Father v Mother [2026] EWFC 141 (B)
[1]On 17 April 2026, the parties appeared before me at a dispute resolution appointment following the filing of a s7 CAFCASS section 7 report. At the hearing agreement could not be reached and a final hearing was required. The parties made clear that neither sought to cross examine the CAFCASS Office or each other. They sought to present their cases on paper and ask me to determine the issues in dispute.[2]I was concerned on that occasion as to the disjointed manner in which the parties’ evidence had been prepared and filed. I directed each to provide a statement in one piece which I would be able to consider when making my decision I directed this to be done by 4pm on 8 May 2026. The parties must by 8 May 2026 send to the court and to the other party written statements setting out the party’s names and case number. The statements must be signed with a statement of truth confirming the contents of their statements are true. The statements must provide their evidence to the court on: i) whether they agree the S7 report recommendations and if not, why. ii) What final orders they are asking the court to make in respect of the father’s contact with the children and why it is in their interests. iii) The statements must attach any documents on which that party is seeking to rely. Any documents must be relevant to the issues above and the party must explain in the statement why each document will help the Court decide. A party cannot expect the Court to be responsible for working out why a document has been sent to the Court.[3]Notwithstanding the above I have received a range of document which in many cases are not easily linked to the issues being made. I have found the respondents approach easier to follow given the way in which she has attempted to link documents within her position document.[4]For the applicant I have received: i) An email setting out his proposals. This is the email with respect to proposals which was before me at the last hearing ii) An email setting out the applicant’s critique of the section 7 report iii) Ten supervised contact notes from July 2025 to February 2026. iv) 64 pages of text message screenshots with annotations. v) I had also kept some limited messaging about a proposed work shadowing scheme for one of the children.[5]For the respondent I received: i) A position statement ii) A parenting agreement which sets out final proposals and is not consistent with (i) above. iii) A copy of the section report iv) 3 x Ring videos which appear to relate to an incident between the parties on 9 December 2022 v) A final non-molestation order from 9 January 2023 vi) An undertaking given by the applicant on 9 January 2023 vii) A copy of my order dated 17 April 2026 viii) A letter from solicitors for the respondent to the applicant dated 30 March 2024 ix) 3 x WhatsApp screenshots from ‘Auntie D[ ]’ x) A photograph (December 2022?) of what I infer to be bruising to the respondent’s arm xi) An email chain between the parties from August 2024 relating to withdrawing the C100 application xii) An email chain from January 2023 xiii) An email which links the ring video, bruising and non-molestation order.[6]I indicated I would provide a written decision by 22 May 2026. Unfortunately, other commitments have prevented me from keeping to this timetable for which I offer my apologies.Background
[7]There is very little which is agreed in this case and absent evidence I will simply summarise the key elements. I have no bundle from which to work but rely on the Court file. This in itself is difficult due to the tendency of the applicant to constantly file multiple emails attaching various documents and exhibits. This is a theme that continues to present. As an example, I note there was a hearing on 29 July 2024. In advance of that hearing the parties sent into the Court multiple documents which amount to 135 lines of content on the Court file. It is near impossible for any Judge to digest this level of documentation prepared and filed in such a manner for the purposes of a one-hour appointment. The parties cannot expect the Court to act as if an independent investigator sifting through all the documents that the parties would wish to send in on the basis that something of relevance might turn up. Such an approach runs the very real risk that relevant documents are missed for lack of time.[8]I take this brief background from the respondent’s statement within non-molestation proceedings dated December 2022. It tells me the parties met in 2008 and married in 2010. The marriage bore the three children subject to these proceedings, being X (aged 15); Y (aged 11) and Z (aged 8). I am told Y has a diagnosis of autism.[9]The statement then details longstanding abuse from the applicant which led to the non-molestation proceedings. This culminated with an incident on 9 December 2002 which is linked to the ring doorbell evidence and the photos of bruising referenced above. The police are said to have been called and the applicant was arrested and a Domestic Violence Order given for about 2-months. The allegations suggested a level of controlling behaviour and it was said this extended to the children with particular reference to their sporting activities.[10]I have found it difficult to locate a document from the applicant which could be viewed as a statement of his case. His position is found within multiple unrelated screenshots and other documents. However, it is clear he has raised his own allegations around the respondent’s drinking and suggested controlling behaviours on her part to alienate the children from him. He has also suggested an intention on her part to remove the children from the jurisdiction although it seems by the time of the s7 report this was no longer an active concern.