S v B [2026] EWFC 86 (B)

[2026] EWFC 86 (B)
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT BIRMINGHAM
Venue Birmingham Civil and Family Justice Centre, Priory Courts 33 Bull Street Birmingham B4 6DS
Before
DISTRICT JUDGE PARKER
Between
SAPPLICANTBRESPONDENTSCHILD (VIA THEIR CHILD’S GUARDIAN)RespondentLegal RepresentationMr. Akshat Krishna, Solicitor Advocate from Ash & Ash Family Lawyers for Applicant FatherMs. Elin Hughes, of Counsel, from Coram Chambers, instructed by Branch Austin McCormick Solicitors LLP for Respondent MotherMiss. Kristina Brown, of Counsel, from No. 5 Chambers, instructed by Anthony Collins Solicitors LLP for childOther Parties Present and their statusNone knownJudgmentJudgment date: 26 February 2026Transcribed from 14:22:45 until 16:11:29Reporting Restrictions Applied: No“This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.”“This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.”District Judge Parker:The applications before the court and Brief OverviewDate 2026-02-26
[1]I am concerned with K who is aged five. The parties separated in September 2024 and this is the father’s application for a Child Arrangements Order by way of a Spend Time With and Live With Order, and Mother’s cross-application for a Child Arrangements Live with Order and Prohibited Steps Order in relation to non-removal of the child from her care.[2]Contact had previously been stopped. The mother says she stopped contact due to the child presenting difficulties following contact with the father. She asserts that the child was withdrawn and exhibiting sexualised behaviour. Both parties make counter allegations against each other.[3]At the outset there had been no contact since 3 February 2025.[4]There was subsequently provision for the father to spend time with the child at school supervised by the headmaster and thereafter a gradual progression.[5]A subsequent child impact report recommended that the father should spend time with the child one night per week to and from school and on alternate weekends Friday to Monday.[6]Further applications before the court includes the father’s application for a Prohibited Steps Order with regard to there being no psychotherapy treatment for the child unless recommended by the GP, or other medically qualified staff, or by agreement or by court order; the father being concerned that the child has been taken out of school to attend such sessions, the father being of the opinion that this therapy or work can be met in house by the school.[7]The Child’s Guardian has also subsequently made a part 25 application for a psychological assessment of the family which was supported by the mother but opposed by the father, due to the fact that the application came in on the eve of the final hearing and the consequential delay that it would entail.

The History of these proceedings and the parties respective positions and allegations

