C (A Child) (Progressive contact) [2026] EWFC 138 (B)

[2026] EWFC 138 (B)

Case No ZW24P00265

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT WEST LONDON

West London Family Court

Gloucester House, 4 Duke Green Avenue,

Feltham, TW14 0LR

Date 15 June 2026

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILLANS

Between

THE MOTHERApplicant

THE FATHERRespondent

Judith Maxwell (instructed by Goodman Ray Solicitors) for Applicant

Haroon Rana (instructed by MB Law Solicitors) for Respondent

Hearing Hearing dates: 5 May 2026

JUDGMENT

HHJ Willans:

[1]The child at the centre of these proceedings is [C], she is a girl born on [ ] and is aged 6. In this judgment I will refer to her as ‘the child’. She has an older adult brother, [ ] (‘the brother’) who lives with his father. He is aged 20.

[2]I heard the final hearing in these proceedings on 5 May 2026. On that day I heard evidence from an assistant service manager from CAFCASS (as the Court Reporter was not available) and from each of the parties to the proceedings. Within this judgment I will refer to the applicant as ‘the mother’ and to the respondent as ‘the father’. I mean no discourtesy by using these labels.

[3]There was insufficient time to complete submissions on that day and I received these in a written form on 18 May 2026, with corrected submissions received on behalf of the applicant on 20 May 2026, to which I have also had regard and confirm that there was no prejudice to the respondent in so doing. I agreed to provide this written reserved judgment.

[4]In reaching my conclusions and decision I have kept in mind both the live evidence heard and the submissions made. I also have regard to the written evidence contained within the final hearing bundle and the opening notes of counsel who represented the parties. The parties’ positions

[5]The mother seeks a final lives with order in her favour. She does not oppose the making of a spending time order with the respondent but argued this should remain supervised within a contact centre until the child is comfortable with contact and with leaving the centre whereupon it can develop on an unsupervised basis.

[6]The respondent seeks a spending time with order that immediately includes direct all-day unsupervised contact building towards weekend and holiday contact over the next 2 months or so. He also seeks to utilise his parental responsibility and wishes to know the identity of the child’s school. The mother’s address and the school are confidential at this time. The Proceedings

[7]The proceedings commenced in March 2024 and have now continued for more than two years. At an early stage it was determined there would need to be a fact-finding hearing to resolve various allegations of domestic abuse placed before the Court. This process has plainly contributed to the delay to the proceedings. The fact-finding took place on 14 May 2025 before a Deputy District Judge. I have an agreed note of the judgment. There was then a dispute resolution appointment which was unable to resolve the contact issues as a result of which this final hearing was listed.

[8]The Court engaged with contact in the course of the proceedings. It would appear that in anticipation of the fact-finding hearing contact was limited to indirect form only by way of written updates for the father (17 October 2024). Having determined the fact-finding, the Judge ordered supervised direct contact on a weekly basis over four weeks to be followed (‘provided there are no issues’) by fortnightly unsupervised contact in the community during the day until next hearing (14 May 2025).

[9]Thereafter on each subsequent court hearing different Judges have reset the contact arrangement with a further short period of supervised contact followed (‘if there are no issues’) by unsupervised contact. In its most recent incantation the contact order permits supervised contact to move into the community. However at the date of this judgment contact remains supervised within a contact centre with surrounding issues and difficulties.

[10]There have been many additional procedural issues along the way. The mother applied at one point to travel to India. This was listed before me on a s9 basis but not pursued. The father has applied to enforce the contact orders made by the previous judges and this has been consolidated into these proceedings. He has also sought the appointment of a guardian but this was refused. Finally, the brother appears to have made his own application for contact. The father contends that is also before me and he may strictly speaking be correct but I have not heard or received any evidence from the brother and the focus of this hearing has been on the father’s relationship with his daughter. The central issues for me to resolve

[11]My central issue is to determine whether contact can move out of the contact centre, if so when and with what surrounding circumstances. Until this is achieved one cannot contemplate the extended terms sought by the father.

[12]Linked to this I will have to determine why it is that contact has not developed as previously directed and why it is that contact remains in the contact centre over a year after a Judge determined this was no longer necessary. The findings made/not made

[13]It is important to set out with clarity what was determined by the judge at fact-finding. It is helpful to set out the full findings previously sought to place this judgment into some context.

[14]First, I note the father made allegations against the mother. None of these were found proven. He had alleged the mother physically assaulted the child on three separate occasions; had become aggressive to the brother on one occasion; inappropriately punished the child on several occasions, and; on one occasion threw a plate in his direction.

[15]Second, the vast majority of the mother’s allegations were also not found proven. The mother detailed consistent physical, verbal and controlling behaviour abuse. She identified 6 occasions in which she said this occurred. The Judge did not find 5 of these to have occurred including: controlling behaviour deriving from the father being unable to accept the mother had a higher level of education than him and feeling inferior and thus not allowing her to do her job; control around access to the family car; financial control on a daily basis; belittling behaviour and not supporting the mother with her health issues; taking her to noisy events after she had surgery and could not tolerate this; belittling the mother and claiming he would give the child to a relative. The judge also rejected a suggestion that the father had threatened to poison the mother when she told him she would seek a divorce and that later she found pills which indicated he had an intention to act in this manner. The Judge further rejected an allegation of the father slapping the child; threatening the maternal grandfather that he would kill the mother to maintain social status and threatening to kidnap the child.

The judge did find provenan allegation that reads as follows:

[16]The Respondent contradicts (sic) his controlling behaviour and manipulative approaches, he shared our son’s mental health appointment to take the sympathy and present me badly, but at the same time also admits his acts in the past by sharing a Valentine's card dated 14.02.2024 by quoting “I still request you to forgive me”, however, for our son, Respondent even didn’t allow him to work in his own shop but again gave him £1500 to turned round against me. The Respondent’s approach is certainly very alarming and will hugely impact our daughter whenever he is allowed to meet… Respondent continuously defames me on social media, merely to take the sympathy of the family members and present me as a bad person/ mother. This is a somewhat difficult allegation to digest but it appears tolerably clear the complaint is around distancing the son from the mother and seeking to portray himself as the victim when she is the victim. The Judge made the following finding: The Respondent’s posts on social media were inappropriate and, although not directlyabusive of the mother or defaming her, the posts were placed by the father on social media after separation in order to gain the sympathy of his family and friends and to put the mother in a negative light.

