London Borough of Y v M & Ors [2026] EWFC 117 (B)
[1]This case concerns three girls, C1, who is nearly 8, her sister C2, who is just a year or so younger and their half-sister, C3, who is now 2.[2]The application is an application for an Interim Care Order was brought by the London Borough of Y on 29 May 2024. The Local Authority were represented by Samuel Prout of Counsel. The mother of the children is M and she has been represented by Catherine Piskolti of Counsel. The father of C3 is FA and he has been represented by Jemimah Hendrick of Counsel. The father of C1 and C2 is FB and he has been represented by Rebekah Wilson of Counsel. The Children were represented by Alexandra Halliday of Counsel, through their Guardian Erika Endlein.Background
[3]These proceedings were commenced after an Emergency Protection Order was made in relation to all three girls following C3 being taken to hospital on 21 May 2024 with what turned out to be serious brain injuries and fractures to the shoulder. All were suspicious of non-accidental injury. She was three months old at the time.[4]All three girls were immediately taken into foster care and remained there for over a year. A full fact-finding hearing took place at the end of which, on 24 July 2025, I found that the injuries arose from at least three significant traumatic incidents, and that FA was responsible for all of them. I made no findings against the mother, and the children transitioned swiftly back to her care and have been with her ever since.[5]Since then much has happened. The mother had told C1 and C2 that their father was FA and they called him Daddy and thought he was their daddy. FB, who is their biological father, did not see them for around four years in circumstances which are disputed. Since the fact-finding hearing, work has been done with C1 and C2 to explain to them who their real father is, and they have been re-introduced to FB. FB has a partner called IR, and two younger children with her, C4 and C5. The four children are getting to know each other, and FB and IR are thought to be able to manage all four, despite all four having special needs. Contact has gone well and has built up to a recent first session of overnight contact, which was very successful. FB has had a parenting assessment for C1 and C2, which is positive.[6]FA has continued to have supervised contact with all three girls. He sees them in total twice a week. He does not accept the findings made by the court, although he does accept some earlier flashes of temper including throwing a cleaning spray bottle across the room such that it hit the television when he could not get a ketchup stain out, and an incident at school when he became very threatening with staff when they would not let him pick the children up. FA has had a risk assessment which concludes that all his contact must be supervised.[7]The mother has been busy, having the three girls to care for. C1 and C2 have special needs and C3 may have some speech delay. The mother has remained ambivalent about whether she accepts the findings of the court in relation to FA. In her third statement she says “I believe that the Judge made the correct decision, and I fully support the Judgment and the findings made”. However she has never been seen to show any signs of anger or upset that towards him. She underwent a Child and Family assessment in which the assessor was concerned that she may still be in communication with FA, and set out her evidence for that, and recorded a conversation with the mother in which the mother would not rule out getting back together with FA in the future. That would be surprising if the mother had fully understood, accepted and internalised the court’s findings and so I take the view that she is somewhat ambivalent. In any event, the assessment of her as a full-time carer for her children is positive.Positions of the parties
[8]There is now a large measure of agreement amongst the parties as to the way forward. All parties agree that the children are thriving in the mother’s care and that she is consistently able to meet their needs. All parties agree that the three girls should live with their mother. All parties agree this should be underpinned by a Lives With Order and a Supervision Order for 12 months. All parties agree that threshold is satisfied on the basis of the findings made by me at the end of the fact-finding hearing.[9]All parties agree that C1 and C2 should continue to see FB, and that the contact should increase up to overnight contact on alternate weekends, with some extra contact in the holidays. All parties agree that FA should continue to see C3 in a supervised setting, and that, at least to begin with, he should continue to see C1 and C2 too.[10]What remains in issue is the length of contact for C1 and C2 with FB during the holidays, whether Christmas and Easter should alternate, the frequency of contact for FA with all three girls, whether FA should continue to see C1 and C2 in the long term and whether an Order is needed to regulate the contact in relation to either or both of the fathers.This hearing
[11]I have conducted a three-day final welfare hearing. I heard evidence from the Social Worker, Hannah MacLachlan, and from the Guardian. The parties, and the court, agreed that there was no benefit in hearing from the parents in this case. Both the mother and FB have been assessed as having learning difficulties and both were provided with intermediaries for the whole of the hearing. At the mother’s request there were screens in court to shield her from FB. The fact that the screens were there should not be taken as an indication either way as to whether I take the view that FB poses a threat to the mother. I was keen for the mother to be as relaxed as possible so as to be able to participate effectively. The screens did not harm anyone else, and if they helped her then I considered that there was no difficulty in having them there. I also had the benefit of a core bundle, a complete bundle of 2015 pages and two bundles of contact notes. There was no shortage of evidence.Welfare checklist