[8]The mother’s position is that she believed that the father was using contact to manipulate and influence the child against her and that the father has an enmeshed relationship with the child.[9]The father alleges the mother’s alienating behaviours and weaponisation of the child. She denies this[10]In turn she further alleges financial abuse, emotional, verbal, and physical abuse and coercive control during the period of the relationship. There are a number of historic allegations referred to from 2020, 2022, and 2023.[11]She further alleges emotional manipulation of the child and had previously accused him of potentially grooming the child for which a referral was made but with no further action being taken.[12]Suffice to say, the father denies the Mother’s allegations. He that felt there were no safeguarding concerns with regard to the contact that had taken place and indeed it was positive.[13]At the very early stages in these proceedings I was concerned that the heat of the dispute between these parents was being picked up by the child who was clearly caught in the middle.[14]As to the mother’s wish for there to be a Finding of Fact Hearing in respect of her allegations, he asserted that this was neither necessary nor proportionate. The allegations of potential sexual abuse were unsubstantiated and what allegations there were in relation to domestic abuse, historical.[15]The child impact report of 14 March 2025 indicates that the child clearly loves the father and would want the parents to be a family again. It is noted that the child does take time to settle post contact but this may well be because the child is confused and caught in the middle of the dispute between the parents. Contact was observed to be positive.[16]Mum, it is reported, was concerned as to the father’s influence on the child and sought supervised contact only, albeit there was no direct evidence of any alienating behaviours.[17]The school also felt that the child was torn between the parents rather than there being any manipulation by the father. The issue was one of acrimony between the parents, there being no other concerns, and no disclosures being made to the school.[18]The independent domestic violence advisor felt that the father was a victim of emotional abuse, manipulation, and controlling behaviour and the mother herself also a victim of abuse and manipulation.[19]There was an assessment by Birmingham’s Children’s Trust on 21 March 2025. It reports that there were allegations of sexual abuse and sexualised behaviour with the child being withdrawn when returning from contact. It reports the cross-allegations of parental alienation and that there were no disclosures, per se, from the child themselves. It was noted that there was a positive relationship between the child and both parents and there were no concerns in relation to the contact that had taken place.[20]No further action was therefore taken and the case was closed with no safeguarding concerns, other than to note that the child was very much caught up in the middle of a dispute between the parents.[21]I also note the level 2 police checks dated 10 July 2025. The father reports harassment, the mother making false allegations to the police with threats to stop him seeing his son via the parenting app. He also reports abuse.[22]Similarly, Mother makes cross-allegations of domestic abuse and in addition, the child displaying sexualised behaviour following contact and reportedly sleeping naked with the father.[23]It records that the local authority closed the case following a child and family assessment on 12 May 2025. Again, it raises increasing concerns as to the parents’ ability to co-parent and Mum repeatedly raising concerns with regards to the child’s sexualised behaviour.[24]At the hearing on 14 July 2025 I made a Live With Order in relation to Mum with supervised contact with the father for three sessions a week supervised by the headmaster for 45 minutes.[25]In addition, over the school holidays I directed that there should be video calls twice a week supported by the maternal aunt or uncle, and I directed a letter from the child’s psychotherapist with regard to the disclosures in relation to inappropriate behaviour including dates and context; a letter from the school in relation to safeguarding concerns with regard to any inappropriate behaviour observed or disclosures made, and for a report from the local authority in relation to recent reports of sexualised behaviour following Mum’s allegations. (There was an incident where the child kissed another child at school, Cafcass maintaining that this had an innocent explanation)[26]The recitals to the order record that the mother does not agree to contact progressing beyond supervised contact at a contact centre. She continues to seek findings.[27]The Local Authority reports that there was no evidence that the child was a victim of sexual abuse, and there were no safeguarding concerns, although Mum still continues to allege this.[28]It recommended that a Finding of Fact Hearing was neither necessary or proportionate, a view that I myself subscribed to and recorded on the face of the order.[29]On 17 July 2025 the Court received a section 16A risk assessment which recorded the information received from the child’s therapist that the child was sleeping with the father with no clothes on and a further disclosure of sexualised behaviour[30]Having received that, by order of 18 July 2025, I directed that the section 16A risk assessment should be disclosed, and the issue as to a potential section 37 report should be considered once the report I had previously directed from Birmingham’s Children’s Trust was to hand.[31]The letter from the psychotherapist dated 26 July 2025 records a disclosure made on 11 July 2025 where the child states that he sleeps in the same bed as the father, he does not have his own room, they sleep naked together, but their private parts are covered. He says he is happy all the time. He goes on to state that his father does not enjoy sleeping that way, and his father does not ask him to sleep that way.[32]A report from the school dated 19 July 2025 records there are no safeguarding concerns with regard to contact, or inappropriate behaviour or disclosures from the child. There are no concerns with regard to the kissing of a friend on the cheek, and it further reports that, as from September 2025, the school will no longer be able to supervise Father’s contact.[33]There then followed an application by the mother on 2 September 2025. She sought to adduce additional evidence from the maternal aunt and maternal grandmother with regard to concerns relating to the father which she felt had been dismissed by professionals. She does not accept the school explanation with regard to the kissing incident and alleges historic patterns of inappropriate relationships between the father and both his mum and nephew stemming back from 2018.