[11]These proceedings commenced on 2 April 2024 and are therefore around 2-years of age at the date of this judgment. The applicant complained he was having difficulty having contact with the children and was worried about them being removed from the country of having their names changed. He sought child arrangements. On 23 April 2024, the applicant applied by C2 for ‘access and custody’ [lives with and spending time orders]. It is not clear to me why this was deemed necessary given the C100 previously issued.[12]This was fixed for an urgent hearing on 17 May 2024 to deal with the threat of removal. With hindsight this was plainly not required and was a waste of scare court resources. I have seen no evidence to support the suggestion the respondent had plans to abduct the children and/or remove them from the jurisdiction wrongly. In advance of that hearing and on 9 May 2024 the respondent sent in a C1A response in which she challenged the various allegations as having no evidential basis and claimed the application was finance driven with her being the victim of longstanding abuse. It transpired there was a Financial Dispute Resolution appointment already listed on 17 May and so the urgent hearing was relisted to 7 June 2024.[13]The Court received a CAFCASS safeguarding letter on 3 June 2026. It noted both parties were raising conflicting accounts with regards to domestic abuse and noted the fact of pre-existing non-molestation proceedings from 2023. It raised the possible need for a fact-finding hearing to resolve these issues with a section 7 report then required. I cannot find an order from 7 June 2024. On 29 July 2024, a DDJ heard the case and was in equal difficulties absent the previous order. He understood from the parties that a section 7 report had been directed and permission given for a holiday. As a consequence, he could not make progress with the case and it was adjourned for further directions.[14]A different DDJ heard the case on 23 September 2024. That Judge urged the parties to focus on the children and was concerned too much focus was on the finances. He noted his difficulty in managing the hearing with each party constantly interrupting the other. The Court gave directions for statements with what appears to be a purpose of assessing the need for a fact-finding hearing. On 24 January 2025, the case returned to Court. It was agreed the children would live with the mother and that the issues were around contact. It was ordered that the applicant would undertake a parenting course and that there would be supervised contact. The matter was listed for a short final hearing to resolve contact issues. The parties agreed there was no need for fact-finding.[15]The final hearing was listed on 8 July 2025 but was not effective as such. The Court returned to the issue of fact-finding and determined that whilst the same was not needed there was a need for a section 7 report and CAFCASS were directed to report. Statements were directed and supervised contact repeated. On 19 December 2025 Ms Evie Brundish of CAFCASS filed her section 7 report. This recommended the applicant complete a parenting course, and that pending completion of this contact with the younger two children continue to be supervised. Thereafter it could develop to be unsupervised. In regard to X, it was felt some unsupervised contact could take place around his sporting activities and with him also joining in with the supervised sessions. These recommendations flowed from the direct work done with the children.[16]The DRA came before me on 17 April 2026 and this hearing was fixed.Legal Principles
[17]The underpinning principle in this case is the centrality of the children’s welfare to my decision making. In legal terms the children’s welfare is paramount. I do not make decisions to benefit either parent but to advance their children’s welfare interests. It would be hoped that this should be one and the same thing but sadly in many cases a parent or parents allow their own needs and priorities to shape their assessment of what is best for their children. My job is to put this to one side and focus on the children.[18]It is important for children to have a relationship with both parents and this will advance their welfare so long as it is safe. There is a presumption to such effect.[19]The welfare checklist in section 1(3) Children Act 1989 is a helpful checklist which assists a Court in analysing what is best for the children before the Court. I will deal with that below.[20]Where parents disagree about facts or make allegations it is for the party making the allegation to prove it. The other party has no legal responsibility to disprove the allegation or provide evidence to prove their case. An allegation is proven if the Court finds it is more likely than not to have happened. This is the balance of probabilities. If this is established then the allegation is treated as a fact. If it is not then the Court disregards the allegation.[21]I have not conducted a fact-finding. Where domestic abuse is established then PD12J of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 comes into effect and any contact ordered must be such that the Court is satisfied it will be safe for the child and the primary carer.[22]Turning to the significance of a CAFCASS report. The first thing to make clear is that CAFCASS reports offer guidance to the Court but it is for the Court to make decisions. This means the Court can disagree with the report and make orders outside the recommendations given. However, the Court will not lose sight of the role of CAFCASS as the ‘eyes and ears’ of the Court and any professional report from CAFCASS is important evidence which the Court must give proper weight and consideration to. If a Court is inclined to disagree with recommendations in a substantive manner then the Court should set out its reasoning for doing so. Best practice would be for the Court to raise this with the CAFCASS Officer to enable a response to be given. Minor differences do not require this level of engagement.The CAFCASS Analysis