[17]In addition to the above the Judge separately of her own motion found that: there was a time, around the period of the parties’ separation before the mother left the family home, that there were arguments between the father and the parties’ son, [the brother], which were loud and vocal and were had without regard to the impact that would have had on the child and that the child would have found such loud arguments upsetting and indeed the mother would have also found them upsetting and that the father and son were not always able to control their anger or heated discussions between each other.’

[18]Notwithstanding this it is clear the Court made no findings of domestic abuse in either direction. This is the basis on which I must proceed. Legal Principles

[19]The governing principle in this case is the paramountcy of the child’s welfare interests. This leads me to prioritise the child’s welfare over the needs of each parent. I accept that to an extent there may be relationship between the child’s welfare and the welfare of the parent but this should always be approached first and foremost through the prism of the child’s needs. I will in due course approach this issue through the prism of the welfare checklist under section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989.

[20]Referencing back to the fact-finding I remind myself that the Court applied the balance of probabilities in assessing each allegation. If an allegation was shown to have been more likely than not to have happened then it would have been established as a fact within the proceedings and the Court would then proceed with that fact in mind. If, however, an allegation does not cross that threshold then it is not found proven and is then disregarded so far as these proceedings are concerned.

[21]But the making of findings or the rejection of allegations does not necessarily alter the position of the party making or subject to the allegation/fact and whilst a Court may or may not make findings this is rarely done with absolute confidence. There will of course be cases in which a Court can be very confident an event occurred. Sometimes there is video evidence proving what took place, in other cases a party makes a reliable admission as to the event or a criminal court convicts the party on the basis the jury are sure what is alleged happened. But this Court does not need to be sure only confident on balance that something happened.

[22]As a result, many individuals against whom findings are made continue to deny the allegation and refuse to accept the finding made. This can be highly problematic when considering the progression of contact with that party as a Court will often conclude without acceptance, reflection and insight there is unlikely to be any change to established patterns of poor behaviour. Furthermore, the Court may conclude for change to happen work is required such as a domestic violence course. If the findings are denied then the individual may be a poor candidate for such a course or may be refused entry onto a course. In these cases, the Court cannot throw its hands up in the air and simply direct contact but will often be left to restrict or deny contact altogether pending acceptance.

[23]But this is not a one-way street. What happens when an allegation is not proven? As noted above the Court will rarely be able to determine an allegation is untrue and did not happen although in some cases this is possible (see the recorded event mentioned above or where an unimpeachable witness testifies as to what took place in their presence). Just as with the alleged perpetrator the alleged victim may continue to hold the allegations to be true and continue to act accordingly.

[24]In children cases that creates a similar issue to the one noted above but the implications can be very different. In many of these cases the individual making the allegation is the child’s primary carer and they will continue to care for the child in the context of the findings not being made but still maintained by themselves as true. Intellectually the Court expects that party to proceed in just the same way as it expects the party against whom findings are made to proceed. But this is often not the case. There is a school of thought that ‘victims’ making complaints would not do so unless there was an essential truth in the allegation. In reality this viewpoint is nearly always expressed through the prism of the victim as being a woman/mother who should be believed. Plainly, that is neither a logical nor legally sound basis on which to proceed. Truth is not a gendered concept and both men and woman can lie and have motivations for doing so. Many men are abusive and lie to hide their abuse. They do so for a range of reasons including societal shame; to get their own way with regards to contact or to maintain the abuse beyond the proceedings. But women who are primary carers are capable of lying as well (as are men who are primary carers although that has less purchase in the public imagination) and that may be for different or similar reasons. A primary carer may just want to get on with their life without having the other partner in their life; they might find the old partner’s attitudes problematic even if they are not abusive; they may simply be selfish or vengeful as to the circumstances in which the relationship ended. The viewpoint of the truthful victim is legally unsound and ultimately dependent on sexual stereotypes whilst often seeking to challenge other stereotypes when making the argument. It would be much simpler for the Court to simply accept such allegations without any enquiry but that is not the law and it is not the law because to do so would likely lead to conclusions which are wholly contrary to the welfare interests of the child. Instead, the law sets down a scheme under PD12J to investigate such allegations and a procedure for taking any findings forward if made. Where findings are not made the Court must then make decisions based on that conclusion. There is no room for not making findings then acting on suspicions. Our system is binary in this regard and it is important the Court applies findings consistently and without discrimination.

[25]So here I will do what is best for the child but only having regard to those matters which are proven and in the light of the welfare evidence I have heard. I will not condition my approach by reference to the continuing attitudes of an individual which have not survived the fact-finding process. Background

[26]Mindful of the various matters raised but not established I intend to provide a focused neutral overview of the background to the case.

[27]The parties are in their 40’s and married in 2003. The parents are Sikh and their heritage is Indian. They have the two children mentioned above. It seems the parties lived for a considerable period of time outside the jurisdiction in Russia. It appears the parents may have moved to this country in about 2012 and have remained here since.

[28]It is agreed the applicant has at times suffered with poor health and has suffered a heart attack in the past. It seems the parents’ relationship had accepted strains and in late 2023/early 2024 the mother wished to separate. It seems the mother left with the child in about February 2024 and moved into a refuge. She did so without any notice to the father who called the police in the first instance who updated him that they were in a safe place. The brother remained living with the father. The reporting to CAFCASS on the part of the applicant raised as a concern the level of disagreement and fighting between the father and brother.

[29]No drink or drugs issued have been raised. Neither party have any previous convictions or police involvement. Prior to leaving the father there had been no local authority involvement of any relevance to this case. The evidence CAFCASS

[30]The Court Reporter had left the service and was unable to attend the hearing. Her report is from October 2025.