[34]She alleges that the father himself was sexually abused as a child and has concerns as to potential grooming of the child by the father.[35]She maintains that when she stopped contact in February 2025, the child’s demeanour changed for the better, albeit she accepts he misses his father, but when Father spends unsupervised time with his son, he regresses.[36]She alleges that the child has said to her that his father likes to lie on top of him and kiss him on the lips and nose and bottom. She says that the child then placed his hand on her breast and down her pants and says that he likes to lie on top of her and roll around. She provided a number of exhibits, in particular KD6 which is a recording where the child states that he wishes for his mother to go on top of him. He likes it and keeps on saying please and gets upset when she does not.[37]There is a similar exhibit at KD7, again a recording where he again wants his mum to go on top of him, the child gets upset and makes a whining cry. Mum asks why, he says I don’t know, but then just keeps saying please.[38]She again repeated her request for a Finding of Fact Hearing, not only in relation to domestic abuse, but also in relation to the child’s disclosure and his sexualised behaviour.[39]The observations from the Child’s Guardian at the time was that she was concerned as to the impact on the child’s relationship with the father, given the fact that at that point he was no longer seeing him in person following the school being unable to facilitate supervised contact.[40]Following on from that and pursuant to a child in need plan there were two contacts supervised by the social worker. Both were positive, and again, no safeguarding concerns.[41]The issues of sexual abuse was explored and there were no disclosures. Mum however remained insistent in her allegations.[42]A further child and family assessment was undertaken on 9 September 2025. It reports that the school has no concerns, there was no disclosures following direct work with the child and no inappropriate touching. The child reports that he sleeps with the dad because he does not like sleeping by himself, and there are positive interactions with the father with no safeguarding concerns, and it was observed that there is a close bond between them, that he misses staying with his father, that when he sleeps in his dad’s bed he wears pyjamas as he does with Mum. He states he cannot recall touching Mum in a place he should not or Mum touching him. He says he feels safer with Dad.[43]The father denies sleeping naked with his son but he accepts that in hot weather he does not wear a top. I also note in the report that it states that the child disclosed that there is something that his mother does which he does not like. That remains ambiguous to this day.[44]By order of 10 September 2025 I continued the Live With Order in favour of the mother and from 15 September 2025 I directed that the father should have video calls once a week supervised by the maternal uncle, then from 21 September 2025 supervised contact in the community on Sundays for three hours with third party handovers, subject to a 3rd party risk assessment.[45]I directed an addendum child impact report from the local authority and Mother’s application to adduce two further witness statements was refused. Again, I reiterated that a Finding of Fact Hearing was neither necessary nor proportionate, including in the area of sexual abuse and grooming.[46]The addendum child impact report records that the child speaks about a positive relationship with both parents and wants to see more of his dad. He is happy and relaxed in his father’s presence and interacts positively with the mother. The sexual abuse allegations have not been substantiated and. it is recorded. that it is difficult for a child to maintain masking over such a prolonged period to multiple professionals. It reports that the child is clearly struggling with his parents’ separation and support is needed under a child in need plan. It records that Mother has reported aggression in the child’s behaviour in relation to tantrums due to, she says, contact.[47]The mother maintains that the father is manipulative, and continues to raise historical issues that the child is not safe with him, and until this is investigated, contact should remain supervised.[48]At present, a family member is currently facilitating family time with the father and it is reportedly going well. There are no red flags so to speak, and the child clearly wants to see his father.[49]Overall, the animosity between the parents and continued allegations and counter allegations appears to be creating a toxic environment, despite the parties’ separation. Furthermore, it is reported that there are no sexualised behaviours observed in contact with the father, no disclosure as such from the child, no evidence of risk in the father’s care, and no safeguarding concerns. It reports that the mother is fixated that the child would be at risk if contact were unsupervised, and believes that the child is masking their emotions as suggested by the drama psychotherapist.[50]It is recorded that if this persists, the child will be at risk of emotional harm. None of Mum’s concerns have been substantiated. It recommends, going forward, unsupervised contact, including overnight, and a shared Lives With Order, with the case remaining open under a child in need plan. It then goes on to set out how that might look like, albeit neither party agrees with those recommendations.[51]The Father’s position following on from that was that he sought a Shared Lives With Order. Mother accepts that there is no evidence to conclude that the child will come to sexual harm in the father’s care but struggles with the degree of the child’s dysregulation following contact. To her credit, she accepts that contact must move on and puts forward proposals by way of a stepped order, but would wish to be guided by the local authority under the auspices of the child in need plan.[52]At that stage my concern was that it may well be that the child is picking up on the mother’s own feelings and insecurities towards the father, and his behavioural difficulties may well be manifested due to the internal conflict that that is producing being torn between wanting to see his father and picking up on his mother’s anxieties.[53]By order of 11 November 2025 I continued the order that the child should live with the mother but spend time with the father every Wednesday from school until 7pm, and every Sunday from 10am to 6pm, including time over the Christmas and New Year period, with handovers via a third party. I directed a further addendum child impact report, local authority disclosure, witness statements from the parties, and a report from the Guardian, and thereafter a final hearing.