[23]Bearing in mind §22 above it is important to set out clearly the reasoning of the CAFCASS Officer.[24]I note the report is a 22-page document and utilises the common CAFCASS section 7 template. Ms Brundish carried out appropriate investigations liaising with all three schools attended by the children. The reports back are very positive with regards to attendance and engagement. There are no concerns. The respondent is noted to engage well with the school but the applicant does not communicate with the schools. This is important positive information which speaks as to the positive parenting received by the children. The papers clearly suggest a strong education motivation within the family.[25]The report sets out the background and cross allegations. It notes the police involvement in 2022 as referenced above and a suggested assault on the respondent. It notes the children were found by police ‘locked in an upstairs bedroom and visibly distressed reporting their parents had had a fight.’ Ms Brundish had access to supervised contact notes. One note showed a cancellation when the applicant attended with a younger child from a different relationship. The children did not want contact to proceed on this basis.[26]She carried out appropriate interviews with each parent and received a range of documents. She was informed the applicant had been banned from one of the children's [sporting clubs] but has not received a report as requested. She sought third party checks with respect to the applicant’s new partner and spoke to her separately. These investigations have not raised any concerns.[27]Finally, she met with each of the children at the CAFCASS Offices separately and without the parents present, although they were brought to the appointment by the respondent. Ms Brundish provided a details Child Impact Analysis (§17-29). This followed from her direct work with each child. She noted warm and loving interaction between the children and their mother on arrival.[28]Z was polite and engaging and showed pride in recent achievements at school. He was asked who was important to him and listed his brothers, mum, auntie, and gran in that order.[29]X was equally engaging and polite in line with the reports from school of exemplary behaviour. He identified the same people as important for him and when asked about his father responded, ‘nothing happened he just dropped from my ranking.’ This led Ms Brundish to conclude that the relationship may have been impacted by limited time together.[30]Y much like his brothers was polite and engaged. He was also plainly proud of his school achievements and being selected for the school ‘parliament.’ He identified his mum and brothers as most important and spoke in warm terms about her. Ms Brundish understood Y has a diagnosis of ASD but that this is not something he is aware of and assistance is being provided without reference to a label. He is high achieving but can be emotional and is viewed as having some vulnerabilities.[31]Ms Brundish noted the counter allegations in the case and reminded herself that no findings had been made. However, when speaking to the children about life at home when they all lived together Y said he didn’t have ‘good memories, it wasn’t a happy place, he was unkind’ and that ‘the house was calmer now because he is not there.’ The children recalled the incident in December 2022 and Ms Brundish reported: When the police attended the home address, the children were found locked in a bathroom and highly distressed. During direct work, X talked to me about this incident and reported “mum had dad’s phone, he got angry and pushed her against the wall. I got Y and Z and went in the bathroom. Dad had a yellow pole in the porch, I could see him on the ring doorbell” indicating that Y observed his father assaulting his mother, which would have been extremely distressing for him. Y said “it was scary, this was the first time. He would shout at home normally, but it was not that deep.” Similarly, Y reported “I remember the police coming, they were arguing, and we locked ourselves in the bathroom, I was scared.” Z reported he could not remember what happened during this incident. Z would have been around 4 years old at the time, so it is understanding that his memory of this incident is less clear compared to his brothers. Despite this, all of the children’s physical and emotional safety has been impacted by this incident. [The respondent] reports that X and Z have both accessed counselling support to talk about their experiences and this was also explored for Y who is working with his mentor on a weekly basis. I believe this was the last time the parents lived together with the children so it may well have a significant role in shaping their feelings.[32]Ms Brundish had been told about allegations of the applicant chastising the children. Again, the children spoke about this: During direct work, Y said “he (the applicant) would use violent words and hit me if I didn’t play good at football. It hurt and it made me upset.” I asked Y how often this happened, and he said, “it was quite often, it happened when I was younger than 9”. Y went on to say, “he hit me with multiple stuff, sometimes his hands, sometimes a broom, it was scary.” Similarly, when talking about living with [the applicant] X said “if we didn’t do what he wanted he would get angry, he would hit us. He would get things like hangers. I was upset at the time. It happened less as I got older but still mostly happened to Y. I felt bad for them really. I was like 8, 9 or 10 and Y was like 6, 7 and 8”. Whilst [the applicant] has disputed hitting the children frequently, it is clear from the children’s experiences, they have experienced physical harm as a result of being physically assaulted by [the applicant], including with the use of implements which raises concerns about the children’s safety in [the applicant’s] care.