[31]At §5 of the report the reporter notes the following with regards to the progression of contact under a previous court order C has attended four supervised contact sessions which commenced on the 31 May 2025, C did not engage with her brother or her father on the 1st session and was noted to appear surprised to see them and fearful. On the 2nd session on 7 June 2025, C is observed to appear cheerful upon coming into the centre asking ‘is my daddy here’ but upon observing her mother’s response to her brother withdrew and asked to stay with her mother. On 22 June 2025, The mother did not attend the 10:00am scheduled contact session, she reports she did not receive confirmation of the time of arrival. The contact centre report states an email confirming the date and time was sent to both parents. On 28 June 2025 (4th session) C is observed to engage playfully with both her brother and father throughout the session. The 5th session took place on the 12 July 2025, C was distressed at the start of the session, crying and saying she felt fearful of her father and brother, her brother was able to distract her for short periods of time and some play was initiated with father joining in, but C is noted to be intermittently distressed and the session was finished early so as not to distress her any further. No further sessions have taken place since the 12 July 2025 as The mother felt the sessions were causing C too much distress.

[32]I note the CAFCASS meeting with the child was held on 19 September 2025. This was 2½ months after the last session of contact. The child was understandably brought to the session by her mother. I note her mother remained with the child throughout the meeting including when the child was asked about contact with her father. She was asked if she spent time with her father and shook her head. The mother then explained in the child’s presence that she had stopped seeing her father because it was upsetting her and she was refusing to attend. During this period the child looked worried and moved away to play with toys. At one point the child said she didn’t like ‘shouting and screaming’. The CAFCASS Officer pressed who did this and the child confirmed twice ‘a boy in her class’. Nonetheless the reporter questioned whether this was the case. She told the officer she ‘didn’t want to answer questions about Daddy’. When uncertain she sought her mother’s support and ‘whispered in her ear’.

[33]In her analysis the reporter suggests the child has experienced both positive and traumatic time with her father with the latter demonstrated by her response in contact. But she also noted the child may align to the mother and there is uncertainty to the extent to which the mother might be contributing to the anxieties. The reporter spoke to a support worker who commented that the child and mother have a very close relationship and the mother’s emotions can be heightened due to the trauma she reports and this is sometimes witnessed by the child. The reporter comments that it is difficult to determine whether the child’s feelings are a function of her own distress or that of her mother.

[34]The father reported the brother is struggling with his own emotions feeling abandoned by the mother who will not communicate with him. The brother was spoken to and associated a lot of issues at home with his mother starting arguments. He continued to care for his sister and missed not seeing her. Both the father and brother linked difficulties at home being associated with a close relationship the mother developed with a religious guru and the impact when he moved on.

[35]In her professional judgment section of the report, the reporter concludes the mother likely experienced coercive and controlling behaviours whilst noting this was an aspect of the fact-finding process and was not proven. She drew on cultural features deriving from a patriarchal society in which the family lived. In fairness to the reporter, she also strayed beyond the fact-finding to have regard to coercive experiences reported by the father. Although I note these are identified as reports whereas in regard to the mother they are expressed as being a likelihood. The reporter expressed her concerns as to the allegations of physical abuse (not proven) in which she includes abuse of the child by the brother. She draws on UNICEF reports relating to the parents’ country of origin whilst at the same time warning against making generalisations. She said the child ‘will also have been harmed by experiencing domestic abuse’ (not proven save for arguments between the father and brother). She felt the risks related to domestic abuse (not proven) had been mitigated post separation with no further reports.

[36]The officer considered contact through both safe and unsafe features and noted: C has expressed a wish not to see her father and there are a number of indicators that demonstrate post separation harm, she expresses she is fearful of her brother and father and is also a tune to her mother’s distress. I did however note a number of positive indicators of safe arrangements. I did not find [the father] or [the brother] to be critical of the mother, whilst they voiced a different perspective there was no inclination to denigrate her and they spoke about her respectfully. There was no evidence of inappropriate behaviour or parenting during the supervised contact sessions, there were occasions that C enjoyed herself, [the father] remained at a distance when C showed distress and gave her space and time. [the father] spoke positively about the mother in front of C, praising her for C’s skills in speaking [family language]. There is a clear purpose to the arrangements and there is a realistic prospect that C’s relationship with her brother and father could be reinstated ensuring she benefits from understanding all parts of her identity.

[37]The officer recommended supervised sessions restart weekly for 12 sessions progressing to first supervised and then unsupervised sessions. The mother should give the child reassurance that this is safe and encourage her to go. The Planning Together for Children course was recommended for both parents. She recommended the child live with the mother and the parents use a communication app or dedicated email address. The contact should include the brother.

[38]The reporter was not available for the hearing. A Service Manager attended. She agreed at times the mother was encouraging at the centre. At times the child was happy in contact and at other times she was distressed. She felt the child needed more assistance to make the contact work. The parents may benefit from the courses recommended and support may come from the school or therapy, although she could offer no timelines for the same. She agreed the breaks in contact with the child would not have been helpful and agreed some of the things said by the child might suggest the mother was having unhelpful conversations with her. She agreed the reporter had acted outside of the findings of the Court. The Mother

[39]In her statement evidence the mother draws on the contact notes and identifies the issues with the child’s engagement with contact with her father. She sought that agree the contact would not leave the centre as directed but this was refused. She explains that she had not opposed contact continuing but the father would not agree to her terms around supervision and as a result contact stopped for over 4 months between July and November 2025.

[40]The mother denied coaching the child in any way and instead gave appropriate reassurance. She agreed she had not taken the gifts brought for the child and commented she was concerned this was an attempt to buy the child’s affection. She explained the contact session missed was a genuine mistake as a result of multiple confusing emails received. She was concerned as to the contact progressing out of the centre. She did not want the brother to be present as he might overwhelm the child but she did not wish to hinder contact between the two.

[41]The mother made a second C2 application attempting to prevent the progression of contact outside the centre in February 2026 citing the difficulties at contact. In a related statement she details the events of 31 January 2026 which appears to have been the first session in the community. The mother explains she had requested a friend accompany the child during the ‘unsupervised session’ but this was not agreed although it was agreed she could assist with handover. It is clear the mother also accompanied the child and friend en route to the centre with the friend reporting back to the mother the level of distress of the child at handover. The friend then stayed in the vicinity of the centre and intervened when she saw the child being assisted towards the father’s car. She describes how the contact then failed. She spoke to the contact supervisor who blamed her for the manner in which the child was behaving. Ultimately the father accepted the contact could not proceed and the child left with the friend. As a result, the mother argued for the contact to return to the centre which was directed at the PTR hearing on 2nd March 2026.