[12]I am content that threshold is crossed on the basis of the findings I made in July 2025. No party disagrees with that assessment. I turn then to the welfare considerations. In the decisions that I have to make, the welfare of C1, C2 and C3 is my paramount consideration, and I must consider the welfare checklist. The ascertainable wishes and feelings of the children concerned (considered in the light of age and understanding)[13]It is not in dispute that the girls are happy living with their mum, and that they like spending time with both FB and FA.Physical, emotional and educational needs
[14]C1 has a diagnosis of autism and she has an EHCP. She has significant speech and language delay which makes it difficult for those who do not know her to understand her.[15]C2 has asthma, and appears highly emotionally expressive, very easily becoming dysregulated. She also has speech and language difficulties and receives support for this. The school is planning to submit an EHCP for her.[16]C3 appears healthy and happy although the long-term effects of her brain injury are not known. It is noted that her speech may be delayed although she is only two so it is too early to be sure.[17]All three girls have been through a destabilising period of being taken out of their home and family and placed with strangers in foster care, being separated from their Mother and FA and also the older girls being separated from C3. It is known that this has a huge impact on the emotional state of the children who go through it. All three girls will have an enhanced need now for security and stability.[18]C1 and C2 have suffered the additional destabilisation of discovering that FA is not their father, and that FB is. The girls all need to know the truth about their parentage, and to build secure and loving relationships with their true parents. In the case of C1 and C2 they will also need help to explore and understand their feelings towards FA, who they knew and loved as a father until the truth was explained to them. Those feelings will not have simply vanished. Inevitably, FA’s role in their lives has decreased and may decrease further or even cease all together. The girls will need help to navigate the difficult emotions which this may bring.The likely effect of any change of circumstances
[19]It is proposed that C1 and C2 spend more time with FB and his partner and children. C1 and C2 have enjoyed their time with him, and have become protective of their younger half-siblings. They enjoyed the first overnight stay which they had a few weeks ago. It seems to me that the effect of increasing their time with FB and his family will be beneficial to the girls. They will develop relationships with other paternal relatives, meeting and getting to know the wider family. They will benefit from having two parents engaged and focused on them. The change will help the girls with their identity needs, and help them to grow up knowing exactly where they fit in. All of that is good for their mental health.[20]It is proposed that all three girls spend less time with FA. The Local Authority and the Guardian would say in relation to C1 and C2 that this is necessary in order to reduce their identity confusion and to take account of the fact that as they get older, it will be too demanding for them to have to invest both time and energy into contact with two “fathers” instead of one. As the Guardian says (and I agree) this is not a blended family. FA is not the girls’ father. It is argued that this reduction is in C1 and C2’s best interests. No party says with certainty that the relationship should cease altogether. All parties recognise the role FA has played and the need to manage the reduction sensitively and carefully.[21]As far as the reduction of time with C1 and C2 is concerned, the father accepts that there needs to be a reduction in the time he spends with them and asks for it to be monthly. For C3, however, he is deeply opposed to the local authority plan of reducing it to eight times per year. He says that is not enough for C3 to be able to have a meaningful relationship with him. In his view the impact on C3 will be that she will not have a real relationship with her father and that is a huge loss to her.Age, sex, background, and any characteristics which the court considers relevant
[22]The Guardian describes the children as gorgeous girls with a cheerful, friendly disposition and nice manners. She noted C2 tending to speak over C1, despite being younger, and taking the more dominant role.Any harm which the children have suffered or are at risk of suffering
[23]The risk assessment of FA makes it plain that the children remain at risk from him. On his behalf it is argued that he has accepted some moments of loss of control but none of them relate to the life-threatening injuries to C3. The risk assessment says that the risk cannot be mitigated without a clear understanding of how harm occurred and how it would be prevented in future. In relation to C3’s injuries, the assessment says that FA has not acknowledged loss of control, emotional overwhelm, unsafe handling or any mechanism by which harm could have occurred. Furthermore, FA continues to deny getting stressed or angry, but that is in conflict with recorded incidents of him getting angry. The risk assessor says that the risk lies not in the presence of anger per se, but in FA’s limited recognition and acknowledgement of stress or emotional escalation. The assessor found him to appear emotionally closed, but says that at times she has been concerned about his mental health, as behind the composed presentation she sees a man who is sensitive and emotionally vulnerable. Her conclusion is as follows: “Taken together, the identified risks indicate that while FA demonstrates warmth, affection and appropriate behaviour in supervised settings, there remain unresolved and active risks associated with lack of insight, emotional awareness and stress recognition. These risks are heightened by the seriousness of the past harm and cannot be sufficiently mitigated at this time”.