[54]Although I did not debar the mother from raising issues of domestic abuse and coercive control, I clearly gave an indication that the weight to be given to them would need to be determined by the Court in the light of any additional evidence that comes in.[55]Following on from that, there was an application for me to recuse myself made by the mother. I refused that application. I provided a right to reply by way of a formal application which was not exercised. I understand that order was appealed and the appeal was dismissed on paper on 8 January 2026.[56]In the father’s final statement he seeks a Shared Lives With Order. Such an order he says will avoid potential difficulties in taking the child abroad, for instance. He asserts it is clear that his Son would like to spend more time with him including overnight contact.[57]The contact that has taken place has been positive, and there has been no safeguarding concerns. He proposes a two weekly alternating pattern and shared holidays and special occasions. He also seeks a Prohibited Steps Order with regard to the ongoing therapy that the child is currently receiving, questioning the need for this and the fact that it is taking place within school time and that the school can offer similar provision.[58]He continues to deny the mother’s allegations of domestic abuse with regard to coercive and controlling behaviours, and also seeks a section 91(14) direction. He proposes the use of a parenting app and handover arrangements via a third party when not at school. He requires updating information as to the child’s education and health and a recital that neither party should speak negatively of the other in front of the child or within their earshot.[59]The mother’s final statement alleges that there was domestic abuse in the relationship and that she was subject to coercive control. She does not believe that any of her concerns have been taken seriously or adequately investigated. She maintains her concern with regard to the father’s relationship with the child and how he presents following contact with regard to dysregulated behaviour and the potential manipulation by the father and inappropriate behaviour.[60]With regard to professional involvement, she is concerned at the extent of the previous involvement by the headteacher in relation to the supervision of contact. It is clear that the headmaster’s role in this matter went well above and beyond the normal expectations, but I do not criticise him in relation to that. It seems that he was placed in an invidious situation.[61]With regard to the child’s disclosures, she maintains that the child slept naked with the child and that this has not been investigated fully, neither has the kissing incident at school. This, she asserts, is not normal child behaviour and there needs to be an assurance that the child, going forward, will sleep in his own room and bed whilst at his father’s home.[62]With regard to the child’s therapy, this commenced in April 2025. He has had 22 sessions to date and it is open ended. The mother maintains that it does not impact on the child’s school and cited the fact that the GP agrees that therapy may help him. However, I note that the GP does not go on to specify its precise remit or timescale. She accepts however, to her credit, that the child loves his father and is always happy with him.[63]When together she accepts that the father and son are very attuned with one another and does not want to deny them a relationship. She remains concerned however in relation to emotional manipulation.[64]She exhibits a number of documents to her statement.[65]There is a letter dated 7 January 2026 from a counselling psychiatrist reporting consultations between 2020 and 2023 with regard to domestic abuse.[66]She also exhibits records from Birmingham’s Children’s Trust which indicates that the child is always happy to see the father and indeed, the mother.[67]The school does not believe the child is being manipulated but in essence, is torn between the parents. The issue is one of emotional wellbeing due to parental acrimony, both parents making allegations one against the other.[68]Mum believes that the father is trying to break their bond, albeit of course there is no evidence of risk or other concerns, including sexual abuse. Mum’s complaint into the school’s investigation into this was dismissed.[69]I have seen a letter from the psychotherapist dated 7 October 2025, again exhibited as part of the mother’s statement. This refers to the child emotionally masking and being withdrawn and avoidant, and concealing underlying distress, internalisation, and exhibiting through dysregulated behaviour which the child is unable to vocalise.[70]The psychotherapist suggests that the child may feel unsafe with the father but is concealing it. They feel that what the school might offer, in place of a psychotherapist, is not even close to approaching the equivalent by way of therapy.[71]A further communication in response from the school itself on 14 November 2025 states that the therapy needs to be undertaken out of school time and questions the necessity of it due to the child’s general happy presentation at school, with there being no evidence of masking. There is a tacit suggestion that there is a potential vested interest in the therapy continuing as it is being funded by the mother.[72]I also note a GP note dated 21 October 2025 post commencement of the therapy. It reports that the school have no issues with regards to behaviour, but therapy may help the child in the long term to understand and regulate their emotions. It says nothing more in relation to that, or indeed the type of therapy and its duration as I have previously commented.[73]I have seen the child in need meeting minutes which took place on 9 October 2025. It reiterates that the child is caught in the middle of a parental conflict which could cause emotional harm. The child would benefit from one to one pastoral support in school as and when necessary. The mother is maintaining her allegations, the school however have witnessed no concerning behaviours or indeed red flags, or masking behaviour which would be difficult to maintain. The child is enjoying his time with his father and has a good relationship with his class teacher with regard to school being a safe place.