A v B & Ors [2026] EWFC 191 (B)

Case No BH25P00154[2026] EWFC 191 (B)
IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT COVENTRY
Date 9 June 2026
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
Coventry Combined Court
Much Park Street
Coventry
Before
DISTRICT JUDGE MONTANARO
Between
AApplicantBRespondentC and D2 nd& 3 rd RespondentsZ(through her Children’s Guardian)4 th Respondent
Miss Paskins instructed by MSB solicitors for Applicant MotherMr Wraight instructed by Kundert Solicitors for 1 st and 2 nd Respondent Special Guardian’sMr Duncan instructed by Willsons Solicitors for 3 rd Respondent Child through their Children’s GuardianHearing Hearing dates: 6 th- 8 th May 2026. Judgment 9 June 2026
JUDGMENT
[1]On 30 June 2023 (‘the Judge’) made a special guardianship order in respect of Z to C and D (‘the special guardians’) who are also the child’s paternal family members. Alongside that order the Judge also made a child arrangements order to A (‘the mother’) and B (‘the father’) for professional supervised contact at a contact centre no more than three times per year. In addition, the Judge made an order under s.91(14) children act 1989 preventing any applications in relation to the child until 30 June 2026. The Judge also made protective orders including prohibited steps orders and non-molestation injunction orders, against the mother and father.[2]For reasons that are disputed the contact never took place and ultimately on 26 February 2025 the mother applied for a child arrangements order, and permission to make that application. On 17 September 2025 I gave mother permission to apply for a child arrangements order to spend time with the child. This is the final hearing of that application. There are ancillary issues and applications which also fall to be determined.[3]I wish to extend my gratitude at the outset to counsel who have been of considerable assistance to the court focusing on the real issues. Background[4]The litigation history in these and previous proceedings is extensive with a bundle of over 1430 pages. The evidence is important, I have read it, but to refer to every point in this judgment would be impossible and simply rehearsing it has been deprecated by the senior courts. I have focused on the evidence that is relevant to the issues I have to decide but have borne it all in mind when reaching my decision. To put it another way, the fact that I have not referred to a piece of evidence does not mean I have ignored it.[5]In 2020 a local authority P commenced proceedings in respect of five children of the mother, including Y and Z. The children were of a spectrum of ages. By final hearing in 2021, two were placed in the care of their father (not B), Y was placed in foster care, and Z was placed under a care order with the special guardians although they were at that stage essentially family foster carers. Mother’s contact with Z was to be supervised for four hours monthly in the community.[6]During those proceedings there were two lengthy judgments produced by a Recorder (‘the Recorder’). The first was following a fact-find hearing and sadly the Recorder made findings that the mother was subjected to serious domestic abuse by her then husband, the father of all the children apart from Z, but also domestic abuse from B. The Recorder said “Even by the standards of public law care proceedings, this is an exceptionally sad case with a particularly unhappy history…According to the evidence and my previous findings, the children’s mother… has suffered terribly and it is clear that the cumulative effect of numerous traumatic life experiences upon her, psychologically and emotionally, has been profound. Anyone fully acquainted with the facts of the case would naturally feel sympathy for her…”[7]On 14 February 2022 the mother made application for contact with Z, but this was expanded upon during the proceedings to include an application to discharge the care orders in respect of Z and Y. The special guardians, as they became, sought for Z to remain with them under a special guardianship order.[8]It was broadly accepted that Y’s experiences in foster care had not been positive at the point of those proceedings. The Judge recorded that it was clear on meeting her that she wanted to go home. To his surprise however, mother withdrew her applications in respect of Y for both a discharge of the care order and s.34 order.[9]The Judge concluded in his judgment on 30 June 2023 that there should be a special guardianship order, the mother should have supervised contact three times per year and there should be a non-molestation order as against the mother. There were other ancillary prohibited steps orders made to prevent removal of Z from the special guardians care, a s.91(14) direction until 30 June 2026 and various orders as against the father – including a non-molestation order. The mother appealed and Lord Justice Baker refused permission on 20 December 2023.[10]In respect of Y the care order was discharged on 3 February 2025 following further proceedings. Y was by that stage over 16 (rising 17), and whilst it seems clear to me that whilst there were concerns by the professionals about mother (which she does not accept) on balance they concluded that it was in Y’s welfare interests to be with the mother, and there were positive observations about mother’s care.[11]Mother made this application for which she needed permission to bring proceedings in respect of Z, on 26 February 2025. The proceedings although reserved to the Judge were reallocated to this court on 9 April 2025 and have been reserved to me throughout.[12]I appointed a Guardian and gave directions on 9 May 2025 to a permission hearing on 23 July. There was a direction requiring mother to obtain papers from the proceedings concerning Y which has proven controversial.[13]At the hearing on 23 July 2025, I gave various directions to progress the application for permission, there being substantial problems with the documents and compliance with directions, thus the permission application was listed for determination on 17 September 2025.[14]At the permission hearing all the parties and the local authority P opposed the mother having permission. I gave judgment giving permission and do not intend to repeat it fully. It is sufficient to say that it seemed to me that it was in the interests of justice for the mother to be allowed to pursue her application for a spend time with order. In simple terms the child arrangements order for her to spend time with Z was not capable of being enforced because of the way it was expressed as a maximum of 3 times per year, and if no contact took place at all that was still compliant with it. To have shut the door for mother would have left her with no avenue to pursue contact in circumstances where it appeared to me that the Judge had intended that there would be contact in his judgment, and it was common ground it had not taken place.