The guardian’s view, based on her own observations and those of Families Forward, is that DD has formed a relationship with her father which needs to be promoted. DD’s physical, emotional and educational needs[109]The primary concern in this case is DD’s physical and emotional welfare. The mother raises concerns about the father’s ability to provide safe care for DD but the guardian does not share those concerns, nor has the father’s behaviour during the lengthy period of supervised contact given rise to any issues. DD’s emotional welfare will be supported by her developing a relationship with her father. It seems doubtful that, if contact did not take place, that DD would be provided with any information about her father, and certainly not any positive information. She might be allowed, as occurred recently, to believe that someone else is her father. The mother appears to place little value on the role of a father in DD’s life. This is potentially damaging to DD. The likely affect of any change in DD’s circumstances[110]DD has been seeing her father regularly, with some blips, since 2022. A cessation of that relationship would have a negative impact on her. She might feel that she had been abandoned by him. The introduction of unsupervised contact will allow the relationship to become more natural and widen the scope of activities for DD. It will also allow the father to take her to pre-arranged activities and to play more of a role in her life. Her age, sex and background etc[111]DD is still only 5 ½. She needs security and stability and for the adults around her to put her welfare first. Any harm DD has suffered or is at risk of suffering[112]DD spent most of the first two years of her life spending little or no time with her father. Since then she has been the subject of proceedings which have lasted for three and a half years and during which she has had to meet various professionals. Being the subject of such lengthy proceedings has presented a risk of harm to DD. The length of the proceedings is not solely the responsibility of the parties: there have been delays caused by the court, and delays caused by Cafcass. But the mother’s hostility to the father and her unwillingness to allow matters to progress have been the main cause of this unusual duration. DD and her parents need to avoid litigation in future. How capable her parents are of meeting her needs[113]The mother is capable of meeting all DD’s needs, save for her need to have a relationship with her father. The mother’s attempts to buy off the father demonstrate in my view a real lack of insight into how important that need is. The father is, I find, capable of meeting DD’s need to have safe contact with him. He does not seek to displace the mother or to diminish her role: he seeks simply a limited role which he is capable of discharging. The court’s range of powers[114]This is not a relevant factor in this case. No one disputes that I have the power to make the orders sought.[115]At the end of the hearing on 16.6.25 I set out the decision which I made and the brief reasons for it. I indicated that I would provide a written judgment in due course. This judgment is proportionate in complexity to a decision reached at a hearing dealt with primarily on submissions. I concentrated on setting out the history to provide some context to my decision and to assist any other judge or Cafcass officer who may have in future to deal with a dispute between these parents. I hope very much that this does not occur.[116]My decision as set out in the order made on 16.6.25 was that the father should have regular unsupervised contact with DD, with handovers via a third party, and with the father under a continuing obligation in relation to drug use to abstain for 24 hours before any time spent with DD. I am satisfied that it is in DD’s best interests to continue to develop her relationship with her father. The father has, I find, shown fortitude and determination during these proceedings. He is far from perfect but he has demonstrated a commitment to his daughter in circumstances where many parents might have given up. I do not find that this is motivated by money or by a desire to make life difficult for the mother. If anything, his commitment has made life difficult for himself.[117]The mother is devoted to DD and her care for her daughter is compromised only by her unwillingness to accept that she should have a father in her life.[118]Both parents in this case raise issues about the other’s behaviour and easily begin to go over grievances which relate to events during their relationship, and during the difficult period after DD was born. Both need to focus on the future for DD, and how they can avoid her life being blighted by disputes and ill-feeling between her parents. I hope that the making of this order may draw a line from which they can attempt to make a new start.