[74]The addendum child impact report outlines the work undertaken by the family support worker over the course of 12 weeks, there being no safeguarding concerns. The school reports remain positive. The child’s dysregulated behaviour following contact, it is asserted, is normal childhood behaviours. Mum continues to be fixated by her own narrative and anxiety with regards to the child’s emotional dysregulation and behaviours.[75]The contact handovers are now taking place at the Mother’s home via a third party every Wednesday from school until 7pm and each Saturday from 10 until 6pm and queries the benefit of ongoing psychotherapy if it has no effects on the child’s behaviours.[76]However, it does go on to say that if the Court makes findings with regard to coercive control, then the recommendations will be revisited.[77]Having said that, the child’s contact with the father is positive and he wants to spend more time with him, including overnight, and therefore a proposed Shared Lives With Order is proposed including overnight, although it also, as an aside, points to a potential part 25 application with regard to the child’s emotional dysregulation.[78]The family support worker reports a conflicted narrative from Mum between wanting to promote contact and her fears in doing so. It reports positive interactions with the father and emotional warmth. It is recorded that on 15 January 2026 the child said that he wanted to live with the father and spend time with the mother.[79]The Child’s Guardian’s final report states that the local authority’s work with the family will end following conclusion of the proceedings with no ongoing support. A family group conference has not taken place, that the child currently attends weekly drama therapy and the therapist believes that this is crucial to help his development and manage his emotions, and the missing of a small proportion of school time each week is proportionate. It is reported that it is attachment led and trauma informed and the work is open ended.[80]Mum is consistently raising issues as to domestic abuse during the relationship, including coercive and controlling behaviour and subsequently behaviours towards the child and father’s negative influence on him, and the emotional fallout of the same due to her perceptions of an enmeshed relationship, although it appears that recently these behaviours have subsided, which the Guardian feels might be due to the consistent and stable arrangements now taking place. Mum herself accepted that this may be a possibility.[81]The concerns are primarily focussed on Father’s ability to control, manipulate or weaponise the child against the mother.[82]Mother has felt unsupported during the court process and anxious. It remains her position that she does not support the further progression of family time by way of overnight stays. The report goes on:
“The father reports no undue behavioural issues when K is with him and is concerned as to Mum’s alienating behaviours and allegations. He denies ever sleeping naked with K. There appears to be no issues with either parent in relation to their son. K appears happy in the father’s home. K did say he slept in his dad’s bed with him when he stayed over but he also sleeps in Mum’s bed, but getting used to sleeping in his own bed. He wants to sleep over at his dad’s. He wants to see both parents and sleep at both their houses, but his preference however is for more time with his dad than his mum.” 83. The Guardian goes on: “The child needs stability and consistency. He needs to enjoy his time with both parents and any progression needs to be carefully managed. The parents must not be set up to fail by a quick transition to a shared Live With Order.”
She is of the view that it is likely that Mum’s anxiety to an extent does rub off on the child. 84. If Mother’s concerns as to emotional manipulation were true, one would observe this more so now that K’s contact with his father has increased. It hasn’t. 85. With regard to the child behaving well at school and misbehaving at home, at school, children are more focussed and there is a release of pent up energy when they return home. Both parents lack trust in one another and have entrenched views with regard to the allegations each make. 86. It might well be that father’s behaviours are so subtle and covert that they are not being picked up by professionals and if Mum’s beliefs are true, or if Mum’s behaviour is true as alleged by the father in relation to her alienating behaviours, then that too exposes the child to the risk of emotional harm, and a judgment may be needed to move matters forward and to assist professionals. 87. I note that Mum herself has a diagnosis of ADHD and Father similarly is awaiting an assessment. I am aware that issues of neurodiversity may form part of the parents’ perceptions of one another, and particularly Mother’s heightened emotions, anxieties, and hypervigilance. The report goes on: “Mum needs to give K permission to have contact with his father but she is reluctant to accept the current contact arrangements themselves have led to a reduction in K’s previous dysregulated behaviour.” 88. The Guardian remains concerned as to the mother’s ability to promote contact as well as Father’s concerns as to repeated allegations being made against him. 89. I asked myself at the outset of this case as I did throughout, where will a Finding of Fact Hearing take us? 90. Sadly the current interventions, significant and numerous as they are, have not achieved any change in the parents’ ability to co-parent, and that unless support is provided going forward, the pattern will repeat itself. 91. The Guardian in her report proposed a psychological assessment of the entire family including the necessity of the ongoing drama therapy and potentially a fact finding in relation to the safeguarding concerns of domestic abuse and alienating behaviours. 92. What is clear however is that it appears that K would be sad if he could not stay over with his father. 93. The position statement of the mother at the hearing states she remains committed to the Father having a relationship with his Son provided it is safe, but her concerns remain. The child’s emotional wellbeing following contact, the fact that the child reports that the father slept naked with him, displaying unusual and inappropriate behaviour following contact (albeit she accepts that for the purposes of a Finding of Fact Hearing, the sexual behaviours and test necessitating such a hearing is not met) all suggest a Finding of Fact Hearing should be revisited. 94. She does not agree to any progression of contact at this stage due to manipulation and control of the child which she says is a continuance of the abusive behaviour that she suffered during their relationship. If the hearing is to be used as a Finding of Fact Hearing, she repeats a request to rely on evidence that I previously rejected at an earlier stage in the proceedings.

