F v M [2026] EWFC 180 (B)

IN CONFIDENCE

Case No TR24P00338

[2026] EWFC 180 (B)

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT TRURO

Date 10 June 2026

Courts of Justice

Edward St

Truro

Before

District Judge Stone

Between

FApplicant

MFirst Respondent

CSecond Respondent

Applicant-in person for in person

Jenny Wilson (instructed by Coodes) for First Respondent

Hugh Cornford (instructed by Ralph & Co) for Second Respondent

Hearing Hearing dates: 24 & 27 April 2026

Handed down 10 June 2026

JUDGMENT

Introduction

[1]This judgment determines child arrangements for a child (“C”). He was born in 2014, and is therefore 11 years old. He is a party to these proceedings through his 16.4 guardian Karensa Long (“Ms Long”). He lives with the first respondent mother (“Ms M”). These proceedings have been brought by his father, the applicant father (“Mr F”).

[2]This is the fourth set of proceedings Mr F has brought since he and Ms M separated in around 2016. Their relationship was characterised by Mr F’s violent behaviour towards Ms M. He was convicted of battery towards her in September 2015. In previous proceedings he has acknowledged abusive behaviour within the relationship, which he has historically attributed to alcohol misuse.

[3]It is accepted, and recorded in earlier Cafcass reports, that C was present during some incidents of domestic abuse and may have been directly or indirectly affected by them.

[4]Mr F brought proceedings in 2017 in which the section 7 report from Cafcass states that the safeguarding issues were Mr F’s alcohol misuse; allegations of domestic violence made by Ms M against Mr F and Mr F’s mental health. The outcome of that set of proceedings was that C would live with his mother and spend time with his father to be supervised by a family member. Mr F was required to take part in a domestic abuse perpetrators’ program and upon completion the contact would move to unsupervised.

[5]In 2019 Mr F brought further proceedings to extend time to include overnight contact. I do not have a copy of those papers before me.

[6]In 2020 Mr F issued another application to further increase the time that C spends with him. The pattern at the conclusion of the 2020 proceedings was that C was to spend time with Mr F for half the holidays, and on alternate weekends from school on Friday to school on Monday with a teatime visit on the intervening week.

These proceedings

[7]On 11 September 2024 Mr F issued the present C100 application seeking an increase in time with C, ultimately proposing arrangements approaching equal shared care.

[8]At the First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment on 16 December 2024 the court ordered a section 7 report. That report was prepared by Karensa Long, who is now C’s 16.4 guardian. She reported that C had told her that he wanted to spend more time with his father but had formed the view that C’s expressed wishes were a result of influence by Mr F. She commented that coercive control was in her view a high-risk factor for continued abuse post-separation and that Mr F could be manipulating C such that C was experiencing “toxic stress”. She also identified that in her view Mr F was acting in a way that was coercive and controlling towards professionals involved in the case to the extent that she was concerned and worried by his presentation. She was concerned at what she perceived to be early indicators that Mr F’s approach was alienating C from his mother; and that Mr F showed worrying signs of paranoia and disjointed thought processes. She recommended that C’s time with his father should be professionally supervised on alternate weekends and that there should be a 91(14) order for a period of 5 years.

[9]The day after she filed the section 7 report Ms Long filed a 16A Risk Assessment in which she set out her concerns about Mr F’s approach. Ms Long believed him to be threatening and intimidating towards her. She expressed the view that contact arrangements should be varied “immediately” to protect C from harm.

[10]At a Dispute Resolution Appointment before District Judge Taylor on 23 April 2025 the court recorded that it was concerned C was caught in an acrimonious relationship between his parents, and indicated an intention to appoint a 16.4 guardian. He did not change the arrangements for C and Ms M sought unsuccessfully to appeal that part of the order. I note that in refusing permission to appeal HHJ Richards did not (contrary to Mr F’s subsequent assertions) express any view concerning the recommendations set out in the section 7 report; rather he rejected the appeal on the basis that Ms M had not in her appeal explained why she believed District Judge Taylor was wrong.