[15]On 24 October 2025 mother made application herself for an independent social work assessment on the basis that a “conflict of interest with the current allocated Cafcass officer is unavoidable”. A further, Part 25 compliant application was made on 24 November 2025 by mother’s then newly appointed solicitors following an ineffective Dispute Resolution Appointment (‘DRA’) on 13 November 2025.[16]At a DRA on 28 November 2025 directions were given for the special guardians to make any application for an injunction order, the Part 25 application was listed for final hearing, an addendum report from the Guardian was directed along with other case management directions to a pre-trial review (‘PTR’) listed on 6 February 2026 with final hearing on 5-6 March.[17]On 28 January I gave permission for the special guardians to file a bundle of exhibits which was to include the three-monthly updates it had been agreed in the previous proceedings would be sent to both parents, but which did not form part of the final order. Regrettably what was filed appears to have been incomplete and I shall refer to this issue later.[18]The PTR on 6 February was largely ineffective as the mother dispensed with counsel shortly before the hearing, there was no-one available from the solicitor’s office to represent her, and mother was also unwell.[19]On 14 January mother obtained a without notice non-molestation order against C.[20]There was a PTR on 25 February. Prior to that the Guardian had applied for disclosure from the local authority Q as she understood that a referral had been made to them in relation to Z. At the PTR it became clear that this information would not be able to be obtained and properly considered before the listed final hearing, and there were further case management directions necessary including in respect of the non-molestation proceedings. A further PTR was listed on 24 April (later adjourned to 27 April) ahead of a final hearing on 6-8 May.[21]At the PTR on 27 April, it was decided the special guardians would attend remotely on day one and their attendance be reviewed thereafter. The witness template was to be finalised by 5 May as only counsel for the child present was the trial advocate, but was, I was told, in circulation between the advocates. There were issues with the bundle and directions were given for that to be resolved and filed and served by 1 May. The final hearing was heard on 6 and 7 May, with closing submissions in writing to be prepared on 8 May for filing at 10:00am on 11 May. Mothers were received late; I take no issue with that. Issues for this hearing[22]In short summary the issues for the court to determine are:a. Is it necessary for an independent social worker (‘ISW’) to be instructed to carry out an assessment of mother.b. Should the mother be allowed to spend time with the child. If so, what should those arrangements be.c. Whether the s.91(14) children act 1989 direction should be discharged or extended.d. Whether the non-molestation order obtained by the mother without notice against D should continue until 14 July 2026 when it is due to expire, be extended (if so for how long), or be discharged.e. Whether there should be a non-molestation order against the mother in favour of the special guardians. Parties positions[23]Mother: The mother is clear in her three statements to the court that the special guardians have frustrated her relationship with the child, and that of her half-sibling Y, but conversely have allowed the father to have contact despite him having been found to have perpetrated domestic abuse towards her and his drugs misuse – something she says he was introduced to by C. She also says that what she has obtained from father also enabled her to trace the child’s school and that she contacted the school but was prevented by the special guardians from having access to information. Mother says that she made considerable efforts to arrange contact as envisaged under the child arrangements order at a contact centre, but the special guardians did not respond, nor did she receive any updates in respect of the child. Mother says this extended to maternal family members and her own father had to bring proceedings for child arrangements to be resolved due to the behaviour of the special guardians. Mother says that when she last spoke to Z in August 2024, Z did not seem to think she was still alive but does not accept Z does not ‘know her’.[24]Returning to Z’s school, mother says that she had a conversation with the headteacher of approximately an hour and that it was agreed they would do some work around the child’s identity and family. There was agreement to a termly update which she says was withdrawn at the request of the special guardians.[25]Mother says that she has undertaken CAT therapy of 16 sessions in 2022 and EMDR in January 2024 over 16 sessions. This is alongside other therapy through the Freedom Programme, Forever Free, CRASAC and Haven.[26]Mother does not consider that contact in a contact centre would be safe for her as a victim of domestic abuse however she is willing to attend a contact centre for one contact, then a further two professionally supervised contact sessions in the community, followed by contact supervised by her father for three sessions before a review. The mother’s hope and expectations are that contact could progress to unsupervised and eventually build up to staying contact in the school holidays. Mother has quite properly set out her proposals but it’s clear to me that really her primary aim is to see Z and having listened to her, in my judgment, she would most likely welcome any arrangements that would enable her to do that.[27]During her evidence Mother explained that she did not consider she could make a C79 application in respect of the child arrangements order, nor vary it but she was aware she could apply on FC600 for the special guardians committal to prison. She said that she hoped this would be a catalyst for the resumption of contact.[28]Father: The father has not engaged with the proceedings in any way despite having notice of them. Appended to a statement of mother is an unsigned typed statement said to be from him. Given it is unsigned and his lack of engagement, I treat it with appropriate caution, but he alleges he has been cut off by C and that he is also not having his time with the child. He says that the child deserves to see the parents, that she should see mother and siblings, and that if he had to start again in a contact centre, he is willing to do that. Mother observes that there is no need for him to engage with the proceedings as he is seeing the child. This contrasts with his position in the letter and the evidence of the special guardians. Ultimately however, there is no application before the court by him for any order.