Preliminary determinations

[95]I will not repeat the preliminary judgment that I made at the outset of these proceedings however, for the record, I rejected the application by the Child’s Guardian for a psychological assessment of the family and in relation to there being a discrete Finding of Fact Hearing, and I determined that the matter would proceed to a final hearing, which it did, over the course of three days. The Hearing Evidence The Father Evidence in Chief

The Hearing

[96]Father states that contact is very good and the child wants to spend more time with him, including overnight. Their relationship is good. He denies manipulating him and speaking negatively of the mother or inviting and involving him in adult discussions. He feels that there is no reason why contact cannot progress immediately due to him having already established a relationship with his son. Ultimately, he seeks a Shared Lives With Order.[97]With regard to his application for a Prohibited Steps Order in in respect of drama therapy, he said that if this takes place outside school he would have no issues provided it were informed by medical opinion, but questions its necessity and neutrality as it is currently being funded by the mother, but subsequently accepted that it should continue, providing it takes place outside school hours and information in relation to it is shared with him.

Questions from Mother’s Counsel

[98]The father has no issues with regard to the mother’s parenting, other than feeling that she is overprotective. He agrees that the child is caught up in the middle of parental conflict but not intentionally. He says this is both their responsibility. He was challenged in relation to the audio recordings as to what occurred at school on 20 January 2025 whereupon the child was clearly distressed and was witness to a confrontation between the parents and adult conversations. He accepts that in hindsight that this should not have happened, but reiterates that this was not down solely to him.[99]He was also challenged as to recording a video of the child on 17 January 2025. This was the weekend before the school incident when the child states that he does not want to go home to the mother. The father denies that this was manipulation but he accepts he would not do this again. He says he did it to capture the child’s wishes and feelings at the time that he was happy with the father. He accepts that sadly, the parents have practically no co-parenting relationship at all, but does not accept that a Shared Lives With Order would cause more problems than it would solve.

Questions from the Child’s Counsel

[100]The father reiterated again that in hindsight he should have dealt with matters differently at school on 20 January 2026. He admits his emotions got the better of ‘us’. The Mother Evidence in Chief[101]She agrees that K’s therapy should take place only outside the school day. She seeks for K to live with her and for contact to continue as per the current arrangements, visiting only, not overnight.[102]She remains concerned that progression beyond visiting contact will expose the child to increasing risk of emotional harm, manipulation, coercive control and alienation. Despite matters having progressed to unsupervised contact, her concerns remain and she has compiled an extensive log of incidents which she says evidences her concerns. Although the child’s dysregulated behaviour is less frequent, it has not stopped.

Questions from Father’s Counsel

[103]If an order was made progressing contact she said she would abide by it, but is concerned as to the impact of ongoing manipulation and that her relationship with her son could be fractured. She accepts that K loves his dad. They have a strong bond and he would be excited to stay overnight with him. She does not accept her part in relation to the parental conflict and the child being caught up within it.[104]Regarding the incident of 20 January 2025, she could not see how she could have done anything differently other than perhaps letting K go to his father for a brief period to settle him. She believes the situation was of the father’s own making.[105]She accepts that K wants to stay overnight with his father. As to wanting to live with him, she believes that this displays evidence of coaching. She accepts that if contact was not progressed it would have a negative impact on K but he would accept it. For her, it is a balancing exercise between the child’s wishes versus the risk of the potential harm due to manipulation and control which she has to protect him from.[106]She feels that the fact that K is now less dysregulated is not a good thing as he could well be compartmentalising matters. She believes unsupervised contact is harmful and if progressed it would become more harmful, providing the father with more opportunities to manipulate the child. Before contact is progressed she feels the father needs to undertake a significant amount of work and regulate his emotions and not to manipulate his son. She also believes the father has manipulated the professionals in the case.[107]As to holidays abroad in the future if ordered, Mum is not comfortable with this, the issue being duration not location per se, but if ordered she would accept it.