[33]Concerns were also raised about the applicant placing undue pressure on the children to perform at sports and within education. The children reported During direct work with Z, when talking about [the applicant] he said “he takes us places and is kind a little bit. The best thing about him is he makes us try hard, but the worst thing is that he kind of forces us to do stuff, like I am going cricket and he says are you doing football.” I asked Z how this makes him feel and he said, “I don’t really know, I don’t want to do football, I don’t like contact sports.” Z went on to say, “I asked him for an iPad for Christmas and he said if I don’t do football, I won’t get an iPad.” Z said “it made me feel surprised. I still don’t want to do football.” I asked Z what he would change about [the applicant] and he said, “if he didn’t have to force us with things.” During interview, [the applicant] stated that he did say this as Z cannot receive everything and do no nothing and that he has to work for things. I reflected to [the applicant] that Z has expressed he wants to do something other than football and [the applicant] stated that Z’s talent would be wasted but he has to do something. I asked [the applicant] if he had checked how Z was doing at school and he said he follows the reports, but they are not as sharp as he would like it to be, which is in contrast to the extremely positive report provided by the school within this report. Further to this, [the respondent] has reported that [the applicant] asked X to tell Z that if he does not play football, he will not get the iPad, which The applicant advised he did, raising concerns about [the applicant] placing X in inappropriate positions and making him feel reliant on passing messages on to his siblings. During direct work, X reported “I just tell them and pass it on” shrugging when saying this, indicating that this has become normalised for X. Whilst it is positive that [the applicant] is focused on the children understanding that they need to work hard to get the things they want, I am concerned about the level of pressure and conditions placed upon each of the children to ensure they reach his expectations, particularly in respect of football, raising concerns about [the applicants] ability to prioritise the children’s needs over his own.[34]This then fed into the report of the applicant being banned from attending Y’ [sporting club]. Reports suggest his conduct included reference to neglect at home. The applicant accepts this criticism to an extent. He may have been banned for two seasons with Y noting the behaviour was counterproductive, as it distracted Y’ focus from playing and that he was feeling better now that his father was not coming.[35]Ms Brundish reported on the contact that had been happening. This was ordered to start in January 2025 but did not commence for over 6 months. This was reordered and has been happening but only for 30 minutes which is felt to be insufficient although the reports are positive of the time spent. The report then notes contact stopped in October 2025. Ms Brundish was concerned contact was regarded as secondary to providing gifts and was also concerned as to the proposed manner of introduction of the applicant’s younger child which led to the cancellation of contact in September 2025. I note contact recommenced in early 2026 post-report and I have noted of the same.[36]Notwithstanding the above there has been contact outside of the centre with the applicant directly approaching X as well as having regular indirect contact with him. X reported feeling ‘pressurised.’ The contact has included setting up football for X at the weekends. All of this has become known to the respondent who expressed criticism of the applicant acting outside of the Court rules. X was Ok with this continuing and felt he could stop it if he felt unhappy. I bear in mind he is approaching 16 years of age.[37]The children were asked about contact: When discussing future spending time arrangements, X reported “I don’t mind seeing him at the centre, but it feels unnecessary when he sees me on Saturday. I don’t feel worried for me, but I do for Y and Z, I could see he could get angry with them.” When I asked Z how he felt seeing [the applicant] he said “good. I feel happy at the centre. I would be fine if it was not at the centre because we used to see him on Saturday and go play football, but I prefer the centre.” I asked Z if he would like to see [the applicant] more, less or the same and he said, “once a month.” Then said “no, actually once a week.” I observed Z to be slightly hesitant and unsure when talking about [the applicant], indicating a level of discomfort and confusion about his experiences of his father. When discussing arrangements with Y, he reported “I feel the same (about seeing [the applicant]) and I feel fine if I don’t see him". Y went on to say, “I would like to see him just the same, how it is.” I don’t mind being outside with him, but I would be worried he would do the same things he did in the house, how he would hit me.” Y went on to say “he (the applicant) is better than he used to be to me, but I am not sure if that was because he was in the contact centre” highlighting that Y does not feel completely safe in his father’s care due to his experiences of his behaviour and the contact centre provides him with a feeling of safety and stability.