[29]The Children’s Guardian: the Guardian has filed two analyses with the court. In the first the Guardian said that mother had declined to meet with her which became the subject of dispute. With some intervention from me, that did occur and even though there remains dispute over the meeting, the mother’s views were incorporated into the addendum.[30]The Guardian spoke with the special guardians, school and met with Z. She expressed concerns that the reporting of the special guardians to professionals their worries about how this might impact Z was having an impact on their emotional wellbeing, and feelings that they were being harassed indirectly.[31]Analysing all the evidence the Guardian does not consider that the mother should spend time with Z. She observed that Z does not now know mother and is worried that mother does not support the special guardians caring for her. She said “my concern is (mother) appears to be persistent in her wish to undermine Z’s placement and I have no confidence that even in a supervised environment, (mother) would not communicate these views to Z.” There were no safety measures the Guardian could identify to enable mother to spend positive time with Z that would not disrupt her stability and care arrangements – both direct and indirect. The Guardian described her own challenges with mother although recognised that the mother has been assessed positively in respect of Y.[32]The Guardian considered that there should be a non-molestation order to prevent mother contacting the special guardians until Z is 16 and a s.91(14) direction for the same duration. The Guardian considered that there should be three-monthly updates to an agreed email address. Evidence[33]I heard evidence from the mother, a social worker at the local authority Q, the special guardians and the children’s guardian. I have received written closing submissions from all parties. The Law[34]The standard to which the parties must satisfy the court of their allegations is the simple balance of probabilities. The inherent probability or improbability of an event remains a matter to be taken into account when weighing probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred (Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35).[35]If the court finds something has happened on the balance of probabilities, then the court proceeds on the basis that the thing alleged happened. If the court does not make a finding that something has happened on the balance of probabilities, then it will proceed on the basis of that thing having not happened.[36]Findings of fact must be based on evidence, and the inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence, and not on speculation or suspicion. The decision about whether the facts in issue have been proved to the requisite standard must be based on all the available evidence and should have regard to the wide context of social, emotional, ethical and moral factors.[37]The Court must have regard to the totality of the evidence, the wide canvass, and the width of the range of facts.[38]I must bear in mind the overriding objective within rule 1 of the Family Procedure Rules when approaching this hearing.[39]The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress, and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything.[40]The child’s welfare is my paramount consideration.[41]In considering whether to make a s.8 Children Act 1989 order I should have regard to the welfare checklist under s.1(3) Children Act 1989.[42]I should only make an order if it is better than making no order at all.[43]Any order I make must be a necessary and proportionate interference in the Human Rights of the family and if there is any conflict the child’s rights come first.[44]I must have regard to Practice Direction 12J Family Procedure Rules including para 37A in terms of the making of a direction under s.91(14) Children Act 1989.[45]I consider the case law referred to me by counsel in closing submissions.[46]The application for an expert independent social work assessment is considered under s.13 Children and Families Act in conjunction with Part 25 Family Procedure Rules. Findings[47]It is clear to me for that the court to undertake the welfare analysis in this case there are certain magnetic issues upon which the court needs to make findings. A. The child arrangements order[48]The Judge clearly intended that there would be contact three monthly at a contact centre. It is unfortunate, it seems to me, that the order was worded as being no more than three times per year. The starting point for me is that the special guardians were in favour (with the local authority P) of that contact at final hearing when the then children’s guardian had said there should be none. It is clear to me that the special guardians did view this as something that should take place and there is evidence of enquiries being made with the contact centre. D described a willingness to pay for a session to move things along; I accepted that evidence. The special guardians say that the mother did not respond and the social work support dried up when the file was closed. There is an email from the then social worker that corroborates this. Mother says that she never had any emails, made extensive efforts, involved social workers and (we now understand) was of the mistaken view that the non-molestation order made by the Judge prevented her contacting the special guardians so she considered she could do no more.[49]In my judgment the special guardians did make reasonable efforts to arrange the contact envisaged within the judgment and I accepted their evidence around this issue. I do not know why mother says she did not receive the emails. I accept that it broadly would have been helpful for the local authority P to have intervened – both mother and the special guardians referred to speaking with the social worker, but it is self-evident that the situation was not resolved and the local authority P appear to have known that when the case was being closed. I am entirely satisfied that this was not an attempt by the special guardians to marginalise the mother, renege on the agreement or wilfully breach the order. In my judgment this is nothing more than an unfortunate situation where communication broke down and in the circumstances of fractured relationships and animosity, could not be resolved. The special guardians were entitled, in my judgment, to conclude they could do no more when there were no responses. The order, due to its construction, did not obligate them to facilitate contact and it seems to me that more likely than not that by the time the issue was raised again things had moved on and they were by that stage not wanting to facilitate the direct contact. This is particularly so given all that has followed those enquiries being made.