[42]In a final statement dated 30 April 2026 the mother described increasing issues with supervised contact. She raised a social media post allegedly from the father which she viewed as threatening towards her:

‘You can even give me a chair in the court or make me sit in any police station, but I will destroy you now’

. She argued for contact to remain supervised until such time as the child is comfortable leaving the centre with her father. She argued for a change in supervision centre for a fresh start so that the child ‘can resume the nice times’ she was having with her father although in final submissions she no longer pursued a change of contact centre or supervisor. In general, the mother provides positives reports of the child who is said to be thriving at school.

[43]When examined she denied involving the child in the adult matters but agreed she might have heard her talking to her lawyer about financial matters. She also agreed the child may have ‘overheard’ a conversation relating to a dispute about a passport. She couldn’t explain why the child had said not to say that she had played with her dad. She argued it was the father who was telling the child things, she had not manipulated the child. She was questioned about her application to change the supervisor and it was pointed out she was still arguing for this after the Court had ruled against her. It was put to her that notes showed the child immediately crying when the bell rang for the contact session to end but disagreed this was the child performing for her. The mother ended her evidence by suggesting the father had recently threatened to ‘kill her’. The Father

[44]The focus of his evidence was upon seeking to explain why contact was not progressing as ordered by the Court. He considered the mother was in some way coaching or influencing the child with the effect seen in the contact notes. As a result, he had sought the appointment of a guardian (which was refused earlier by the Court). He drew on positives in the contact notes and items which raised a question as to the way in which the mother was communicating with the child. Regarding the 31 January 2026 session the father noted he had reluctantly agreed to allow the friend to be involved however as they were later moving to leave in the car she returned, intervened and as a result the child became increasingly distressed leading to the contact failing. In his final statement the father gave a detailed overview of the contact to date at the centre and linked it into related applications made by the mother.

[45]In his live evidence the father maintained his suggestion of the mother not genuinely encouraging contact. He disputed the suggested social media post and challenged its authenticity and the interpretation being placed on the words suggested. He was confident contact would now not happen and would accept any contact which should include the brother. He noted the mother’s opposition to the contact centre and the worker and her previous claims that a report provided had been amended and was inaccurate. He did not agree to the change of centre and noted the mother was able to make her applications free of charge. He noted the brother would no longer be able to come to contact as he is working. The father said he was doing his best but whenever there is a progress there is a challenge. He had suggested a third person and the mother objected. He would agree a further 3-4 sessions but then it should move into the community and could take place at a relative’s home, whether the mother’s relatives or his own. The Contact Sessions

[46]I consider it helpful to provide an overview of these and place them into context of the surrounding litigation. I have 18 notes in total. As I have noted above it was only with the conclusion of the fact-finding process that the Court considered it appropriate to order direct contact to take place. This is consistent with the application of PD12J to the facts of the case pending determination of issues in dispute. But this means there had been no direct contact between the father and child between separation in February 2024 and the first directed session of supervised contact in late May 2025. I remind myself the child was aged 4 on the last occasion she had seen her father prior to that contact. Given the issues that have subsequently arisen it might be expected this process would have been very difficult from the start.

[47]As noted this was to be 4 sessions supervised weekly building from 1 hour to 2 hours over the month. Thereafter it was to be unsupervised in the community. The order states ‘provided there are no issues raised by the contact centre’ [my emphasis]. The Judge was plainly alive to the potential for the parties to have differing views but expected independent support for any delay in progression. It is also clear the brother was entitled to join the contact. 31 May 2025 (1)

[48]The child arrived in a happy mood but froze and seemed taken aback when meeting the father and brother. The brother acted appropriately seeking a hug but the child pulled behind the supervisor and said she wanted to see her mummy. The father had brought presents and snacks but these were not given to the child and the mother asked for this not to be repeated. The child returned to mother who confirmed she had been encouraging and they then left. The contact listed for 1 hour appears to have lasted about 10 minutes. June 2025 (2)

[49]When the child arrived, she asked ‘happily’ “is my daddy here” and was told he was. The brother arrived late and greeted his mother appropriately and hugged his sister. He asked his mother how she was but the mother ‘hardly said a word’. When the brother went to join his father, the mother said she wasn’t comfortable seeing her son. Steps were then taken to take the child to see her father but she said, ‘she wanted to stay with my mum’. At this point the mother whispered to the supervisor that the child had seen how the dad was treating her. The brother came out and tried to coax the child showing her a video of happy times. At this point the mother appears to have referenced she was a ‘heart transplant patient’ and was not feeling well. The brother immediately went to get her water and handed it to her but she would not take it from him preferring her own bottle. The child was asked to go to see her father but said she wanted to stay with her mother. The contact session ended and the father left without seeing her. The mother sought for the contact note to be amended. The mother claimed the child had not happily asked if her father was there. The centre stand by the note and have viewed the CCTV. The mother raised her concern at being approached by her son but the centre pointed out this had not been signalled as an issue and the CCTV shows them both hugging and her cradling his face. The mother explained she was reluctant to accept food gifts as in the past she had received threats including poisoned food. The letter in response suggested future handovers of the child being outside the centre door to improve and provide smoother transitions and reduce the opportunity for goodbyes and unnecessary or distressing interactions. 22 June 2025 (3)

[50]The father arrived but the mother and child did not. The mother was contacted but said she had not received notice of the session and was too far away to attend. The note makes clear the mother had been emailed with the details of the session two days previously and had acknowledged receipt of the email. The father left visibly upset. 28 June 2025 (4)

[51]This was the fourth of the scheduled sessions but the father was yet to spend any meaningful time with the child. On this occasion the mother handed the child to the supervisor and left. Again, the child was reluctant to meet with the father when she saw him but the supervisor worked with her and they started to relax together (supervisor and child). Slowly the brother was engaged with the child in a catching game and there was a high five. The child then included the father in the same game and she became more responsive. The brother then left receiving a high five from the child. The father then played a hiding game with the child who laughed loudly. They looked at photos and videos together and she asked to play the hiding game again. At one point she asked him to open his eyes and ‘see his daughter’. They interacted nicely and at one point the father spoke positively about the mother. When the child spoke fluently in their shared language the father praised the mother. They played a hiding game and the father said he would know if it was his daughter if she hugged him to which she hugged him and he kissed her. When the child asked when mum would come she was told soon and returned to playing. The brother then returned and there was warm interaction between the child, brother and father. At the end of the session there was hugging all round. This can be seen to have been a positive session after a slightly bumpy start. 12 July 2025 (5)

[52]At handover the mother left and the child started crying saying she wanted her mum. She said she ‘feared her father and brother’ and cried. Again, the supervisor persisted in encouraging the child and she slowly became open to interacting with her brother. The father was slowly introduced and the child relaxed in his presence inviting him into a hiding game. However, the session ended early with the child saying she wanted her mum and the father saying he didn’t want her to be upset.