[11]On 13 May 2025 C was joined as a party to the proceedings and Ms Long became his 16.4 guardian. She applied for permission to instruct an expert psychologist and for an order that Local Authority prepare a section 37 report. That application came before me on 2 July 2025. I did not order a section 37 report because I did not consider that it may be appropriate for a care or supervision order to be made, but gave permission for the joint instruction of expert psychologist Dr McCormack. I also varied the child arrangements order so that during school holidays C spent alternate weekends (and not half the holidays) with his father pending an interim contact hearing on 8 August 2025.

[12]At that hearing I suspended the child arrangements order insofar as it provided for C to spend unsupervised time with his father. The bundle contains an agreed note of the judgment given, which speaks for itself. Contact was reduced to contact once per week to be professionally supervised. Mr F did not make arrangements for professional supervision and that contact did not take place. As a result C has not spent time with Mr F since the start of August 2025.

[13]Dr McCormack’s report is dated 3 October 2025. She states as follows:a. Mr F demonstrates traits of paranoia, mistrust, and suspiciousness. This is overlaid with a ruminative, obsessional thinking style and he demonstrates difficulty with reality testing his thoughts and assumptions, relying heavily on confirmation bias to interpret information in a way that corroborates his existing views. The combined effect of these traits leads him to demonstrate low empathy, poor social understanding and has an adverse impact on his relationships.

b. Mr F’s presentation confers current and ongoing risks to his parenting of

c. C. In my view, he has engaged in a pattern of behaviour indicative of post-separation abuse and without significant commitment to change, and engagement in support to do so, will remain a continuing risk to both C and Miss M. c. Miss M provides C with a secure, well-attuned parenting experience and I do not consider that there is evidence that C is at risk of harm within this dynamic. Miss M does not have the psychological risk factors of an individual who is likely to attempt to influence or ‘alienate’ a child

d. C is a bright, engaging, slightly introverted young man. Assessment suggests that he is presenting with confusion psychological turmoil and indicators of emotional harm. I consider that C’s presentation is related to exposure to Mr F’s negative views on Miss M, pressure to assimilate these views and to express the view that he wishes to have more contact with Mr F.

e. C has suffered emotional harm as a result of his exposure to ongoing contact with Mr F which has been misused by Mr F to attempt to influence C.

f. The impact of ongoing proceedings and any unsupervised contact, or even supervised contact that was not supervised under certain conditions, would be detrimental to C to a degree that would be emotionally and psychologically harmful. I would not recommend or support interventions in order to establish direct contact between C and Mr F in at least the short or medium term, due to the continued risks to C’s emotional wellbeing, Miss M’s emotional wellbeing and the risks of undermining C’s relationship with his primary care giver and only source of attachment security.

[14]At the hearing on 21 October 2025 following receipt of Dr McCormack’s report, the court suspended all contact. Whilst at that hearing the court gave the parties permission to ask written questions of Dr McCormack by 11 November 2025, Mr F did not do so. He has not therefore sought to challenge Dr McCormack’s expert evidence.

[15]It is notable that whilst at the hearing the court gave the parents permission to file statements by 2 December 2025, Mr F did not do so. At a hearing on 13 January 2026 the court extended time for him to do so until 27 January 2026. That order set out in clear terms the matters his statement needed to address. He still did not file a statement. At a hearing on 27 March 2026 I made an order that unless he filed a compliant statement by 4pm on 10 April 2026 the final hearing would be vacated and the court would make orders dismissing his application on paper. At 16:37 on 9 April 2026 Mr F sent an email (not a statement) which was 9 lines long and prefaced with the words “This is going to be extremely short and sweet!”. Ms M’s solicitors immediately emailed him to point out that it was not compliant and referred him to the requirements of the order dated 13 January 2026. As a result he filed a further email headed “Statement” at 15:42 on 10 April 2026. That email only partially complies with requirements previously set out.

[16]Mr F sought to tell me that he did not understand the court’s requirements because he is not represented. When I went through the order dated 13 January 2026 he confirmed that he understood each requirement.