[24]This evidence is unchallenged by any party and I accept it. It has led to all parties agreeing that FA’s contact must be supervised.[25]The risk assessment also identifies risks in relation to the mother’s care of the children. It identifies the mother as loving her children but giving unreliable accounts of events, driven by her own emotional needs rather than child focus. The mother is assessed as having limited accountability and reflective capacity, and displaying both emotional dependency and controlling behaviour within her relationships. The risks are that the mother’s emotional needs may take precedence when she is under pressure, or that she may disengage from situations which could compromise the children’s need for stability, predictability and emotionally regulated care. It was the assessor’s view that the risk to the children is significantly escalated when the mother was in a relationship with a romantic partner. Again, this evidence is unchallenged and I accept it.[26]I have already dealt with the mother’s ambivalence about the findings. There remain concerns that the mother and FA have been communicating. There is some evidence that they may have been seen together although that evidence is firmly refuted by FA who has provided work time-sheets to show that he could not have been with the mother at the alleged times. But there is also the marked fact that neither FA nor the mother ruled out getting back together again. In my view, given the mother’s emotional dependence and ambivalence, there is a risk that she may either now or one day in the future be in a relationship with FA, even if it is only a relationship of friendship and nothing more. In those circumstances there is a risk that she might not always act in protective way in relation to FA, if her own emotional needs were to take priority. That is a risk I will return to later.How capable each of the parents is of meeting the needs
[27]Both the mother and FB are assessed as being able to meet the needs of the children. It is clear from the contact notes that FA can meet the needs of the children in contact.Agreed orders
[28]It is agreed that the children should live with their mother. I too agree that that is in their welfare interests taking into account the factors set out under the welfare checklist. They are clearly thriving where they are and their mother can meet their needs. I make a Lives With order in her favour.[29]It is agreed there should be a Supervision Order. I agree that that would be beneficial given the risks and vulnerabilities in the case. The Supervision Order will be critical in facilitating contact. I make a Supervision Order for 12 months, being of the view that it is both necessary and proportionate.[30]FB already has parental responsibility for C1. The mother has now agreed that he may have parental responsibility for C2 as well. He was already given a Declaration of Parentage by agreement at an earlier hearing. Given his involvement in the girls’ lives it is clearly right that he should enjoy parental responsibility for both of them. I thank the mother for her agreement and I make that order in relation to C2.FB’s contact with C1 and C2: Quantum
[31]It is agreed that there will be two or three further single overnight contacts for C1 and C2 and then after a review that will go to fortnightly double-overnights. There is a disagreement about holidays. The Local Authority say there should be two or three nights of contact during both the Christmas and Easter holidays, and a week plus a further few nights (of less than a week) during the summer. They say Christmas day should always be with the mother, because of the importance of being with C3, and simply that being where they live. The local authority do not recommend special arrangements for birthdays saying it just becomes unworkable and saying the father should have a birthday celebration on whatever his nearest weekend is to the birthday.[32]The father considers that for holidays there should be a gradual build-up until holidays are shared 50:50. He would like a week at Christmas and Easter, and would like Christmas to be alternated each year between the parents. The Guardian took the view that the holidays should be more evenly distributed than the Local Authority were suggesting. She felt very strongly that this father was being treated by the Local Authority as a second class dad. She said that he was the Dad, and that was important. It was important for C1 and C2 to spend time with C3 but just as important for them to spend time with their other half-siblings, C4 and C5.