[53]Unfortunately, this was the last session for several months. It seems at this point the parents became embroiled in a dispute as to the progression of contact with contact terminating pending a return to Court. For the father there had been four sessions of contact (and one cancelled) but I note only two had been anything like close to effective. The father applied for enforcement and raised a change of residence due to alienation. For the mother the contact could not move on at this time into the community. It is unclear to me why it was that contact did not simply continue as it had been pending the resolution of the dispute. I consider it was most unhelpful for it to stop at this point just as one could see the slow building of a relationship (see 4th and 5th sessions). The case returned to Court on 29 October 2025 and the Judge reinforced the contact provisions with three at the centre before moving into the community unsupervised (again provided no issues raised by the centre). 15 November 2025 (6)

[54]The child was brought but refused to engage with her father or brother despite the brother’s efforts. She left without seeing her father. 30 November 2025 (7)

[55]This session took place and had many of the qualities of earlier sessions with the child being reluctant and ‘wanting her mother’. However, the supervisor persisted and the session continued. The supervisor tried to introduce the father into the session but the child was resistant. The father appears to have tried hard as did the supervisor but there was only very limited interaction between the two. 14 December 2025 (8)

[56]When the child saw her father she grabbed her backpack, stood up and shouted she wanted to see her mother. When told her mother would be returning soon she did not appear distressed and re-engaged with drawing. The father spoke attempting interaction but the child was resistant although she smiled when the father attempted a joke. The child shouted on a number of occasions that she wanted her mum but was drawn into a painting exercise with her father and there were light moments. By the end of the session the child was fully participating in conversation with the father. 20 December 2025 (9)

[57]The father didn’t attend the session believing it had not been confirmed. The mother attended and was willing to wait but the father was not happy for the child to wait for the 90 minutes it would take him to get there. The centre confirmed they had notified the father of the confirmation. 28 December 2025 (10)

[58]There was a level of engagement between the father and child interspersed with the child requesting to have her mother. 4 January 2026 (11)

[59]There was again a repetition of the child shouting that she wanted her mother but she was encouraged into an activity using beads to make jewellery and interacted with her father. At points she left the room but returned again. The father gave the child a colouring kit and helped her and she thanked him. At one point the father talked about what they would do when she ‘came to him’. The child said that she would never do that but when her father pulled a sad face she said, “OK I will” and asked if he liked her colouring. Later she called him her ‘helper’. When her father called her clever she said he was and later thanked him when he called her ‘beautiful’. Later she said he had lots of money and her mum had told her. She asked why he couldn’t give mum money and that he ‘should be nice’. She said her ‘mum tells her that’. She said he should give a ‘tiny bit of money to mum’. They carried on and she returned to the question of why he was not giving her and her mother money. When he asked her how she knew she said her mother had told her. She then asked him why he had ‘expired’ her passport and said because of this she couldn’t go to India. Later she told the supervisor she didn’t want her to tell her mother that she had played with her father and was tearful when asked why. The supervisor promised to stop her crying. The child asked for a ‘Pinky promise not to tell mum anything’ and looked scared. She then said she didn’t want to attend the next session and had teary eyes when asked why. Dad was upset when he heard what the child said and expressed a worry she was under so much pressure. 11 January 2026 (12)

[60]The report indicates very changeable behaviour with the child at times playing and interacting with her father and then becoming tearful and asking for her mother. At points she shouted at her father and kicked at him. At the end of the session the child was engaged in conversation with her father when the centre bell rang and it was her mother. She hugged her mother with an upset crying face. 25 January 2026 (13)

[61]With some persuasion the child was encouraged into engagement with her father and they played games and talked. There was positive engagement during the game playing. She then played a game where she made him a drink and food. She was far more open and willing to answer questions he asked of her. She wasn’t disrupted by the sound of the centre bell ringing. When encouraged she said she was her father’s ‘darling’ and ‘princess’. There was a prolonged period of engagement without difficulties. The conversation was led by both the father and child with little involvement from the supervisor. The child helped the father tidy up. This was a second positive session. 31 January 2026 (14)

[62]This was the session which was intended to be in the community but is referenced above including the role of the mother’s friend. There is a letter from the Centre setting out a ‘factual account of the events that day’. It is clear the centre was only being used to facilitate handover and they were not expecting a role. It is noted the child was left and expressed reluctance to leave the centre. The child held onto the supervisor and said she wanted her mother. The supervisor then explained she would accompany her to the father’s car. At this point the mother called and told the supervisor they should not be involved in the handover. It is unclear why the mother objected to their assistance whether planned or otherwise. She questioned why the father and brother had been in the centre (they had entered to use the facilities). The mother was dissatisfied with the situation and would not speak to her son who offered to explain the circumstances. The child continued to hold onto the supervisor and became upset when approaching the father’s car. At this point the friend appeared and the child approached her and the supervisor left. She then spoke to the mother who ended the call before matters could be discussed.