Questions from the Child’s Counsel

[108]It was put to her how important it is to listen to children and to exercise parental responsibility in a way to equip them for the future and to respond in a balanced way on the basis of available evidence. She accepts K loves his dad and that as such, this is a positive emotion. She accepts, in fact, that he adores his father, and it was put to her therefore that he must feel safe and happy in his care. However, the mother applies a caveat to that in respect to manipulation and abuse.[109]She was challenged where on one occasion K said to her that she did not love him when told to put his toys away and that this was in fact normal behaviour when a child is denied something. She did not accept that and stated that she has found K’s behaviours extreme at times.[110]It was put to her that in September 2025 K had started to see his father again. He had left nursery and started school following the summer holidays and that these were a number of important changes for him, including the fact that his parents were now separated and therefore it was not surprising that he displayed difficult behaviour. The Mother does not accept this and felt it was much more than this. She did not accept that her own anxiety may have translated itself onto K, albeit she says the father’s has.[111]She was challenged that her hypervigilance leads to misinterpreting K’s behaviour in relation to the father. She responded that her anxieties are evidence based, based as they are upon her experiences of abuse within her relationship which she says her and K suffered.

Judicial Questions

[112]I asked the mother that if K is denied in his wish to spend more time with the father it could end up with a situation where he blames the mother for this, thus exacerbating his behaviours, causing difficulties in their relationship which is precisely what the mother wishes to avoid. She accepts that, but believes the balance of harm is in relation to non-progression of contact at this stage. The Social Worker Questions from Father’s Counsel

The Social Worker

[113]She supports a Shared Lives With Order, albeit by way of a gradual implementation. When pressed as to this, it was apparent that more clarification was needed and therefore the matter was adjourned overnight to enable her to formulate her proposals to writing to include in input from the Guardian.[114]Following on from that, she proposed a three stage plan leading to possibly a Shared Lives With Order from 2027. She said at this stage it was difficult to predict how matters would progress.[115]She was subject to much questioning in relation to her proposals, given that she had readily conceded that it contained some mistakes. She was challenged that contact was progressing well, that K wants to progress to overnight contact, and therefore why should this be delayed. She responded that K has not had overnight contact for a substantial period and therefore, this needs to be gradually introduced in order for K to get used to his father.[116]She was challenged that her initial recommendations for a Shared Lives With Order made no mention of a phased transition. She said that that was an error on her part.[117]It was put to her that unsupervised contact had taken place since November 2025 and there was therefore no need for any further transition to overnight. She disagreed. She felt it was too soon. She also did not agree for a quicker transition.[118]Her views remain that normally the local authority prepared children for changes, albeit it was put to her that the child’s wishes were clear and there was no further preparatory work that needed to be done pending progression.

Questions from Mother’s Counsel

[119]She accepted that at the incident at the school that the father could have handled the situation differently. The mother on the other hand came across more measured. The video the father made of the child was also not appropriate.[120]She was challenged that there was no mention of domestic abuse in her work or report. She said that this was raised subsequent to her assessment but there were no recent incidents and the parents were now separated. Both have made cross-allegations one against the other.[121]At the home visit with the mother on 31 July 2025 she acknowledged that she saw artwork undertaken by the father put on display which provides a positive promotion of the father clearly being in evidence.[122]She stated that she currently recommends the child remains with the mother and spend significant time with the father and that she believed that a Shared Lives With Order at this stage is a step too far due to the parents’ inability to co-parent. If the progression moves too quickly, the family could be set up to fail.[123]She was asked about the session she held on 15 November 2025 where K said he wants to live with his dad and see Mum. It was put to her that Mother found this perplexing due to her close relationship with her son, she accepts that she too found this both surprising and unusual.[124]It was put to her that this could be evidence of coaching as the father had contact with the child a few days beforehand, but was unable to say if this was influenced behaviour or not.[125]It was put to her that she had said that if there was a finding of controlling and coercive behaviour and manipulation she would re-evaluate her recommendations and what she meant by this. She responded as to a potential escalation but there were insufficient safeguarding concerns.[126]It was put to her that Mum’s concerns as to ongoing manipulation and K’s wishes and feelings had to be seen from that perspective. She responded there are no concerns as to his emotional wellbeing, including from the school and the family support worker.