[33]I agree with the Guardian that there is some levelling-up which needs to be done in relation to this father. He did not see his daughters for around four years. The reasons for that are disputed, but do not matter for the purpose of this discussion. The fact is that they lost touch with him, and frankly, they forgot him. They have had to be reintroduced, and they are now making up for lost time. FB is one half of their heritage, one half of their identity, he provides one half of their family. They do not live with him, but he is well able to meet their needs and they should be allowed to spend enough time with him to feel that he is part of their lives and that he is involved in bringing them up. In my view that balance can be struck by spending alternate two-night weekends with him and building up to half the holidays. I agree that Christmas should be alternated. His home is just as important as their mother’s home and most separated parents alternate Christmas. C1 and C2 should have the chance to enjoy Christmas with their mother and C3, but also Christmas with FB, C5 and C4. How quickly the arrangement should build up to 50:50 in the holidays is something which will have to be kept under review by the Local Authority under their Supervision Order but I would expect the children to be spending alternating weeks with each parent by summer 2027. It has been agreed that Christmas 2026 will be with the mother and C3, and I direct that it will alternate thereafter. Christmas 2027 will be with the father.[34]I have thought carefully about where all this leave C3. There is a risk she will feel left out, left behind. But it seems to me that this is a family which needs to embrace the truth, and the truth is that C3 has a different father from C1 and C2 and so she simply is in a different position. It will be up to the adults to make sure that she does not feel left out, and that she is given special one to one time with her mum, and benefits from the extra attention and focus.FB’s contact: Need for an Order
[35]On behalf of the mother it has been argued vehemently that there is no need for an order to cement the contact arrangements. I have received 13 pages of written submissions from the mother’s counsel on this one issue. In summary the mother’s points are these:a. The no order principle appliesb. There is no evidence to show that an order is neededc. An order will create parental conflictd. An order will prevent the necessary flexibility from being in place.[36]Much of the mother’s argument flowed from the proposition that the mother was being wrongly judged for stopping contact for four years. It is said that there is no evidence to support the mother having stopped the contact. In response the Guardian was equally vehement that there was such evidence from the Local Authority B files, which showed the mother being obstructive to the contact which was initially in place. I make no finding as to whose fault it was that contact stopped for four years. It is not in dispute that it did stop for that period and that for me is the relevant fact.[37]On behalf of the mother significant criticisms are made of the report of the ISW. The ISW recommended that an order should be put in place for FB’s contact. I do not necessarily accept the criticisms put forward by the mother, but I do not rely on the ISW for the purpose of this decision.[38]On behalf of the mother further swingeing criticisms were made of the Guardian’s report. The Guardian also supports an order being made. I do not accept the criticisms of the Guardian’s report. For example it was argued that the Guardian had only put one positive sentence in about the mother in her whole report. That is inaccurate: there are in fact several more, but that misses the point. The point is that the Guardian was recommending that the children remain with their mother. It is unpersuasive to argue that the Guardian was biased against the mother when that was her overall recommendation. The Guardian said in evidence that she had not said more because having said that the mother was able consistently to meet the needs of the children, and having said the children should stay with her, no more needed to be said. The report was already 25 pages long and did not need to be longer for the sake of something which was agreed.[39]The Guardian was criticised for giving no analysis as to why an order was necessary. The Guardian gave that analysis in her oral evidence, referring to the Local Authority B papers and her own experience throughout these proceedings. The Guardian was criticised for not speaking to the mother about the issue, or speaking to her at all since December 2025. It was said that in a private law case it would be expected that a Guardian would speak to the parents before making such recommendations. Whilst that was accepted and is right, it is not particularly relevant in a public law case. The two are different. In a public law case there is a social work team and a great deal of social work evidence. The Guardian was able to gather information from multiple sources, including seeing the mother at court. Guardians must work in a proportionate way. It seems to me the Guardian was entitled to come to a view about the need for an order on the basis of the papers, her understanding of the mother’s position in contact planning meetings and review meetings, her conversations with the social worker and her observations of the mother herself, and the position she took, at each hearing.[40]It is argued on behalf of the mother that within the last 7 months the mother has co-operated fully with the contact regime, and has supported it building up from nothing to the present fortnightly overnight contact. She has taken C1 and C2 to contact each time and given them emotional permission to be there. It seems to me that that is evident from the way the children enjoy their time with FB and I accept that from the mother. It is the Guardian’s view that the mother has only done this reluctantly and under the gaze of the Local Authority and the court.