[50]I do not consider it probative of obstruction that the maternal grandparents had to make their own application for contact. Notwithstanding the confidentiality issues, the welfare of the child in these proceedings is the issue, not the child’s welfare in a different situation/context. B. The three-monthly updates[51]I find and am satisfied that the special guardians did send three monthly updates (or thereabouts) to the mother and the father by email. I do not know why they mother says these were not received. I do not consider it necessary or proportionate to strive to find a reason why. It is sufficient for the welfare determinations I need to make that I am satisfied that they were sent, I accepted the evidence of the special guardians on this issue, and I am entirely satisfied that that they were being honest about this, and that there has not been some attempt to mislead the court by way of doctoring the forwarded emails or otherwise. It is great pity that the updates were not received by mother, for whatever reason, but again the impact of the communication breakdown coupled with mother believing she could not contact the special guardians has contributed to the lack of resolution to the problem. C. Mother’s conduct

The Judge said in 2023:

[52]“I have completely failed to control or be able to contain the mother, and I am very sorry that that has been the result. She has sworn in my court room, she has spoken when advocates are trying to address me, she has refused to answer questions. She has been abusive to (C and D), and as I said, she called my usher, without prompting, "you're a fucking ugly aging twat, who thinks she's better than the rest of us".[53]I regret that my experience was entirely as the Judge, and it seems also the Recorder. Mother was entirely dysregulated, unmanageable and hostile. By way of one example, having allowed a short period of adjournment as mother was refusing to answer questions in relation to domestic abuse, she said to counsel for C and D on her return, “You are literally fucking evil.” Mother referred to a High Court judge by first name and surname, and indeed the Judge variously by first name and surname, or surname alone. Mother proffered that she was much worse at the last hearing than at this hearing. She said on several occasions that she had called the Judge “a bald prick who probably fucks kids.” That was something volunteered by the mother and it was not something that was within the papers. She showed no remorse about it and how appalling it was to say that about anyone, not least a Judge. Mother gave long-winded answers to questions much of which was largely irrelevant, if there was an answer at all; she spoke over counsel and me. She turned to the screen where the special guardians were attending remotely on several occasions when dealing with evidence relating to them. Every attempt by me and counsel to calm the situation was unsuccessful, it was impossible to manage. Muttering under her breath the mother said about me, “you are so bias.” I am abundantly clear mother was totally unable to control her emotions; it was as if a red mist descended and the outcome frightening, wholly unacceptable and completely exhausting.[54]I do not accept that mother’s behaviour could be explained entirely by the fact that she thought she was giving evidence on the last day of the hearing (I refer to this later), or explainable by past experiences of the family justice system/the challenges of giving evidence generally.[55]Within Q local authority disclosure was a note of a telephone call between the mother and a social worker on 28 November 2024. It is not necessary to repeat the note as in fact the call was recorded and whilst I have not listened to it the following is an agreed excerpt:
“The judge has wrapped me up in red tape because he is a dickhead, because basically, I mean he’s a dickhead but he’s stupid, because I’ve found out where his club is and I’ve joined it, so for me to have a conflict of interest I can get rid of him. But long story short, I might stay with him at the minute because I’m thinking, ok next week on the 3rd, he’s got the FC600 regarding (a former partner) … if it doesn’t look like it’s going my way, I’m pulling the (club) card and going, well we’re part of the same club so there’s a conflict.”
[56]The mother within her evidence said she joined the club first, and the club worked out well as a half-way point. She says that having joined the club she received an email either from the Judge or by reference to him (I was not entirely clear which), and that she had already paid her fees by this stage. It was at that point, she said, that the conflict point came to her.[57]In my judgment, the correct account is the account that was given to the social worker. At that stage she thought she was talking to someone receptive to her concerns, at the very least, about the special guardians allowing what she believed to be unfettered contact with the father raising safeguarding concerns. Later, having realised the impact upon her case, the mother has lied to create the impression that this was all a coincidence. What mother completely fails to even realise is that on her own evidence, which I do not accept, her actions in trying to generate what she sees as a conflict, on any basis, amounts quite simply to harassment of a Judge who is doing nothing more than serving the public in accordance with his judicial oath. Moreover, and remarkably, mother has raised issue about the impact upon her of the police involvement that followed. She blames C for this however the evidence given by C, which I accept, is that was a result of her referring the case to the court local to the Judge which is something I must applaud her for doing. D. Domestic Abuse[58]Allegations of abuse by D to mother: The mother having already been found to have been the victim of domestic abuse in a previous relationship, and her lived experiences including being separated at stages from her children and having lost children; the receipt of messages in October 2025 and January 2026 referring to all of that in such a vile way would I am certain have been particularly upsetting. I am satisfied, and it seems to me to be entirely agreed, that those messages were a form of abuse.