[17]I did not vacate the final hearing and make final orders pursuant to the unless order. Instead I have limited Mr F’s evidence to the content of his statement. Where therefore he has not addressed his position regarding Ms M’s application for a s91(14) order, prohibited steps order or a non-molestation order, I have proceeded on the basis that he has not submitted any evidence to oppose the making of such orders.

The parties’ positions

[18]The parties’ positions are as follows:a. Ms M seeks i. An order confirming that C continues to live with her ii. An order that he shall have no contact with Mr F save for the indirect contact set out below iii. Indirect contact by a card and gift twice per year on C’s birthday and at Christmas sent via InPost locker at Mr F’s expense iv. A prohibited steps order to prevent Mr F from removing C from her care or the care of any third party to whom she has entrusted him (including school) v. A non-molestation order to protect both her and C for period of 5 years vi. A s91(14) order preventing Mr F from making further applications without first obtaining permission of the court, to last until C’s 16th birthday

b. The guardian Ms Long is in full agreement with Ms M’s proposed outcome.

c. Mr F i. continues to seek an order that C should divide his time equally between him and Ms M ii. has not sought to oppose the making of a s91(14) order prohibited steps order or a non-molestation order.

My involvement

[19]It is appropriate to set out that it is also Mr F’s position that I should not deal with his case but should recuse myself. He sets out his reasons in an email to the parents’ solicitors dated 27 March 2026. In short he saysa. When I was a solicitor one of his former partners also worked for my firm

b. I witnessed his drunken behaviour to that person at a social event

c. He has fitted a bathroom in one of my previous properties and for a property apparently owned by my parents

d. He has “partied” with me in a flat in Truro. Initially he said “I can go into greater details if required?”.

[20]Subsequently he sent an email (not in the bundle) to the court dated 9 April 2026 in which he states as follows:

“Some years ago I met with Judge Stone at a flat in [Cornwall]. Judge Stone and I engaged in activities of a sexual nature whilst this took place Mr Stone was wearing full attire of ladies lingerie and highlighted with a full face of makeup! I have not wanted to disclose this information as it’s of a very personal nature but Judge Stone has not been honest and recused himself from this family court case.”

[21]My first involvement with the parties was in case no TR20P00805, and I have dealt with this case exclusively since the summer of last year. At no time previously has he sought to suggest that I am unable to deal with this matter.

[22]I have considered all he says. There is no reason for me to recuse myself and I have not done so.

The written evidence

[23]The court bundle runs to 620 pages. Whilst I have read it all, the key documents area. the parents’ statements

b. Ms Long’s section 7 report and subsequent guardian’s reports

c. The expert psychological report of Dr McCormack, which I have summarised above.

d. Some screenshots of Facebook messages filed by Mr F

The evidence heard

[24]I heard evidence from Mr F, Ms M and the guardian Ms Long. Ms Long has filed a complaint with the Police that Mr F is harassing her. I therefore appointed a Qualified Legal Representative to ask questions on behalf of Mr F of both Ms M and (unusually) Ms Long. Ms Long was unwilling to be in the same room as Mr F and she therefore gave her evidence remotely.

[25]Mr F told me as follows:a. He has not sought to challenge Dr McCormack’s report because it “seemed completely nihilistic” and “futile” to do so. Dr McCormack is not qualified to use words like “bi-polar”. She was “touting for work”. She did not mention in her report one thing that he told her during their interview. He was told by me or by the guardian’s solicitor Ms Clixby that we had to get Dr McCormack paid for other jobs. She was not independent.

b. Ms Long tried to edit Dr McCormack’s report. Where Dr McCormack states that he has been involved in a pattern of post separation abuse, he wonders whether that has been finessed by Ms Long. He has great issues with the report. That said, he is not saying that there are not some things in the report that have a factual basis.

c. Where Dr McCormack says that he has traits of paranoia, mistrust and suspiciousness, that is “nature/nurture” because he has been “gang-stalked”.

d. The section 7 report was “called out” by District Judge Taylor and the “highest judge in Cornwall” (HHJ Richards) who refused Ms M’s permission to appeal. The appeal failed because the contact had to remain for “continuity”. District Judge Stone then took the contact away knowing that he was breaching Mr F’s Article 8 rights. The report is draconian and biased.