[38]Ms Brundish was mindful of the absence of fact-finding and the cross allegations but in the light of the reports made, including by the children, felt there was evidence of some controlling behaviours which has continued to impact on the way the children view their father. Furthermore, the children continue to bear emotional impact from the December 2022 events. It is agreed behaviour of this nature has ended with the relationship although the issue of some level of control remain. As a result, the reporter does not consider this to be a case of continuing inter-parent abuse although she remains concerned as the applicant’s behaviour towards the children. She recognised the applicant had completed an online course but felt he would benefit from a further course as identified within her report: Caring Dad’s.[39]Based on this she made recommendations for continued supervised contact for the younger children which could then develop once the course was undertaken. X could join in a having some additional flexible unsupervised contact outside of the centre. This is based on the fact the children report enjoying spending time with their father which in turn contributes to their sense of identity. But it is also based on the consistent picture painted by the children of being negatively impacted by their father’s behaviour. This includes a concern that the father is allowing his own wishes and priorities to overbear the needs of his children.[40]The children have had the recommendations shared with them and expressed agreement with the recommendations.Critique of the report
[41]The respondent agrees with the conclusions reached in the report although her proposals appear to be different to those set out above.[42]The applicant rejects the report and has, as directed, set out his grounds for doing so. He described the report as ‘rubbish’ and a ‘complete waste of time.’ The applicant suggests it was unacceptable for the children to be interviewed with the respondent present. I assume this means with her in the building having brought them to the appointment, given there is no suggestion that she was physically present in the meeting. He denied the reports of abuse save for X confirming his mother had taken his father’s phone. He concluded by saying he did not agree with what CAFCASS says and ‘completely dismisses anything they say.’ Elsewhere he criticises the extent of engagement with his new partner and explained his focus on the boys being in the light of known challenges around gangs and other social issues. The parties’ positions[43]As I have noted this is not made easier by their approach to the evidence. It does appear contact has been progressing in a manner contrary to the Court Order and I heard about community-based contact albeit involving family members. In his critique the applicant makes mention of this fact when challenging the recommendation for continued contact within a contact centre.[44]In her position document the respondent contends the order should provide as follows [the items in red being refinements from her parenting ‘agreement’] i) A “Lives With” Order in [her] favour ii) That contact remains supervised by the applicants mother in her home and/ or in the community [weekly, weekday, supervised evening after school from 5pm - 9:30pm in the community progressing to a fortnightly Saturday contact during the day at their paternal grandmother’s house from 12pm – 9:30pm before progressing to any overnight stays – fortnightly Friday 8pm until Sunday 8am] until The applicant completes recommended courses and Cafcass work. That The applicant complete: a) A parenting course b) An autism awareness course c) The Caring Dads Programme d) Substance misuse testing e) Anger and Violence Course iii) Restrictions regarding any attendance or involvement at Y’s football Club such as matches, tournaments or training where distress is caused to Y unless Y agrees and directly tells the Safeguarding Manager at [sporting club] to lift the applicants ban iv) Phased supervised contact before unsupervised contact. v) Clear arrangements for safe collection and handover [The applicant or the children’s paternal Aunty [ ] may only collect or drop off the children. The applicant nor his partner, shall not enter or approach the property or driveway of [ ] upon collection. All collections and drop-offs shall take place on the pavement outside the property, with the children exiting the home to meet him.] vi) The gradual introduction of current or any protentional new partner or additional siblings after 12 months when there has been an established and consistent relationship with the Applicant and our children. vii) Consideration of a barring order to prevent further post separation abuse and coercive or abusive behaviour viii) All communication take place through parenting App ‘App Close’ to minimise conflict and reduce the children’s exposure to hostility or inappropriate communication from the applicant to myself. ix) Consideration of a legal name change for the children if deemed appropriate by the Court.