[63]There was then once again a break in contact. 15 March 2026 (15)

[64]The child would not leave her mother. She was resistant to engaging with the supervisor who had been previously involved. This was the supervisor the mother had asked to be changed. After some encouragement she engaged with the supervisor. She began whining when the father entered the room and said she wanted her mother. But as time went on she relaxed and engaged with her father playing with him and laughing. At the end of the session the child had to be told it had ended as she was engrossed in what was happening. By the end of contact this had become a positive session. 22 March 2026 (16)

[65]The mother cancelled the session as the child had a temperature. The father was told and accepted this. This led to almost a month break in contact. 12 April 2026 (17)

[66]On arrival the mother said, ‘pappa is inside’ and the child would not enter. The child was resistant to leave her mother who was encouraged to step away by the supervisors. She was encouraged to let the child go. There was a prolonged period in which the supervisors were trying to encourage the mother to allow the child to separate from her without success. The mother was telling the child to go and see her father but she was refusing. The supervisor asked mum not to give the child her phone on a series of occasions. After a sustained period, the mother was told to leave with the child. The father left upset. 25 April 2026 (18)

[67]This was a repeat of the previous session. After an hour of efforts to separate the child from the mother the session was cancelled and the child left without seeing the father who left visibly upset.

Analysis

[68]I would start this analysis by making a number of observations which underpin my conclusions.

[69]First, there is nothing in the fact-finding process that would in my assessment justify or prevent a relationship being pursued between the father and child. The limited finding made as to social media posts simply does not amount to a finding which would pursuant to PD12J likely suggest direct contact would be unsafe. The separate finding that the child may have been impacted by arguments between the father and brother may to an extent explain her reticence but does not counter contact in principle.

[70]Second, that this is the case can be seen not only by direct reference to the findings themselves but also by regard to the multiple orders for direct contact including unsupervised contact made by three separate judges. Each will have applied PD12J to the circumstances before them whilst directing such contact. On the evidence I approve their approach and would likewise have no hesitation in doing the same.

[71]Third, the father has shown commendable commitment to the contact process despite the challenges it has faced. The notes show him to be sensitive to the child’s needs and imaginative in the manner he engages to encourage her own engagement. I have considered each of the notes and throughout he maintains an appropriate attitude to the child whether the contact is or is not progressing. Furthermore, he is at no point angry or resentful towards the mother and is in fact complimentary of the mother to the child in a natural and genuine manner. He continues to conduct himself in this way notwithstanding the very obvious impact the difficulties in contact are having on him. I bear in mind he has continued to attend despite a number of ineffective sessions all of which he is funding. The contact notes tell me this is a father who is committed out of a wish to maintain his relationship with his child and not to in any way control or undermine the mother.

[72]Fourth, on occasions on which the brother attends he has been equally appropriate in both his actions and words, including in his direct engagement with his mother. There is nothing in his behaviour which has undermined the contact or aggravated the situation. I can see nothing in the notes to suggest his presence is behind the difficulties experienced.

[73]Fifth, I consider the contact supervisor, and the broader team, have approached the contact in a wholly professional manner and have worked very hard to make positive progress. One can see from the notes a strong commitment not to simply give up but to both encourage and coax the child into contact. One can see a number of occasions where this has been successful.

[74]Sixth, the contact has undeniably been beset by difficulties. My sense of the contact orders is that the judges set a limited number of introductory sessions of supervised contact to reintroduce the relationship prior to it moving on into the community. There was no magic in the exact number chosen. The aim was within a short space to have established productive and positive contact that could progress as directed. On any reading of the notes the contact to which the court aspired has not been established. I accept there is nothing in the contact so far as the father (or brother) is concerned to cause concern as to progress. But there plainly is in the child’s behaviour grounds for concern. Whilst there are positive aspects (see below) it would be difficult to conclude sustained progress had been made as anticipated. The reasoning behind this requires consideration.

[75]Seventh, despite the real challenges the contact sessions have not been entirely negative. This is not a case in which an attempt at reintroduction has wholly failed leaving a question as to where one can go now. In contact sessions (4), (8), (11), (13) and (15) there is clear evidence of the child being happy to engage with her father and positive and warm moments. I accept these notes also include less encouraging moments, but they suggest an essential willingness on the part of the child to engage if effort is made. They also suggest once established the child will maintain contact.

[76]Eighth, there is little in the notes to evidence the mother’s commitment to the contact save for the fact that the child is brought to contact. I appreciate this is a difficult point as one simply does not know what is happening outside of the notes themselves. Whether and to what extent the mother is encouraging the child and/or being positive about contact remains to be assessed. I note the suggestion that the notes evidence the mother using encouraging words on occasion but my sense of the latter contact note (see particularly (17)) is that the supervisors were not entirely overwhelmed by the efforts being made by the mother.

[77]Ninth, there is within the notes a degree of troubling detail which suggests the mother may at times be acting in a manner which negatively impact on the contact. In contact note (2) one sees the less than helpful engagement with the brother in the presence of the child and the mother’s reference to her ill health. This is the note which the mother took exception to including the reference to the child happily asking whether her ‘daddy was here’. I will have to consider why this reference so troubled the mother that she sought for it to be excluded. The next contact (3) did not occur despite the note making clear the mother has been notified [in making this point I appreciate a similar issue arises with regard to the father at a later session]. In note (8) there is somewhat of a performative element to the child’s resistance to contact. She stands up and grabs her backpack and says she wants to leave before returning to engage in contact. I will have to grapple with what this inconsistency tells me. Contact (11) is particularly notable as being the session in which the child appears to have opened up in her engagement and dialogue with the father. In this session she raises a number of adult related issues with the father and is clear she is aware of these matters because her mother has told her. Both the money and passport issues are plainly issues between the parties and it is concerning as to why they were said in front of the child, the motivation for doing so and whether they tell me something broader about the nature and quality of conversations had by the mother and child in private. This is also the session in which the child seeks a promise from the supervisor not to tell her mother that she had played with her father. I will need to consider why it is that the child would be fearful of her mother coming to know she had enjoyed herself at the contact session. I will also have to consider why the child at the end of the most positive of the sessions would state she did not want to come to the next session. Session (12) again appears to have a somewhat performative element with the child acting upset to her mother at the end of the session in contrast to her presentation moments before the mother arrived.