e. His previous convictions for battery have been adjudicated upon and cannot be brought up time and time again. It is illegal to do so.

f. The guardian Ms Long smashed the glass in Ms M’s front door in 2015 and if C had been crawling behind the door he could have been hurt. He has spoken to a couple of witnesses who confirmed it took place. He has known it was Ms Long who did it since she accosted him in [a] club in 2017.

g. Ms Long owes Ms M “a debt of gratitude” because Ms Long smashed her door in and Ms M did not prosecute her. She has “skin in the game”. He was present when Ms Long gave Ms M a letter asking Ms M to forgive her and saying that she was about to become a social worker. Ms Long had been a head teacher at the school C now attends and had been sacked through drink driving.

h. He does not accept that the things said in the section 7 report are true because the report is “completely biased” because of the debt of gratitude. Ms Long literally creates as she speaks (ie makes things up). C has been controlled and manipulated by Ms Long and Ms M, who are projecting their own agendas. Ms Long has a “nefarious agenda” and C is suffering for it.

i. “A certain person” (presumably me as judge) has not listened to a word C said because he is not convinced they are his words. The suggestion that C was frightened to stay at his house has been “fabricated” by Ms M and Ms Long. Ms Long has lied “from the get go”. She has “come in to repay Ms M for her crime”. Ms Long has “taken no accountability for what she did in 2015. She has destroyed this little boy’s life, my life and my parents’ life. It’s disgusting”. Ms Long refuses to be accountable. Ms Long should stop taking recreational drugs and drinking and look after her own kids.

j. Ms M will not “share” C. It is C’s absolute article 8 rights to have a relationship with him. Ms M should have told him out of common courtesy that she intended to take him on holiday. Ms M is obsessed with him and is “always projecting”.

k. He has accused Ms M of being drunk because he is a former alcoholic himself and knows the signs: she was sweaty and quick to argue. He however is now 10 years sober and “there are other people here who could benefit from being sober and not sleeping around”. (I was not sure which of the people in the room he was specifically referring to). He thinks Ms M has used alcohol as a lot of people do and she was drunk on some occasions. “I suggest certain people should come to an AA meeting with me”.

l. Ms M needs to take responsibility for sitting C down and asking him questions about his time with his father. Any conflict C experiences is likely to be because of the anxious environment he lives in with Ms

m. M. Ms M is being “very manipulative” and not sharing her medical and psychological problems but “we have to move forward”. He himself is “the change I needed to be”. m. He has set up a new Facebook profile under the name of [F].

n. His brother has contacted Ms M out of the blue and sent her a link to a Fathers’ Rights video, but “I am not my brother’s keeper”; and Ms Long knows him and has been drinking with him over the years. They are great friends and probably doing recreational drugs together.

o. The case is a conspiracy:

“a solicitor repeats it and another solicitor repeats it. That’s how the justice system works”

. His previous solicitor Ms Blanks told him that Ms M and Ms Long had got one of her previous clients a very favourable outcome. p. He does not know why he asked someone calling herself [X] on Facebook if she knew me and what my hobbies were – “it seems a little weird”. He asked that question after his life was threatened. He has a lot of conflict with me. It was not [X], but Ms Long who had hacked someone’s Facebook account. q. He has asked Ms Long where she lives and checked her Linked In profile because he wanted to know “the true narrative”. He “bumped into” one of her colleagues in a park, who screwed her face up at the mention of Ms Long and said “don’t piss them off” – just do what they say. r. He did not want to see C for 9 months. (That surprised me, but it then appeared that he was simply being sarcastic.) He thinks that indirect contact twice per year would be “fantastic”, before confirming that he was again being sarcastic.

[26]His evidence indicated that he has a fixed set of views without any factual basis that lead him to consider that there is a conspiracy against him. He was evasive, often answering a question with a question. He frequently deflected answers to questions that raised criticisms of his conduct by raising criticisms of other people involved in the case. For example, asked about his own drinking, he set out his beliefs about Ms M’s use of alcohol. Asked about sharing details of a court order with C he said that it was inappropriate for Ms M to tell the school that C had a medical examination when he did not. He expressed his views concerning the quality or relevance of some of the questions asked, rather than answering them.