[59]D accepted the message where she described mother as a “ginger cunt” to the father. It was clear she was uncomfortable about that. There was reference in another message to “…I will see the bitch in court”. Of course this is inappropriate, but it must be acknowledged that these messages were not sent to mother (and more likely than not never intended for her), in the context at least in one of them, of D’s belief that the mother had been telling the police that father was living with her and C and they had attended at the special guardians property looking for him. I do not accept they amount to threats to mother.[60]I accepted D’s evidence that she did not send the other particularly vile messages. Unlike the others they appear to come from a telephone number not attributed to D in mother’s telephone. They were sent, on mother’s case, in October 2025 and January 2026, and permission for these proceedings had been given in September. I cannot see that some loose proximity to these proceedings is probative that they were sent by D, nor the simple fact that the police are investigating them. I note in the injunction application mother says one of the messages was sent on the day of the hearing on 13 November 2025 but in the annotated messages she says it was 30 October 2025. I found D’s evidence to be compelling; she described them as awful and understood the impact on mother of receiving them. I accepted D’s evidence that she was willing to hand over all her technology, but of course it is not for her to prove her innocence, it is for the mother to prove that D sent them. I am satisfied from the evidence before this court that D did not send them, and I do not know who did.[61]Abuse by mother to the special guardians: Within the committal proceedings the mother commented that it would be in Z’s best interests for the special guardians to be sent to prison, and the allegations within those proceedings raised concerns about their honesty with the court and them preventing her contact (in summary). Then there was the mother’s evidence, which included her turning to the screen whether the special guardians were and the numerous other problems identified below. In an email to school mother said D “has continued to try to separate [Z] from her siblings” and “not everyone given residence of children are what they may seem on the surface (the death of Sarah (this should be Sara) Sharif recently highlighted this fact).” Mother emailed MASH on 4 February “…Namely thise (sic.) concerns were that Z was being prevented from seeing her maternal family despite court orders re Contact being in place…” and D “is known to have an issue with alcohol and she may have sent these messages whilst intoxicated…” I am satisfied that when considered across a broad canvas of evidence there is a pattern of controlling and coercive behaviours perpetrated by the mother towards the special guardians amounting to abuse. Fairness of the hearing[62]The closing submissions of mother appear to be something of a hybrid between counsel’s submissions and a statement by mother. That is not what closing submissions should be. The mother has within what really amounts to a statement, raised several issues broadly about fairness of the hearing, and it is right that these are briefly addressed. Taken together it seems to me that mother complains that there were insufficient participation directions having regard to her being a victim-survivor of domestic abuse with her PTSD diagnosis, that the court ought to have constrained cross-examination of her and there are various allegations in respect of opposing counsel and my own conduct. Mother alleges that the giving of evidence has caused her substantial problems particularly with her PTSD, and that she was degraded and humiliated including fearing that counsel for the special guardians would attack her in some unidentified way.[63]Mother has been represented by her present solicitors for most of the proceedings and has had experienced counsel including at the PTR and final hearing. There were in fact two PTRs prior to the final hearing and numerous directions hearings prior. Mother says she sent an email to her solicitors at the end of April (i.e. after the PTR) seeking participation directions that she gives evidence by video link and not be cross-examined by men. That is not an application and at no stage were participation directions sought from me either formally or informally. Of my own motion I directed the special guardians to attend remotely on day one when it was not known if they were giving evidence at all and then put in place screens on day two when they were attending. Mother’s own evidence is that she has had therapy, that her PTSD is managed, there is no ongoing treatment/therapy for it, and her abuser was not participating in the proceedings. There was a break in the mother’s evidence, at my urging in relation to the injunction matters, and permission given for her to have advice from counsel. No other breaks were sought, and the evidence was heard in around two hours. I have already discussed the manner of the evidence. I am reminded that mother said that she much worse at the 2023 hearing than this hearing. It is regrettable mother considers her giving of evidence impacted her mental health, but I do not accept the proposition that the hearing was unfair, or the mother was subject of abuse in the witness box by counsel or indeed me. At no point did I make any comment made regarding her PTSD. I accept fully that it is not an experience many would wish to face, however it is an important part of the process and something which mother has experienced before.[64]An additional issue is that counsel and mother have raised several concerns about their preparedness for the hearing. That can be dealt with simply: counsel was asked what the application was on day one my having already allowed time. Additional time was requested to after lunch before starting mother’s evidence, to allow her to compose herself because she believed she was giving evidence on day three (possibly having been informed she would be erroneously by lawyers), and that was given. There was no application for an adjournment. I suggested written submission to allow further time for discussion with mother, reflection and consideration. I also allowed further time for written submissions to be submitted.[65]There is one other procedural matter to address, the filing of further evidence after the oral evidence but before closing submissions. The special guardians had provided evidence of three email updates – ‘Z updates’ as they appear to be known. On their behalf it was said there were more and I was asked to allow them to be filed. I can of course manage the evidence in accordance with my powers under Part 4 Family Procedure Rules 2010. I am clear that the purpose of them being filed was only to establish a broad chronology of ‘Z updates.’ I fully accept that this was in no way probative that they were received. I did explore this with the advocates, and it was clear that there was no objection. However, and I accept this point entirely, counsel for the mother contends that the emails go far beyond that, she did not know this, and I agree. One email at least appears to reference attempts to make contact arrangements. In the circumstances, I have disregarded this further material and placed no reliance upon it – I have not even opened all the emails. That is the only fair way to deal with the issue. I rely upon the evidence only available at the start of the hearing. In saying all this there is no criticism at all of counsel for the special guardians, it is regrettable that having given permission for these Z updates to be filed in response to the much earlier C2 application, that did not happen or at least only three were provided. The application for expert assessment[66]Mother’s application for expert assessment by an Independent Social Worker (‘ISW’) is broadly based on her concerns that the Guardian had not fully involved her, that changes that had been made by her had not been properly considered by the Guardian and that she had made a complaint about the Guardian which had not been disclosed. Mother’s right to a fair hearing was stated, and I think really it was being said that the due to the gravity of the decisions the court was being asked to make it was right for them to be explored further – given the concerns about the Guardian.[67]The test is one of necessity, nothing more, nothing less. The court has the benefit of guidance as to relevant factors within s.13 children and families act. An independent assessment of mother is unlikely to impact Z’s welfare. A delay would be undesirable but is not the overriding factor. Nor is expense really a concern.[68]The real issue is whether the court has before it the evidence upon which to reach decisions. In my judgment it was always going to be about whether the Guardian’s evidence withstood scrutiny. As it was, it did, and in my judgment, there were no inherent deficiencies in the Guardian’s overall analysis. The concerns about mother’s engagement in the process were addressed through a meeting in the addendum report filed after the application was originally made. It is for me to determine the appropriate orders for Z by considering and balancing all the evidence, not just that of the Guardian. I do not consider the mother’s complaint about the Guardian to materially undermine the recommendations and complaints are part of professional life. Moreover, the Guardian’s evidence is that she only became aware of the complaint after she had filed her first analysis and when she was sent it by the mother. The complaint in large part related to an issue surrounding a C2 application prepared by the solicitor for the child rather than the Guardian herself. Even if it was wrong to say that mother had not applied for papers in other proceedings (which I do not necessarily accept) it was taken totally out of proportion by mother.[69]It seems to me that, unhappy with the Guardian’s recommendations, mother would like someone else to assess her in the hope of a better outcome – which of course is not certain on any basis. None of these matters satisfy me that it is necessary or proportionate for there to be an expert ISW assessment. I have considered whether there are any other reasons for such assessment or further assessment generally and I am entirely satisfied there are none. Accordingly, the application is refused. The welfare checklist (e) any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering;[70]I am considering this aspect of the welfare checklist first, as it is clear me that the primary issue in this case is that of risk.[71]The starting point is that in 2023

the Judge determined that:

“In respect of the mother at the start of this hearing, contact was agreed at six times a year. By the end of this hearing, and watching all that has gone on, the Guardian has reached a position of saying, in fact, there should be no contact, but the applicant and the local authority (P) are saying three, supervised.…I must say, I think we are going to get to a stage without improvement of no contact. That would not be in Z's best interest, but it may be necessary. At the moment, I accept the position of the local authority (P) and the applicant that contact should be three times a year at a contact centre, professionally supervised. The mother requires containment and boundaries and I am sorry to say, if a court cannot do it, I struggle to see how a contact centre can...”
[72]It is clear therefore that the Judge had real concerns about mother having contact and to some extent he appears to question whether a contact centre is appropriate, however it seems to me that on balance the fact that this was agreed was something he was willing to accept. Whilst there was no order it was agreed that there would also be the three-monthly updates from the special guardians.It is stark that the Guardian in those proceedings concluded by the end that there should be no contact.[73]Those proceedings were informed by assessments undertaken in both sets of proceedings.

The Judge summarised the psychological assessment of the mother in the care proceedings:

“Without such treatment, her unresolved trauma and disability levels of psychological distress will continue to interfere with her ability to consistently provide parenting care, be emotionally available, reliable or protective. What she does, he (the psychologist) said, is she blames others, she justifies her aggressive behaviour, she won't address the issues, she will deflect, she will enter relationships which are violent. She needs to address all those problems, the inability to regulate her emotions and her emotional responses, before she is in a position to manage the needs of any child.” “…the independent assessor [ISW in the care proceedings] who assessed the mother, was clear that the mother was able to provide day to day care, but she was unable to emotionally regulate and work with professionals.”
[74]Moreover, in respect of the assessment in the proceedings before him,

the Judge said:

“Within these proceedings, she (the mother) has been assessed by, an independent parenting assessor and, of course the social worker and Guardian, and I have heard her in evidence. The totality of the evidence of all professionals in respect of the mother is this. There has been no change. Indeed, things have perhaps got worse. She is stuck in the past. She has no insight or reflection… She is emotionally dysregulated. Her own needs overwhelm her. None of the benefits of therapy are being seen.”