[78]Tenth, I have reservations with regard to the section 7 report. It wrongly had regard to allegations not proven at fact-findings and appeared to accept some unproven matters as likely. I am concerned the meeting with the child was in the presence of the mother given the issues in the case. The relevance of a break in contact prior to this meeting and the mother expressing negative views in front of the child were not given relevant weight. I appreciate it may have been challenging to meet with the child alone but I can find no explanation as to what efforts were made to attempt this. The sense of the report is that the reporter has found a solution for the child’s behaviour to contact in the matters alleged but unproven rather than fully investigating the other possible options such as maternal influence, even though this was identified as a potential factor. Welfare analysis 79. Wishes and feelings

Welfare analysis

[79]This is assessed in the light of the child’s age and understanding. It needs to be immediately acknowledged that the child is only aged 6. This is not an age at which the Court or parents would be expecting the child to be able to make significant decisions affecting her life. She simply does not have the maturity or understanding to reason through what her expressed views may mean for her if implemented. This does not mean the Court wholly ignores expressed wishes. If nothing else the Court may need to factor stated wishes into any plan for contact to make it as successful as possible. In that regard I need to have regard to the challenges that have arisen in the contact sessions as the child has consistently expressed herself in a manner resistant to contact.

[80]But against this must be set clear examples to the contrary in which the child has willingly engaged in contact at times in a warm and engaged manner. These sit in contrast to her more resistant behaviour. There are clear examples of the child moving beyond her expressed views and interacting with both her father and brother. It is difficult to fully understand why it is that she maintains both attitudes within single sessions but it is clear that this more positive engagement undermines reliance on periods of resistance. The question is as to why the two positions coincide and how this might be addressed to achieve a successful outcome.

[81]Any consideration of wishes must also reflect on those aspects of the contact which call into question the mother’s potential behaviour. The particular example is the note in which the child asks for her mother not to be told she played with her father. I cannot escape the conclusion that this was because the child feared her mother would be upset to hear this was the case. This firmly suggests the child is conscious of her mother’s feelings and these are negative to contact with the father. Of course, it may be the child has misinterpreted the mother’s feelings but this does not diminish this point in undermining whether the expressed feelings are ones genuinely held by the child. Linked to this are those adult topics shared by the child as coming from the mother. These points leave me doubting the weight that should be placed on the perceived wishes of the child. I am left concerned these topics are not the only ones ‘shared’ with the child. By this I do not mean ‘shared’ deliberately. Rather I have concluded the mother is allowing the child to be aware of her own feelings and given her loyalty to her mother these are likely to be influential in shaping both her views and her behaviour. I bear in mind the mother has not shifted her views with regards to the allegations and I am very concerned as to the impact this would have on the child if any part of this was shared with her, deliberately or otherwise. Ultimately my assessment of the evidence leads me to conclude there is far more in the form of positives than might first be suggested. However, I consider progress as to wishes and feelings is likely to be shaped in the knowledge of the mother’s own views. Needs

[82]I focus on the question which is live before me as to whether the child has a need for a relationship with her father. It is my clear view that she does have such a need and it should be promoted. There is nothing to shift my view that her needs would be advanced by having a meaningful relationship with both parents. This would permit her to understand that both love her and hold her close to their hearts. This will have a very important impact upon her emotionally and will permit her a heightened sense of confidence in herself. It will also enable her over time to build a bridge towards her paternal family but most particularly to re-establish a relationship with her brother. The notes to session (4) are good evidence that there is a relationship between the two and I consider it would be harmful for the child were she to understand this relationship through the unproven allegations of the mother.

[83]Having raised concerns as to the extent to which the mother may be influencing the child’s views it is important to make clear that this process would be a very negative one for the child. I have to reflect on the challenging emotional impact on the child of having to juggle mixed feelings towards her father which are represented by a contact note in which she does not want her mother to know she played with her father. At the age of 6 she should not have to bear this burden. I can very well understand how in such circumstances she might rather wish to opt out of contact to avoid having to deal with it. Further, she plainly is most bonded to her mother and she is likely to want to act in a manner consistent with her wishes so as to not upset her. I reach this conclusion in part by reference to what I have described as ‘performative’ behaviour on her part.

[84]I do consider it important that any contact should not undermine the child’s central relationship with her mother or the home they share together. It is important for her to have a secure and stable home environment as it is important for her mother to remain emotionally available and unaffected by the contact. But I should not make the mother the decision maker so far as contact is concerned and particularly so if in making the decision she is undermining the child’s welfare needs. On the evidence I have received I am satisfied the contact will not do this although I have a strong sense the mother is concerned her daughter may follow the path of her son in favouring a life with her father. In reality there are no grounds for this although there must be a risk of it happening if the mother through her actions makes the child choose between the father and herself. Personal characteristics

[85]I have noted the child’s age and sex and relationship with her brother. I also bear in mind her cultural heritage and the role that plays in maintaining her sense of identity. It seems clear this is important to both parents. Contact is an important route towards promoting her full identity and there is a danger of a warped sense of person if this is simply shaped through a relationship with her mother. Change in circumstances

[86]I find it noteworthy the mother remains an advocate for continued supervised contact. I have struggled to understand how she puts her case given the difficulties with contact but it seems her case is these difficulties solely derive from the possible move to unsupervised contact. I am worried she sees such a move as a loss of control on her part and the opening of a door to a relationship she wishes to remain contained within a contact centre.

[87]I am also troubled by her argument for a change of centre. I have not understood this is for practical reasons although I understand both parents are required to travel a distance to attend. Rather she seems focused on the supervisory team around the contact. I would reject a change based on this ground as my assessment of the workers, which is set out above, is entirely positive. I can see no good ground for changing workers for the sake of it as this would require the child to rebuild a new relationship and this may impact on the contact achieved. I am troubled as to the child’s apparent negativity towards the worker criticised by the mother and again consider this is likely a function of the child becoming aware of her mother’s attitude.

[88]But the key issue for me is as to what a change in contact circumstances would mean for the child. As I have already noted I have no concerns as to the father’s ability to manage or support a move into the community. But how will this play out? At the current time I consider it likely one will experience a similar outcome to that seen on 31 January 2026 with an effective stand-off. I plainly do not want this to be the case as it will place the child at the centre of the dispute and cause her harm and damage her relationship with her father.