[27]He demonstrated an almost total lack of insight into the impression that he was giving but on terms of his evidence itself, and also the impression he gave as a witness. That impression was that he was overbearing, evasive, dogmatic and relying on illogical and fantastical conspiracy theories to avoid accepting any responsibility for the current situation.

[28]Ms M told me as follows:a. Mr F recently attended a school parents’ evening, which he insisted on attending in person, despite having been offered remote attendance.

b. He has approached one of her neighbours to ask for a witness statement about Ms Long smashing her front door in 2015

c. In 2015 her front door was smashed, but not by Ms Long. It was by a woman unknown to her called [R].

d. Mr F has been controlling since separation. He would not permit C to bring home from his house any clothes or toys and she would have to buy duplicates for C to play with at home. Over the years she felt that she had to agree to contact moving forward, but she did not really agree with it. She accepts that Mr F may have stopped drinking since 2017, but some of his behaviours were similar to those when he was drinking. Her concerns have grown over the last few years. She had phoned MARU for advice. C would return home agitated. She was going to make an application to court herself to reduce contact, but Mr F issued his application in any event.

e. She does not feel safe and C does not feel safe. When Mr F does not get what he wants he becomes “heightened”. She does not feel safe around him “full-stop”. As a result she does not believe it is best for C to spend time with him. Contact was not benefitting C.

f. Since contact stopped C has been much happier and “less slumped”. He is more engage and chatty. His teacher has commented on the difference. C no longer calls her a “drunk”.

g. She works as an advocate for people involved in court proceedings. She had heard Ms Long’s name before this set of proceedings, but never met her. They had not worked together. She has not worked with Mr F’s previous solicitor.

h. Her experience of Mr F is that he is paranoid, suspicious and mistrustful. Mr F says that she drinks. She is “not a big drinker”. His behaviour was worse when he was drinking, but displayed the same characteristics when not.

[29]Ms M was an entirely straightforward witness. She is clearly exasperated at Mr F’s approach and the set of beliefs he puts forward. She was child-focussed and could explain cogently how and why she no longer believes that C should spend time with his father.

[30]Ms Long told me as follows:a. She supports Ms M’s proposed outcome.

b. She is concerned that Mr F has been stalking her – going to the village where she lives and making inappropriate references to her own children and to her cousin. He has tried to add the husband of a colleague as a friend on Facebook. She believes his intention was to name-drop and intimidate her.

c. Mr F wrote a complaint to Cafcass. The outcome is that he has been prohibited from filing further complaints.

d. Mr F’s narrative (that she was a head teacher who lost her job for drink driving; smashed up Ms M’s door with a baseball bat and owes Ms M a debt of gratitude) is not true: she has never worked in education. She has never been arrested. She qualified as a social worker in 2013, 2 years before the door incident. She had not met Ms M before her involvement in this case. His version is “his paranoia and delusional beliefs playing out”.

e. She has a number of safeguarding concerns for C around spending time with Mr F including coercion and control and C being put under pressure to say what Mr F wants.

f. A non-molestation order for the protection of Ms M and C is “absolutely necessary”.

g. A no-contact order is necessary together with a 91(14) order until C is 16 years old.

[31]Ms Long is a professional witness and an experienced Cafcass officer. The fact that she felt unable to give evidence from court in the same room as Mr F is of itself telling.

Factual findings

[32]I do not need to make many factual findings, but in the unusual context of this case it is helpful if I make some. Where Mr F makes allegations he bears the burden of proving them to the civil standard – ie whether it is more likely than not that things happened as he says.

[33]The allegations he makes about Ms Long and Ms M are inherently unlikely. There is not one shred of evidence to support them. Both Ms Long and Ms M say that they are untrue and I believe them.