[75]I regret to say that it appears to the Guardian, with whom I entirely agree, there has most sadly been no improvement, and the features of the previous assessments remain. The stage the Judge feared has been reached. It is not necessary for me to establish how mother became aware of Z’s school however having done so she then sought to engage the school in her grievances with the special guardians and perceived injustices. Mother sees this as doing no more than trying to be involved in Z’s life however it was not necessary for all her grievances to be shared with the school to find out more about Z. She made insinuations unnecessarily to the very sad circumstances of the death of Sara Sharif who was murdered by her father. Such was the extent of the problems the school had to cease communication with mother. There is then the referrals to the social worker. I accept that some of this related to mother’s concerns that father was spending time with Z, but again the injustices were raised and concerns about the suitability of the special guardians. As part of that the issue of the joining of the Judge’s club was raised which even now mother does not seem to see as being inappropriate.[76]There were then the committal proceedings and the mother’s observation that the special guardians probably should go to prison. It was interesting that in evidence when she was asked what would happen to the children, she rather quickly concluded that she would have had to be explored as a carer for Z at that stage. Whilst mother argues that those proceedings were necessary because the special guardians were not facilitating the contact, and the order was not capable of being enforced, the allegations went far beyond that including that they had been dishonest with the court. Whilst I fully accept much of what mother was doing could simply amount to desperate attempts to get the order to work, the stark reality is that they went far beyond that and were attempts to have the court and professionals punish the special guardians for what she perceives as injustices in previous proceedings. This includes obtaining the non-molestation order against D when there was/is no evidence she sent the vile messages.[77]In these few examples, every time the special guardians must be informed/engaged. It is clearly embarrassing to them, such that C is noted to have apologised to the social worker for having to deal with mother. The mothers conduct palpably has an impact on them, their ability to care for Z and risks the stability of the placement because they spend their lives wondering what will happen next. To use the words reported by the Guardian “they both feel on high alert waiting for the next thing to happen.”[78]There is then the manner of mother’s evidence. I have already dealt with that. It seems impossible to see how the mother would be able to communicate with the special guardians calmly and even if she were able to manage it were there to be any conflict or perception on her part she was not being treated fairly there is a significant risk that the mother’s emotions would get the better of her. It was entirely consistent with the expert evidence in the previous proceedings. Whilst I commend mother for undertaking the work she has to address her past, it was not evident that the work had proven successful, and whilst there are many endearing qualities mother has, including her work which she is proud of, the evidence is that she is unable to contain the emotions when it comes to these issues. Remarkably the special guardians expressed some sympathy towards the mother for the manner of her evidence but strikingly also about the impact the litigation has upon them and the anxiety of opening the post. C said to me that there are so many allegations made it seems impossible to respond to them all and some ‘get through’.[79]I agree with the Guardian, I am entirely satisfied that the extent of the injustices the mother feels towards her own situation, the special guardians and her inability to manage her own emotions leads to a very significant risk that the mother would even in supervised contact be unable to contain these views. In my judgment the words would be out of mother’s mouth even before she could think of the impact or anyone stop them. I regret to say that the risk to Z in that scenario, at her tender age, is simply just too great. Z is attached to her primary care givers, the special guardians, and that stability is vital, particularly given her early lived experiences and it cannot be risked when the mother has demonstrably sought to undermine the special guardians – and even send them to prison.[80]There is of course a risk of emotional harm to Z in not spending direct time with the mother. However, I am entirely satisfied that the risk of emotional harm in not having that direct time is outweighed by the risk of harm posed to the placement and to Z through having direct time for the reasons given.[81]In evidence the special guardians indicated a willingness to facilitate indirect contact, that was properly vetted by them first, three-monthly, with them continuing to send the three-monthly updates. Over and above this the special guardians also indicated they would be agreeable to a card and present on Z’s birthday and at Christmas. The Guardian supported this, subject to it being clear that the contents must be appropriate. In my judgment, it is incredible, that despite everything that has gone on, the special guardians are willing to facilitate this. It seems to me that the risks in indirect time are fundamentally different, and whilst I have some hesitations about the special guardians taking this on, I do consider that is in Z’s best interests and enables her to have a relationship with mother however the special guardians will have to act as arbiter as to what is shared. To that end, I consider it vital the mother reflect on what she is writing and utilise the Cafcass YPFJB guide to indirect contact.[82]I must, it seems to me, deal with the issue of risks from the father. He has not participated in these proceedings and proceedings historically. Mother raises serious concerns about him which appeared to me to be broadly accepted by the special guardians. C said they had not heard from him since October of 2025 and described his as a “drug user, drives without a licence, aggressive, a bully and a narcissist.” He is found to have perpetrated domestic abuse upon mother. The Judge said, “He clearly makes very significant threats and also had been, during this hearing, sending messages and communicating with her that is winding the mother up.” It is clear there has been some level of communication, and indeed mother’s own evidence is she has gone to father to obtain updates/indirect contact. She has even paid for this because she was not receiving them. However, it is not necessary or proportionate for this application to make findings about what has gone on with the father. To put it another way, even if the special guardians were facilitating some level of contact it would not be relevant to whether the mother should have contact. The special guardians however deny that the father has any role in Z’s life, and the local authority Q have investigated the concerns. The Guardian has also been able to consider this issue. (a) the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding)[83]Z is aged 6 but has not seen her mother for about three years. The Guardian thinks she is unable to recall spending time with her mother and asked the Guardian what colour hair she has. Z told the Guardian that her “parents” were the special guardians. At Z’s age and in all the circumstances it is unsurprising that she does not express a wish to see her mother. It seems to me that I can assume that she would wish to do so if it was safe to do so and seen by adults as in her best interests.

(b) his physical, emotional and educational needs;

[84]The Guardian reports that Z is settled in the care of the special guardians and is positive about them. Z is attending school and is reported to be making good progress in year one. The Guardian notes that Z is in good health.[85]Z’s emotional needs appear to be being met in the care of the special guardians. I have already considered emotional harm to Z.