[41]It is right that the mother was reluctant to let the contact begin in the first place. In her statement dated 6 September 2024 she says “I would not support [FB] having a relationship with C1 and/or C2. C1 and C2 have no recollection of FB and as far as they are concerned, their father is [FA].” The reason was that she worried what the impact would be on C2 and C1 of finding out that FA was not their father. I have described that as a reasonable worry, and it is. However, what I must add to that is that the worry only arose because of something which was the mother’s fault. It was very ill-advised of her indeed and not child-focussed to allow C1 and C2 to believe that FA was their father. Allowing that was where the damage was done. It seems to me possible that the mother allowing it was an example of her allowing her own emotional need to please FA or to feel like a tight family unit with him to eclipse the welfare needs of C1 and C2. I have never heard any real understanding or reflection from the mother of what she did wrong in allowing this situation to develop. In allowing it to develop, she did excise FB from the children’s lives. It is deeply concerning to me that she did that, and that she shows no insight into the fact that she caused emotional harm by so doing. It is also concerning how very negative she was at that early stage about FB coming back into their lives. It was not an auspicious start.[42]The Guardian gave evidence about the extensive work the Local Authority had to do even before the mother would agree to meet FB. She said that the mother put up other barriers such as insisting that the accommodation be checked and that she must know what the children were eating and so on before she would agree. The Guardian says that the records show the mother was reluctant to allow the contact, and it only started and continued and developed because of the involvement of the Local Authority. She points to the care plan in January this year stating that “the mother understands that some level of contact with FB is inevitable but does not wish for so much”. In her February 2026 statement the mother sets out extensive reasons why contact should not move to overnight. There is still a strong sense of reluctance on her part as recently as that.[43]Out of the tangled morass of the disputed history, several clear propositions emerge:a. When the parents separated, there was contact to begin with.b. The contact stopped for four years.c. There is no evidence FB stopped wanting to see the children.d. The mother may or may not have caused the rupture but she certainly allowed it.e. The mother caused the children to call FA “Daddy” and to believe he was their Daddy. That was not in their interests and was emotionally harmful. It also effectively excised FB from their lives.f. The mother has no insight or acceptance of the harm she did by doing so.[44]In all those circumstances, I am asked whether the contact arrangement should be underpinned by an Order. It is my view that, despite the mother’s cooperation during the last 7 months, there is enough in the history to cause me concern about her commitment to the girls’ relationship with FB, and to take the view that the contact would be at risk if not underpinned by an order. The Guardian has given me evidence about how important the contact is. FB’s representative has made submissions about Article 8 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which provides that “States parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognised by law without unlawful interference”. It is a basic right that a child should know their parent if it is safe for them to do so. Without an order, in the present case it seems to me possible that that basic right may be under threat.[45]There is one further argument against the making of an order and that is that it would not be flexible enough. It is right that the facts in this case are that there are four children all with special needs to be coordinated. C4 in particular is non-verbal and autistic and presents with very challenging behaviour indeed. It is said that arrangements will have to be varied all the time, as for example when C4 isn’t well enough to travel somewhere and a different venue has to be agreed at short notice. On behalf of the mother it is said that an order cannot be flexible enough and if it is not flexible enough the mother may find herself unintentionally in breach of it, opening the door to further parental conflict.[46]I reject that argument. An order can be as flexible as a working together agreement. An order can, in fact, say that the mother must make the children available for contact as set out in an appended working together agreement, and the working together agreement (or the order) can of course include provision for alternative arrangements to be agreed. It is argued on behalf of the mother that that will not work, because what will happen if the mother and Local Authority agree that some change needs to be made and the father does not agree? My answer to that is that that is exactly why an order is needed. The father might be right. An order is needed to prevent the other parties steam-rollering him out of the way if he doesn’t agree. The same argument applies if the Local Authority and the father agree on a change and the mother does not. An order will equally stop her being steam-rollered out of the way. The very fact that the mother asks this question shows me that the order is needed. The question contains within it an assumption that if she and the Local Authority agree they should be allowed to do what they like. That is simply not my view of the case. FB is the children’s father and he cannot be ignored.[47]It is said that some or all of these issues can be managed under a Supervision Order. I disagree. A contact order is unambiguous and leaves no room for reluctance or negotiation. I come to the view that it is necessary and proportionate and in the girls’ welfare interests in order to protect their relationship with their father for the contact arrangements between C1 and C2 and their dad to be enshrined in an order. The Guardian suggests it is drafted in terms of “contact not less than” the arrangements I have set out. I am not sure that is necessary. I would propose that the wording reflect the arrangements above, and include a provision for “such further or other contact as may be agreed between the parties”.Contact for FA – Quantum