[34]I find it is more likely than not (and to some considerable degree) thata. Ms Long was not a head teacher

b. She did not lose her job for drink driving

c. She did not smash Ms M’s door with a baseball bat (or at all)

d. She did not write a letter to Ms M pleading not to be prosecuted because she was hoping to qualify as a social worker. In fact at the time of the incident in 2015 she was already a social worker.

e. She did not owe Ms M a debt of gratitude

f. She did not know Ms M before her involvement in this case

g. Ms M had previously heard Ms Long’s name in connection with her role as an advocate but had not met with her or worked with her

[35]It follows that Mr F’s factual assertions are, as Ms Long said in her evidence, “his paranoia and delusional beliefs playing out”. The allegations therefore tell me nothing about Ms M or Ms Long, and tell me that Mr F continues to create his own fictions about those involved in these proceedings, and use them to justify his position.

Dr McCormack’s evidence

[36]As set out above, Dr McCormack’s evidence is not challenged. I am entitled simply to take it at face value.

[37]However, Mr F’s evidence illustrated Dr McCormack’s opinion and confirmed that she is correct when she says thata. Mr F demonstrates traits of paranoia, mistrust, and suspiciousness

b. Mr F has a ruminative, obsessional thinking style and he demonstrates difficulty with reality testing his thoughts and assumptions, relying heavily on confirmation bias to interpret information in a way that corroborates his existing views.

c. he has engaged in a pattern of behaviour indicative of post-separation abuse

d. he remains a continuing risk to both C and Miss M

e. C has suffered emotional harm as a result of his exposure to ongoing contact with Mr F

f. even supervised contact that was not supervised under certain conditions, would be detrimental to C to a degree that would be emotionally and psychologically harmful

The law

[38]C’s welfare is my paramount consideration pursuant to section 1(1) Children Act 1989. There is a presumption at section 1(2A) of Children Act that C’s welfare will be furthered by the involvement of both of his parents in his life unless the contrary is shown.

[39]C’s Article 8 Rights to respect of private and family life are fully engaged, as are those of his parents.

[40]Section 1(3) Children Act 1989 provides a helpful checklist to ensure that I carry out a holistic assessment of C’s welfare needs when considering the applications for a child arrangements order, prohibited steps order and order under section 91(14) Children Act 1989.a. the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding); C is aged 11 and therefore of an age where his ascertainable wishes should carry some weight. He told Ms Long in the section 7 report that he wanted to spend more time with Mr F. He told her that his father had said it would benefit him but he was unable to explain what that meant. He blamed Ms M for not enabling him to see more of his dad. Ms Long considered that his view was inappropriately influenced by Mr F. C told Dr McCormack that he wanted his care to be “fair” and “shared”, but would not be drawn on what he really wants. Dr McCormack identified that his verbal expression of his wishes was in contrast to the results of psychological testing, which reflected a presentation in keeping with a child who has been subjected to Mr F’s attempts to actively manipulate his perception of his mother through psychological coercion. It follows that C’s ascertainable wishes and feelings are not those that he verbalises: he says what Mr F wants him to say. Rather, he is conflicted and internalises that conflict. It is telling that C’s school have reported (as has Ms M) that he has been a much happier and more open child since contact ceased. I suspect that C’s true wishes and feelings are that he would like to have a relationship with both of his parents, but not one that exposes him to undue influence and coercion; and that from his point of view not seeing Mr F is better than spending time with him under those circumstances.

b. his physical, emotional and educational needs; The focus is C’s emotional need to have a positive and nurturing relationship with each parent. He needs emotional permission from each parent to enjoy a positive relationship with the other and to form secure relationships with his care givers. That need is heightened because (as Dr McCormack states) C “has experienced his father as being poorly attuned to his needs, self-focused and reactive. Similarly, he will have experienced his father as emotionally and behaviourally dysregulated and reliant on maladaptive coping strategies for stress and distress, as well as a threat towards his primary caregiver (through domestic abuse). I am concerned that the security afforded to C through the paternal relationship has been further undermined by C’s continued exposure to Mr F’s poor functioning, concerning belief system and controlling and coercive behaviour aimed at perpetrating post-separation abuse towards Miss M.”