(c) the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances;

[86]The Guardian reports that Z is settled in her placement and doing well. For reasons I have already explored I am entirely satisfied that there is a significant risk of disruption to Z’s stability if direct contact were introduced. I am however satisfied that the commencement of vetted indirect contact for mother, which was considered appropriate by the special guardians is likely to pose far less of a risk of disruption and enable Z to have a better understanding of her own identity. (d) his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant;[87]Z is female and aged 6, there are no characteristics not covered elsewhere that I consider relevant. (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;[88]This is an application by mother only to spend time with Z and accordingly her primary carers, the special guardians will continue to care for her. The Guardian reports that Z speaks positively of them and there are no concerns about her care.[89]There are no concerns about the mother’s ability to meet Z’s practical care needs however the real issue is whether she can meet the emotional needs, and specifically not undermine the special guardians. For the reasons given above I am entirely satisfied that there would be a risk of emotional harm to Z directly, and to the stability of her placement through direct contact. (g) the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question.[90]The court can make no order, the full range of s.8 orders including child arrangements orders for Z to spend time with the mother both directly and indirectly. Additionally, the court can make barring orders under s.91(14) children act 1989. Decision[91]I am entirely satisfied, very sadly, that in the all the exceptional circumstances of this case, that it is not in the welfare interests of Z to spend time direct time with the mother in any way. I am satisfied that the risk of harm from the mother outweighs the risks of harm to Z of her not having a relationship with her in that way. I am however satisfied that there should be the indirect time proposed by the special guardians and agreed by the Guardian. This will establish a relationship between mother and Z whilst enabling the risks to be managed, strictly on the basis that the special guardians vet it. There is no requirement for Z to reply, or be encouraged to reply, however if she does wish to do so I am confident the special guardians will send the response to mother.[92]I have considered carefully PD12J 37A where there has been domestic abuse “the court should consider whether an order under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 would be appropriate, even if an application for such an order has not been made. Section 91(14) orders are available to protect a victim of domestic abuse where a further application would constitute or continue domestic abuse. A future application could be part of a pattern of coercive or controlling behaviour or other domestic abuse toward the victim, such that a section 91(14) order is merited due to the risk of harm to the child or other individual.” I bear in mind PD12Q and particularly the circumstances where an order may be appropriate including “where a period of respite is needed following litigation; where a period of time is needed for certain actions to be taken for the protection of the child or other person; or where a person’s conduct overall is such that an order is merited to protect the welfare of the child directly, or indirectly due to damaging effects on a parent carer.”[93]It must be right that the special guardians and to an extent Z have some respite against litigation. Mother’s conduct and the repeat litigation have impacted on the special guardians which impacts on their ability to parent Z. I was particularly struck by the litigation anxiety described by C.[94]I am satisfied therefore in all the circumstances that it is necessary and proportionate in the exceptional circumstances of this case for there to be a direction under s.91(14) Children Act 1989 until Z is 13 barring all applications for s.8 orders. Realistically if Mother can demonstrate change, then she can apply for the bar to be lifted and if following the indirect contact Z wishes to see her mother in the future there is no reason that should not happen by agreement – although I make plain, I do not say it should happen. However, this order will provide stability for Z and protect the special guardians from being disturbed by further litigation. I am aware the Guardian sought the bar until Z is 16 but at her young age and bearing in mind proportionality, I consider that would be a step too far – essentially it would prevent mother bringing any application in respect of Z without permission again. This will allow Z to transition to secondary education and by 13 she will have a good deal of independence. The injunction applications[95]I have purposely addressed these applications at the conclusion of my judgment as there are separate legal principles and it is sensible for them to be considered separately. Law[96]The law (s.42 Family Law Act 1996) in respect of the application for a non-molestation order can be simply stated: if the court is satisfied that there has been molestation of the mother and/or the special guardians, the court may grant such order as it sees fit to protect them. Discussion[97]The judge who made the without notice injunction order did so in something of a vacuum. In my judgment it would have been better for the application to be reallocated on an urgent basis to me, however the judge reached a decision on the evidence available. At a without notice hearing the court has limited time and is not making findings of fact. However, I have now done that exercise and have already found that D did not send the messages that were a key pillar of the application. Whilst unfortunate in their language, I am not satisfied that the messages D sent to father amount to molestation of the mother.[98]I am entirely satisfied that the decisions I have made in respect of mother’s relationship with Z will be of considerable disappointment to her. I also recognise that mother’s own conduct gives rise to real concerns about her ability to behave appropriately towards the special guardians, and I have found that there is a pattern of behaviour amounting to coercive and controlling behaviour towards them. The mother says that the special guardians application is an abuse of the law, but it is not clear why.[99]Whilst I entirely accept that the mother has not sought to take matters into her own hands and for example to attend at the special guardians house or the school, the evidence shows that the mother blames the special guardians for the loss of her relationship with Z. Decision[100]In all the circumstances I am entirely satisfied that:a. The non-molestation order made in favour of the mother against D should be discharged, andb. That it is necessary and proportionate for there to be a non-molestation order in favour of C and D against the mother for a period of two years in the now usual terms that the mother should not contact them (save for the indirect contact), attend at their home or Z’s school. I consider this to be a proportionate duration, but nothing prevents C and D seeking an extension to the order prior to its expiry. Right of appeal[101]The parties are entitled to seek permission to appeal this judgment from me at the hearing on 9 June 2026 or if not sought at the hearing, or permission to appeal is refused, within 21 days of that hearing date from the circuit judge. Postscript[102]I must acknowledge that which other judges have previously, this is a mother who has faced great adversity. Looking beyond what happened when she gave evidence it was encouraging that mother recognised that Z was settled in the care of the special guardians, and that she needed to rebuild her relationship with her. I am sure the mother will be very disappointed, but I would urge her to take up the indirect contact, to rebuild her relationship with Z and show everyone that she is able to be able do that appropriately.[103]This judgment will be published in an anonymised form.