[48]FA seeks supervised contact with C3 every fortnight, and for alternate sessions to be attended by C1 and C2 as well. Thus he would see C1 and C2 every four weeks. His argument is that he sees them all together once a week at the moment and in addition he sees C3 alone and C1 and C2 together on alternating weeks. Thus he sees all the girls twice a week, which is a lot. He says that any reduction in his contact greater than his own proposal would have an adverse impact on the girls. As I have said, there is no dispute that they enjoy their contact with him. For C3, the argument is straightforward. She is his daughter, he loves her and he wants to have a meaningful relationship with her. He also wants her to have the opportunity to have her father meaningfully in her life, someone she knows and loves rather than a stranger she visits a few times a year. For C1 and C2 it is more complex. He accepts that he is not their biological father and that they will need to spend time with FB. He has not stood in the way of FB’s contact and nor does he seek to do so now.[49]The Local Authority propose that FA sees the girls once every half term plus a contact at Christmas and in the summer. That amounts to eight times a year, although it will take a while to taper down to that, and because of that there would actually be 14 contacts in the first year. The arrangement would be reviewed after 9 months. The social worker says that the reason for that level being proposed is that we have to remember the whole reason we are in this situation at all. It is because of what FA did to C3. Until the Social Worker sees greater insight from the father, she can not recommend higher levels of contact. There needs to be a significant change in the way he understands what happened to C3 and what his own triggers are.[50]The Guardian in her final analysis supported the plan for C3’s contact with her father, but took the view that contact between FA and C2 and C1 should taper off and eventually stop. In oral evidence she modified this, having listened to the social worker’s evidence, to say that for her the important thing was that C2’s and C1’s contact with FB needed to be prioritised. The Guardian could envisage a situation in which they were older, they had lots of things going on, and having to commit to two lots of contact with two different father-figures would be overly demanding and potentially confusing. It was for that reason she had originally felt that the contact with FA should taper off. Now, however, she said she was content for the contact to be reviewed at the 9 month mark under the Supervision Order. In her view the Social Worker was best placed to make an evaluation of how the reduction in contact with FA and the increase with FB was affecting C1 and C2, and therefore best placed to make recommendations about future reductions (or increases). The end result, as I understand it, is that the Guardian supports the care plan but with the added gloss that the priority for C1 and C2 must be contact with FB.[51]The mother does not say in her final statement whether she agrees with the quantum of contact to FA as set out by the Local Authority. Nor is it covered in the closing submissions document or the oral submissions of her counsel.[52]In deciding on the quantum of contact for FA I go back to the welfare checklist. In my view C3 must be considered separately from C1 and C2. The girls are in different categories as only C3 is FA’s child. For C3, she enjoys seeing her father and she has a need for a real meaningful relationship with him for identity and other purposes. If she saw him eight times a year that would be on average once every six and a half weeks. If she sees him according to his proposals she will see him every two weeks. She is only two. There is a huge difference for a two year old between a two week gap and a six and a half week gap.[53]One difficulty is that, at the moment, there is no obvious or guaranteed route to unsupervised contact. In other cases, the passage of time or small steps taken by the perpetrator might be enough gradually to reduce the need for supervision. But in this case the injuries were so life-threatening, and the denial in relation to those injuries so complete, that it is hard to see contact moving to unsupervised contact in the short or even medium term. On the one hand, contact needs to be frequent enough so that a two year old does not lose track of who her father is because the gaps are too big. I must take into account the impact on C3 of a sudden reduction. She has been used to seeing her father frequently. She will miss him if she sees him less often. On the other hand, it must not be so frequent that it is too great a burden to be sustained. It seems to me that once every two weeks is over-burdensome in circumstances where FA has caused these injuries and remains a high risk to his daughter, and where there is no obvious plan for moving contact on. On the other hand, eight times a year seems insufficient for a two-year old to build a relationship given the six and a half week gaps which it would entail. I consider a better balance would be for the contact to be once a month. That is sustainable, and just about frequent enough for C3 to remember from one month to the next what she did with her Daddy last time she saw him. I agree that this contact can be reviewed after nine months and I note that the Guardian has no difficulty with FA’s contact with C3 being more than 12 times a year if it can be managed and supervised.