c. the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances; The change proposed by Mr F is for contact to be restarted and increased. If contact were restarted then the impact on C would be significant. It would once again expose him to Mr F’s enduring fabricated narratives which are critical of C’s mother, and to the coercive pressure Mr F applies. Dr McCormack states that it would once again expose him to “relational trauma, disruption of his primary attachment relationship and emotional harm.” To increase contact would increase C’s exposure to that emotional harm.

d. his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant; There is little to add under this heading that is not considered elsewhere.

e. any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering; Dr McCormack states that C has suffered significant emotional harm because of Mr F’s behaviours which “pose multiple risk to C”. She explains how Mr F has exposed C to domestic abuse and post-separation abuse; that Mr F is self-preoccupied and unable to meet C’s emotional needs; and that his distorted perceptions, paranoia and mistrustful belief system place C at risk emotionally and psychologically and may lead to his social isolation.

f. How capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs; There are no concerns about Ms M’s ability to meet C’s needs. There are significant concerns about Mr F’s ability to do so. Dr McCormack states that his “lack of insight into his areas of difficulty, poor emotional and behavioural regulation and fixed, obsessional thinking style will interfere greatly with his capacity to understand and respond to C’s needs or to provide calm, secure, and well-attuned care.” That accords with Mr F’s presentation in his evidence and during these proceedings.

g. The range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question. The court has a broad discretion which includes the making of an order for C to spend time with Mr F, and an order that he positively spends no time with him.

[41]When considering the application for an order pursuant to section 91(14) Children Act 1989 I must consider Section 91A(2) of the Children Act 1989

[42]S91A(2) states “The circumstances in which the court may make a section 91(14) order include, among others, where the court is satisfied that the making of an application for an order under this Act of a specified kind by any person who is to be named in the section 91(14) order would put—(a)the child concerned, or (b)another individual (“the relevant individual”), at risk of harm.”

[43]Various cases set out further considerations. I bear in mind in particular Re A (A Child) (Supervised Contact: s.91(14) Children Act 1989 Orders)

[2021] EWCA Civ 1749

in which the court stated that the jurisdiction to make an order is not limited solely to cases where a party has made excessive applications, but that it can be used as a “protective filter in the interests of children” to avoid the harm to a child that litigation can cause.

[44]Ms M also seeks a non-molestation order and is supported by Ms Long. The court has the power to make a non-molestation order in any family proceedings whether a formal application has been issued or not. The test is set out in section 42(5) Family Law Act 1996 as follows:

“In deciding whether to exercise its powers under this section and, if so, in what manner, the court shall have regard to all the circumstances including the need to secure the health, safety and well-being— (a) of the applicant; and (b )of any relevant child.”

Discussion and orders

[45]My consideration of C’s welfare leads me to the conclusion that in light of Mr F’s presentation and behaviour I cannot find a way for C safely to have a face to face relationship with him. Such an outcome is unusual, but in the context of this case the presumption in section 1(2A) of Children Act 1989 that the involvement of each of his parents in his life will further C’s welfare is displaced: to expose C to Mr F’s behaviours and beliefs will be positively harmful to C. It follows that it is necessary and proportionate to make a No Contact order that C shall spend no time with his father.

[46]The only possibility is some form of indirect contact. I have read carefully what Mr F has written and said in these proceedings. The scope for him to share inappropriate content even in indirect contact is significant. It follows that when Ms Long supports Ms M’s position that twice per year letter contact is appropriate, in my judgment she is correct. Contact will therefore be limited to letter/present contact around C’s birthday and Christmas. It will be sent by InPost locker at Mr F’s expense. Ms M will need to set up an email address which Mr F can use to let her know that an item is waiting for her. There is already in place an order that C lives with Ms M. That order remains in place.

[47]Mr F told me that he has never breached an order and that there is therefore no need for a prohibited steps order. However, he also insisted on attending C’s parents’ evening because he was entitled to do so. He will remain entitled to do so, and to attend school performances and events. His decision to insist on exercising his rights was legally correct, but a further example of his inability to take account of the emotional consequences of his actions on Ms M and on C.