[89]It is clear to me any progress in this regard must include a change in attitude on the part of the mother. I am simply not satisfied she has done all she can and should do to foster the relationship building between father and child. In my analysis above I explain why I hold this view. In my judgment there is only limited prospects of successful progress whilst this is in the face of the mother’s resistance. I have reached the conclusion the child’s stated resistance is in reality a projection of her mother’s resistance. This is why her behaviour is so changeable and inconsistent and why she feared her mother being told when contact was positive. Given genuine emotional permission to see her father I believe the positives seen in contact will continue.

[90]I am of the view contact needs to be sustained. One can see what happens when periods of break in contact arise. I am confident the father has the commitment and patience to persevere. I consider there may be justified criticism of both parties as to their stand-off when points of change in contact arose. I consider this criticism does extend to the father as on any reasonable assessment the contact had not reached the point of moving into the community irrespective of the number of sessions which had occurred. Risks

[91]My main worry is the emotional damage to the child if she loses a relationship with her father and paternal family including her brother. This would be both unjustified and lifelong in its impact. I am not satisfied as to the new allegation relating to the social media post. First, I am not at all satisfied it was sent or posted by the father. The nature of the screenshot makes it very difficult to analyse with any real confidence. However, in any event I am not satisfied it is anything like a threat to kill the mother as suggested in her live evidence. Indeed, in her written evidence she took a more measured approach to what it suggested. Capability of the parents

[92]I am in no doubt the father has the capability to meet the needs of the child through contact developing overtime to include weekend contact and extended periods. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest otherwise.

[93]I also have no doubt the mother is providing the child with a good level of loving care. This can be seen in the positive school reports and the positives noted by the father in the contact notes. What I am worried about as a function of this factor is the mother’s ability to genuinely promote contact with the father. Given her role in the life of the child, she carries immense power in this regard. I note from the contact notes a somewhat passive approach to encouragement and I have strong grounds for believing this is reinforced in private. It is clear to me the mother is far more negative to the father and contact than is found in her statement evidence. Indeed, she continues to hold to the allegation that he tried to poison her. This is plainly not a firm foundation on which to expect a supportive approach to contact and this is supplemented by the reports made by the child and her fear about the mother discovering she ‘played with her father’. Supporting contact in a proactive and non-passive form is a very important part of being a competent parent. At this time, I consider this is lacking.

Conclusions

[94]Where do these conclusions take me? I am conscious this is the first time the parents will have heard the concluded opinion of the Court. Previous orders have been interim and in advance of the evidence being heard. The Court has now heard the evidence and reached the views set out above. This will now not change and what comes next must be in the light of these views and conclusions. I am in no doubt contact should continue. To order otherwise would be to betray the child’s need for a relationship with her father. But it would be foolish to simply order it move on now without regard to the current reality.

[95]The mother now needs to make changes in her attitude and approach to contact. I accept this will not be easy for her but she has had now more than a year to digest the fact-finding conclusions of the Court and what this means for contact. If, as I believe, she wants to do the best for her daughter then now is the time to reflect on these conclusions and make changes. These changes are not beyond her. They amount to a need for a genuine expressed level of support for contact. This needs to be a consistent part of the child’s life not just at the doors of the contact centre. The child needs to consistently and repeatedly hear her mother espouse this view and then through her actions support it. The child needs to have the emotional permission to engage fully in contact without fearing what her mother will think because she should know her mother will be happy that she is playing with her father. At the moment she does not have this confidence which says a great deal about the problems we have faced.

[96]I have reached the following conclusions: i) There should be four weekly sessions of contact at the same contact centre. ii) Over these sessions there should be the opportunity to introduce some limited time outside of the centre supervised by the worker. This might include time in a local park or going for a short lunch. This will hopefully show the child there is nothing to fear in spending time with her father outside the centre. iii) The contact sessions should gradually increase in length by 30-minute increments per session towards 3-hours. iv) After these 4 sessions there will be a further 4 sessions in which I expect the contact to continue but with the supervisor slowly withdrawing from the contact. In the first two sessions the first 30 minutes would be in the centre with 30 minutes supervised in the community and then an hour with the father alone before returning to the centre for the last hour. In the last two the time in the community would be 90 minutes with 30 minutes on return to the centre. v) Thereafter the contact will be in the community unsupervised using the centre only as a handing over point unless an alternative venue is agreed. These will start at 3-hours and increase by 30-minute increments on a fortnightly basis over 4 months until they reach 7 hours. vi) At this point the parties should be in a position to consider overnight contact. I consider this will be a matter for them in the first instance to agree. The time will have come for them to act as parents and appropriately communicate without the court’s involvement.

[98]I intend to make a lives with order to the mother to signify her central role and to offer a level of confidence that the child’s placement with her is not in question. I hope this will assist her in giving emotional permission.

[99]I intend this to be a final order. I appreciate the father has expressed reservations as to whether this will happen but I consider it is important to decide what is best and then make the appropriate order. I expect the parties to comply and importantly for the mother to play her part in making it work. If it doesn’t work then either party will be entitled to make a new application. At that point the case should be placed before me and I will assess the extent to which each party has done what is expected of them. If they fail to act appropriately I will have to judge the consequences for them of their failure to comply with my order. I do not consider there is anything to be gained by continuing the matter before the Court. Doing that simply signals everything remains under review and is an encouragement to condition one’s actions to shape future decision making. In my assessment that is positively unhelpful.

[100]I do not intend to make any separate order relating to the brother. I have no issue with him joining contact as ordered above although in the first instance the key focus should be around the father. I consider it would be unhelpful to have a separate freestanding order with regards to the brother.

[101]I require the parties to establish an open communication line through either a dedicated email or a parenting application. This should be funded by the father and is a minimal cost when compared to contact supervision.

[102]I agree the parents should attend the Parenting Together course unless already completed.

[103]I will now send this judgment to the parties and will accept any requests for clarification and corrections by 4pm on 10 June 2026. I would like any suggested redactions for publication and a draft order by 4pm on 12 June 2026. I will hand down the judgment and make the order electronically and without need for attendance at 10am on 15 June 2026.

[104]This judgment can be shared with any professional party supervising contact for that purpose only.

[105]I do wish the family the best. The child both needs and deserves a relationship with her father. The mother has a central role in ensuring this is achieved. Ensuring this is the case is central to her role in being a good mother to her daughter. I expect both of the parents to do everything within there power to make this work. HHJ Willans