[45]In contrast the applicant seeks: i) (Over nights and contact hours) 2nd weekend Friday night 7pm collection - Return Saturday 6pm; 4th weekend Friday & Saturday night stay over. Collection Friday night 7pm - Sunday 12 midday return or collect from [ ] if at home.Stay with myself in [ ] / Grandmothers until further notice or 1st August 2027 overnights will move to my place of residents ([ ])Collect Z and Y Saturday mornings 9/9:30am for Football / Training or sports activities X is optional if he wants to attend, but recommended. X is not to be restricted from any activities he wishes to take part in with his father going forward. Same for Y and Z if requests are reasonable Y and Z Football, Training and sports activities and costs will be controlled myself directly. I will be attending all Y [sporting club] games. Please make it clear to [sporting club] that there are no parental restrictions. I have direct 50/50 parental rights. I have 50/50 parental access educational decisions. I will be attending all future parents evenings and events in relation to the children - separately . Children will attend junior trade education with myself as and when available, two times a month on a Thursday evening or as per availability if in the holidays. I will be taking the children on holiday as per agreed arrangements. I would like to be notified when the children are leaving the country and the location. I will be taken the children away on UK breaks as per agreed arrangements. Children Passports will remain with mother until further notice of travel plans with children. On return, Passports will return to mother for safe keeping. Or if needed for opening bank accounts etc. Summer holidays Children stay with myself for 1st two weeks as and when approved at a later date.[46]I intend only to deal with the issues which were live before me at the hearing. A change of name was not contemplated and I no evidential basis for considering the same.Analysis
[47]I do not need to engage in fact-finding to reach a conclusion that the children have been significantly impacted by the stresses and disputes within the parents’ lives. This is evident from the direct work undertaken with them by Ms Brundish. I have watched the ring video confrontation that underlies the non-molestation application. I have seen the suggested injuries occasioned to the respondent. I note there is no challenge to the fact the applicant was arrested or that a DVO was issued. I read the report of the children locked in their room and scared as to what was happening. I would suggest the applicant needs to reflect on this video and the reports from the children and reflect further on what this has meant for them. This case is not about parental control or alienation on the part of the respondent but reflects the children’s natural response to witnessing the events. Hearing screams and shouts amount to witnessing an event as much as being physically present and indeed the impact it has can be greater as the children are left to wonder what it is that is happening. I have watched the video and what I view is totally unacceptable behaviour on the part of the applicant.[48]I have read the CAFCASS report with care and I accept the broad thrust of the report and the recommendations contained therein. Far from being ‘rubbish’ it is a considered and professional analysis in which the voice of each child is carefully analysed and brought to the fore. I appreciate it may make for uncomfortable reading but it is a fair account of the children’s feelings. It is wrong to say it is impacted by the fact the respondent was present in the building after all someone had to bring the children to Central London.[49]It is noteworthy the children still want to have a relationship with their father. This is a positive feature which suggests a level of warmth and bond between the children and the father. But it is clear they also want him to listen and hear their voice and not be so dogmatic as to his expectations. I have read about his attendance at the [sporting club]. The fact he has been banned for two seasons is a strong marker of both his passion for his son but also a lack of insight and a prioritisation of his own needs over those of his son. He should be able to reflect on the embarrassment this will have caused.[50]I can see this case has moved beyond the contact centre. My sense is that there is a difficult balancing act between contact being in the centre and not being consistent and thus impacting on the children and being outside of the centre, being more consistent but raising limited safeguarding issues. My strong sense of the evidence is that the respondent has concluded the balance favours the second outcome despite the issues. This reflects what I believe is her acknowledgement of the importance to the children of their father being in their lives. But this latitude should be respected not exploited. The Court must still determine what is best for the children. Welfare Analysis Wishes and feelings[51]The children vary between 8 and 15 years of age. They each have a voice and they have a right to know it has been heard. They have spoken to CAFCASS and I consider they have been honest and open in their views. X at 15 is very close to being his own decision maker and I should be wary about making an order he is not happy with unless I doubted the autonomy of his decision making. Y is a little younger and has additional needs but as with his siblings he is a talented student and has his own views which he is entitled to have considered. Z is younger and his views need to be considered in the light of his age and understanding.[52]I doubt very much the views of the children do not to some degree derive from their internal conversations about what each wants. That would be a natural thing to occur in a close family. As such each may be influenced by another and X as the oldest sibling may carry particular influence. But that does not mean they do not hold these views and I appreciate they will all, in their own ways have experienced what life felt like when their parents lived together and how things have been since.