[48]The result is that in my judgment a prohibited steps order is necessary in the following terms: Mr F is prohibited froma. Removing C from the care of Ms M or any third party (including school) to whom she has entrusted him

b. Attending any school event where C may be present without first providing 2 working days’ written notice to C’s school that he intends to be present. “Working days” means days when the school is open.

[49]That order will last until C is 16 years old. The intention is to provide C with peace of mind and so that if Mr F does decide to exercise his right to attend a school function, the school is able to alert Ms M and consider what steps may be required to avoid putting C in a difficult position.

[50]I have thought carefully about the need for a non-molestation order. Ms M does not allege that Mr F has used or threatened violence or that he has been abusive during the course of these proceedings. However, those behaviours are not necessary requirements for the making of a non-molestation order. “Molestation” is quite deliberately not defined. The President of the Family Division produced Guidance at the start of this year that reminds courts that their “approach must be informed by a modern understanding of domestic abuse, including the definition set out at s 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 with its specific reference to controlling or coercive behaviour and psychological, emotional or economic abuse.”

[51]That concern arises from Mr F’s obsessive behaviour as a result of which Ms M is frightened of him. Likewise, Ms Long – an experienced Cafcass officer - is frightened of him to the extent that she would not attend court in person. It is not the case that Mr F simply believes the unbelievable; it is that it leads him to involve others. For example, he has spoken to Ms M’s neighbour; he has clearly been digging for information on Ms Long and using it in a way that I can only describe as a veiled threat. The result is that it is menacing behaviour. Mr F lacks insight into the inappropriateness of that behaviour and its effects. I am in no doubt that Mr F’s long term fabrication of false narratives about Ms M is psychologically and emotionally abusive of her.

[52]Ms Long told me that in her view a non-molestation order is “absolutely necessary”. On balance I agree. I intend to make a non-molestation order that Mr F must nota. Use or threaten violence against Ms M or C

b. Be abusive to Ms M or engage in any conduct calculated to intimidate her

c. Telephone, text, email, message via social media or otherwise contact or attempt to contact Ms M or C except pursuant to a child arrangements order

d. Go to or enter any place where Ms M lives or is staying or visiting or working.

e. Create any online persona, which has, fully or partly, as its goal, to impersonate, harass or stalk Ms M or C or to encourage or trick Ms M or C into engaging with this persona

f. Publish, post, share, send, upload to any site accessible to others, or otherwise make available any image of Ms M or C or any information regarding them

[53]That order will last until C’s 16th birthday at 4pm.

[54]It is clear that C’s welfare demands an order pursuant to s91(14) to prevent Mr F making further applications for a child arrangements order without first obtaining the permission of the court. This is not a case where I consider that Mr F has made excessive applications: for the most part his previous applications were successful and must therefore have been appropriate. However, C has been subject to proceedings for many years. There must be a risk that Mr F will issue further proceedings because doubtless he will not agree with my findings, which are contrary to his long-held position. It follows that C requires the insulation from further proceedings that a 91(14) order provides. Dr McCormack has concluded that even supervised contact that was not supervised under certain conditions, would be detrimental to C to a degree that would be emotionally and psychologically harmful. In the same way, exposure to further court proceedings is also harmful to C and he must be insulated from that for a period of time. The appropriate period is until his 16th birthday. Whilst that necessarily impinges on Mr F’s Article 6 & 8 rights, in my judgment it is a necessary and proportionate step because C’s welfare demands it. I remind myself that such an order does not prevent Mr F from seeking further orders from the court, but does require him to obtain permission before doing so. I anticipate that in order to obtain such permission he would need to demonstrate that he has successfully addressed the concerning behaviours identified by Dr McCormack.

[55]Finally, I give permission for a copy of the orders made to be shared with any school which C attends. Further, a copy of the judgment, psychological assessment and bundle index may be released to Devon and Cornwall Police who continue to investigate allegations regarding Mr F’s behaviour towards Ms Long. The professionals involved in this case (counsel and Ms Long) have permission to release a copy of this judgment to any professional body to whom Mr F makes a complaint regarding their conduct in these proceedings. District Judge Stone 10 June 2026