[54]As for C1 and C2, I agree with the Guardian that their focus must be on building a relationship with FB. They will be seeing him every fortnight. If they were to see FA once a month that would be three out of every four weekends involving some kind of contact. That only leaves them one weekend a month with their mother.[55]It is important in relation to this issue to keep in mind the question of what the purpose of this contact is. In my view the purpose of this contact is to help C1 and C2 over the distress of losing their “psychological father”. The purpose is not to build or maintain a relationship. It would be very natural for them to want to see him a fair amount at present. He has been their psychological parent. They have been seeing him twice a week. They enjoy spending time with him. But the fact is, he is not their father. They do not need to see him for identity purposes. They do not need to see him for heritage purposes or to ensure that a parent is involved in their lives. Thus it seems to me this contact must taper down, to allow the natural flourishing of the relationship with FB. It must not be stopped too suddenly, and it may never need to be stopped at all, but tapering down will be natural and healthy. They will need reasonably regular contact to start with. Their contact should be de-coupled from C3’s contact straight away otherwise there will simply be two lots of explaining: once for why the contact is reducing and then a second explanation of why theirs is different from C3’s. If it is done all at once it can be explained that C3 is going to see him separately because he is her Daddy, and they will see him separately to make time for them to see their own Daddy too. The contact should be once a month for the first three months, then once every six weeks for three months, and then once in the next three months. That will take us to the nine month review. The contact can be reviewed upwards or downwards at that stage, but the professionals involved must have in mind that the purpose of contact is not to build a relationship, but to help the C1 and C2 over the loss of one father-figure and the transfer of their attachment to another. I have considered whether they might feel sad that C3 is seeing more of FA than they are: but I consider that will be balanced by the positivity of building new relationships with their paternal family. I am in fact more concerned about C3 feeling left out of that side of things, but I have already dealt with that.Contact with FA: need for an order
[56]No party asks me to make an order to underpin FA’s contact. The obvious reason is that the mother is keen to facilitate this contact. If anything professionals are concerned that the mother remains too favourable towards FA and fails to appreciate the risks he poses rather than being hostile and obstructive to his contact. There is no need, therefore, for an order to ensure the mother makes the children available for their contact with him.[57]There is, however, another concern which I have voiced several times during the hearing and have heard evidence and submissions on. I am concerned, given:a. The seriousness of the injuriesb. The risk still posed by FAc. The mother’s ambivalence about accepting the findingsd. The mother possibly remaining favourable towards FA and refusing to rule out getting back togethere. The mother’s assessed vulnerability and dependence within relationshipsf. The mother’s assessed risk of putting her own emotional needs ahead of the needs of the children that there is a risk that the mother, over time and when the Supervision Order is no longer in place, may slide into allowing unsupervised contact. I am all the more concerned about this given that the Local Authority are only willing to supervise the contact professionally for three months, and thereafter are relying on a family arrangement for the supervision.[58]The mother also has cognitive difficulties and I am keen to ensure that things are as clear for her as they can be. The Guardian has been absolutely crystal clear that the contact with FA must be supervised. In light of the risks he poses I agree. It is of the utmost importance. I therefore consider it is in the children’s welfare interests, and is necessary and proportionate, to make an order that the mother make the children available for contact as set out in the working agreement (which is to be drafted in accordance with the decisions in this judgment), and that the order will specify that all contact is to be supervised. That will make things absolutely clear to the mother.[59]I have considered whether such an order is unenforceable on the basis that, if there is a breach and unsupervised contact is permitted, the mother is hardly going to seek to enforce the order against herself and FA is equally unlikely to bring proceedings because he was given unsupervised contact. I take the view that there is a difference between an order being unenforceable and being unlikely to be enforced. I accept my order is unlikely to be enforced. But it is unlikely to need to be enforced: both parties are on the whole law-abiding and have not shown any propensity to want to break court orders. And the order will be clear. It is not beyond the realms of imagination that it might one day be enforced: for example if the mother entered into a new relationship with a new partner and became hostile to FA and stopped making C3 available for contact. In those circumstances the focus would not be on the supervision element of the order, but the order would still be enforceable. I conclude that it is a proper order for me to make, albeit for an unusual reason, but in view of the mother’s cognitive difficulties and the critical importance of the supervision it is my view that it is in the interests of the children that I make such an order and so I do.[60]That concludes my judgment.