[53]I consider it likely they have a firm loyalty to their mother. This flows from their experiences and what they felt happened to her; from her central role in their lives and from the different approach to parenting she brings. It is clear they share a warm and loving relationship with her whereas their relationship with their father has controlling features. This does not mean they do not value that relationship but it is easy to see why they would side with their mother if it came to it. The applicant needs to keep this very much in mind. If they were forced to a decision of a relationship with one parent over the other I consider it is likely they would pick their mother. The fact they are still open to seeing their father does I consider reflect the fact their mother is not opposed to them each maintaining this relationship. Needs[54]I repeat myself in making clear the children each have a voice and they have a need for this voice to be heard by their parents and respected if not followed at all times. This will vary to an extent in respect of their ages but it is an important aspect of their relationships and needs.[55]They need to feel their parents have their interests at heart and are not driven by their own needs. If they form the view the parent is pursuing their own interests then they will come to resent this and the relationship will fail. I appreciate there is a fine line to be drawn between firm encouragement as all children may at times choose an easy route rather than the appropriate one. It is part of being a parent to sometimes make difficult decisions including telling children what they should do. However, in this case it is clear the children feel they are not always being listened to by their father and this is not helping their relationship.[56]They also have a need to have their achievements noticed and recognised. On my reading these are three delightful young boys/men. Whilst I note the father’s concern to guard against anti-social behaviour it seems at this time there are no grounds for believing they have anything other than positive intentions for the future. Their success in education is a testament to both their inherent biology but also the nurturing they have received. That this has come out of the home of their mother deserves a level of recognition from the applicant which I consider has been lacking. This relationship is too often a one-dimensional conflict which loses sight of the good parenting being given.[57]They need stable and consistent care in an environment which is safe and secure and which does not include anything like the reported behaviours found in the non-molestation proceedings. It is positive that this no longer is an active part of their lives although to an extent this has been replaced by a form of constant niggle and disputes. Again, this must end for the reasons I give above. They are receiving good care as I have already noted. There is so much in the form of positives in this case for the children which makes this ongoing dispute so desperately sad. Personal characteristics[58]I have reflected on their essential characteristics throughout this judgment. Their ages have been noted. I recognise their cultural background and identity which is well respected and promoted within their close and wider family. Change of Circumstance[59]I have to reflect on what a change will mean for them and whether a change will impact them and if so positively or otherwise. I consider the key main change required is an end to proceedings and a period of calm for the whole family. They have been in litigation for more than two years but this litigation was proceeded by both financial and injunction proceedings and I have no doubt that each of those have impacted the family. The children now need a settled period outside of proceedings. The children appear to be resilient. I can see this in the mature approach taken by X to unprepared contact with his father. But I bear in mind the vulnerabilities around Y and his diagnosis.[60]The key change is whether contact should move to be unsupervised and if so how. If this is managed poorly there is likely to be continued dispute with the children suffering and a potential for full estrangement from their father or a return to litigation. I consider the order made by the Court should be cautious but it should also be realistic. To an extent it may be necessary to work outside of the recommendations of the CAFCASS officer to obtain an outcome which will hold. In simple language it may be the best answer is a less than perfect outcome knowing that pursuit of perfection may end in a worse outcome. Risk of Harm[61]As to risks of harm I consider there are risks of emotional harm to the children if either party does not respect this order. I do not consider the risks in the case include alcohol abuse or abduction. I doubt the risks include the future role of the father’s new partner. I consider the risk is continued internecine low-level warfare between the parents. Capability as a parent[62]In my assessment the respondent has shown herself to be a competent and focused parent able to provide more than good enough parenting. She loves her children and they have a warm and natural bond with her. I am sure there is room to criticise her within the history of this case but I have concluded her essential position is child-led.[63]I am in no doubt the applicant loves his children and they love him. They respect him as their father and he does bring positives to their lives. But I cannot avoid the conclusion some of these positives are often lost in the moment when he loses focus on sensitive parenting in pursuit of what he thinks is best. My sense of him is that he knows what he wants and can be quite controlling in pursuit of the same. In doing so he has lost sight of his children’s own wants and needs. The presentation of his proposals for contact indicate his attitude in that he tells me what he will have not what he is proposing.Conclusions
[64]I have found myself reaching a conclusion which is not in line with the CAFCASS Officer but this does not suggest I have not found her report most helpful; indeed, it has been central in shaping my views.[65]I do think a contact centre arrangement is not working. Indeed, the parents appear to have accepted this. It has led to periods when the children have not seen their father at all. I do not consider it is required to guard against the actual risks in the case. Indeed, I fear it may create a risk in its own right by being a further source of disagreement and may lead to harm through periods of lost contact. I therefore conclude the contact should be in the community.[66]I do not think the time is right for overnight contact, extended holiday periods, or time overseas. I agree the applicant needs to reflect and make changes as to his attitude both to the respondent and to his approach to the children. I consider progress in contact will be facilitated by completion of the Caring Dad’s programme as suggested by Ms Brundish. I am concerned the establishment of a regular sustained weekend arrangement will feed into the applicant’s current mindset around control and his rights with respect to the children. This is not what they want and I consider is likely to harm the children and the relationship they have with their father.[67]I agree contact should develop gradually and be facilitated by family as suggested by the respondent. I believe this may already be part of the existing arrangements. I agree some progress can be made without the Caring Dad’s course being completed.[68]I am not going to order the full range of courses suggested by the respondent. I have not found in the current evidence a basis for requiring the same.[69]I will order as follows with respect to contact: i) For the next 2 months (June-July 2026 the contact will be on a weekday evening between 5pm and 9.30pm and will involve all children save it will be for X as to whether he wishes to attend (having regard to his age). This should be in the paternal grandmother’s home with only light touch supervision, i.e. a family member present ii) Thereafter there will be contact as follows: a) On one night a week as above but without a need for supervision (although it may continue at the identified home) b) Each fortnight on a Saturday for a full day.[70]If things proceed without issue then I can contemplate contact including fortnightly weekend contact starting after the February half-term in 2027. I can see no reason as to why the father’s new partner and child should not be slowly introduced over this period starting in around September 2026. This will prepare the children for a time when they stay at the father’s home. I can find no grounds of direct criticism of the partner although I appreciate this will be a sensitive issue that needs to be managed in a child focused way. I am not ordering the overnight contact at this point but I expect the parties to begin to communicate more positively and be able to take this forward over time.[71]Once this point is reached I would expect holiday provision to be part of any further development. It may be the parties contemplate the first sharing of holidays would take place in about summer 2027.[72]I agree with the handover plans set out within the respondent’s position document. She has a right to feel her home is safe from dispute.[73]I intend to make a lives with order to the respondent. The applicant put this issue in dispute and I feel it needs to be confirmed without doubt.[74]I expect the parents to now put to one side the history of dispute. There is no longer litigation to win or lose and it will profit them not at all to keep this going. I expect them to communicate appropriately and I endorse the use of a contact application as suggested by the respondent. I will direct communications to be via such a route and will expect the costs (which are modest given the benefits that might obtain) to be shared equally.[75]I make no orders as to activity attendance save that I do not expect the applicant to be involved on weekends that are not his own. If the [sporting club] have banned him then that is their right. I do not want to leave the decision in the hand of Y as suggested by the respondent. That would not be fair on him. Because I sense the applicant will struggle to accept this I intend to make an order for 1 year prohibiting him from attending save on his own weekend and save as is permitted by the [sporting club].[76]I intend to make a 2 year section 91(14) Order to give the family some calm. This will prevent further child arrangement applications regarding lives with or contact and is addressed to both parents. I have not made findings of fact but consider this family both need and deserve a period out of proceedings. I consider the continuation or resumption of proceedings would be positively harmful for the children.[77]I will send this judgment to the parties with a draft order. The judgment and order will be formally handed down electronically at 10am on 4 June 2026. They are not required to attend Court on that date. The proceedings will then end. If there are any corrections that need to be made to the order (if I have made a factual mistake – but not a change because of a disagreement with what I have said) or any requests for clarification then they must be raised with me via my clerk by 4pm on 2 June 2026. This judgment may be published with the names of the children and parents removed to retain anonymity. If there are any other identifying details in this judgment then the parties should notify me by the same time and I will consider removing the same on publication.[78]I really wish X, Y, and Z the very best. They sound like they are really nice children who are working hard and generally enjoying their childhoods. Many children who come before me do not have the fortune of being in that position. I do not want this positive situation to be fractured by pointless and adult orientated disagreements. I hope the parents can agree and act accordingly. His Honour Judge Willans