Questions from the Child’s Counsel

[127]She was challenged in relation to the family support needs going forward and that K was clearly a child a need due to the family dynamics. Ultimately she accepted this.[128]She was challenged as to the intentions of the local authority to close the family down to children’s services given the fragility and the need to prepare the family for the first overnight contact which would present emotional challenges, particularly from the mother given her anxieties. She accepted this also. It was put to her that the local authority’s proposals suggest a jump to two overnights as opposed to one as suggested by the Children’s Guardian. She again accepted the logic in that suggestion.[129]It was put to her that there is a clear need to avoid escalation into child protection and it would be better to maintain a low level of intervention until at least the new school year in 2026. She accepted overall that there was no significant reason as to why the Court should depart from the Guardian’s own proposals as to stepped arrangements. The Child’s Guardian Evidence in Chief[130]She presented her revised stepped progression of contact as presented to the Court. (I add, due to the delay in finalising the case and handing down judgment, both the local authority and the Guardian have revised their proposals to set in train a progression from the revised handing down of this judgment)[131]In essence, it proposes more or less the immediate progression to one overnight with progression thereafter and ultimately to a Shared With Live Order as from January 2027 on a two week pattern providing a 50:50 split between the parents, namely: Monday, Tuesday Mum, Wednesday, Thursday Dad, Friday to Sunday Mum, then Monday, Tuesday Dad, Wednesday, Thursday Mum, and Friday to Sunday Dad.[132]Initially, she proposes a Live With Order for Mum and Spend Time With Order for Dad and ultimately a Shared Lives With Order.[133]As to a section 91(14) direction, she is of the view that proceedings have been lengthy. Further litigation would be harmful unless there is good reason, for example, significant safeguarding concerns. She feels that such a direction should be in place for 12 months to allow the implementation of the proposed arrangements, to exclude enforcement. The family would also benefit from ongoing support whilst contact progresses so as to ‘oil the wheels’ and to head up any difficulties before they snowball.[134]A Monitoring Order in favour of Cafcass will not meet this need being a limited intervention Order that is, speaking to the parents and making referrals or signposting.[135]A child in need plan would be better, or a Family Assistance Order in favour of the local authority. Cafcass themselves are unable to undertake direct work with the family. Much work needs to be done with the family by way of co-parenting and the oversight of the proposed progression of the transition plan to a shared Lives With Order by way of a multiagency approach.[136]If a repeat referral were to arise following the local authority’s closure of the child in need plan, a different social worker is likely to be appointed, and therefore there would be no continuity.

Questions from Father’s Counsel

[137]She was asked why the delay in progressing matters to a Shared Lives With Order until January 2027. She responded that this was necessary to ease the transition and to ensure the maximum prospect of success due to the family dynamics. She felt it should not be escalated too quickly as there were risks in doing so.[138]As for a foreign holiday abroad during the summer 2027, she was unable to say that at this stage that it should definitely happen.

Questions from Mother’s Counsel

[139]It was put to her that Mum’s central case is one of emotional harm. The incident in January 2025 merely enhanced Mother’s anxieties. However, the Child’s Guardian was of the view that matters had moved on since then as at that time emotions were still very raw. She accepted however that in his evidence the father was reluctant to recognise his part in this incident and both parents need to reflect on the Court’s decision.[140]It was put to her that the IDVA assessment of the mother puts her as a primary victim of domestic abuse and therefore it could be challenging for her to promote a relationship between K and his father. It was put to her that she herself had originally proposed a Finding of Fact Hearing. The Guardian accepted that coercive and controlling behaviour is more subtle and understands Mum’s concerns with regard to contact progressing and its impact on her. She also was of the view that any influence of the fears she has towards the father impacting on K may be subliminal.[141]In contrast, it was put to her that the influence of the father may be more observant given K’s wish to live with him. However, for the Child’s Guardian there was no evidence of negativity, albeit she accepts there could be potential manipulation. However, when she subsequently saw K after the statement that he had made to ascertain his wishes and feelings, he did not expressly repeat this to her but did say that he wanted to spend more time with his father.[142]She was asked whether it was premature to determine a Shared Lives with Order in 2017. She responded that primarily her proposals were for a stepped order and ultimately it would not lead to a huge progression, given the period of time proposed. Submissions The Father

Submissions

[143]The father agrees with the recommendations of the Child’s Guardian and as for holidays abroad, he seeks a recital that such requests are not to be unreasonably withheld.

The Mother

[144]She proposes that contact remain as it is, save during the holiday period where the contact perhaps can be all day, reflecting that of the Sunday contact. She opposes any progression of contact, as more time with the father she says equals more harm.[145]The current arrangements are just about manageable. Her experiences of an abusive relationship provides, it is said, context to her anxieties and hypervigilance and the Court should be acute to assessing the risk of harm, given the evidence base and given the father’s evidence as to the incidents in January 2025 which are stark examples of controlling behaviour as well as lack of insight.[146]Mum is moreover concerned as to what will happen when the spotlight of proceedings vanishes. A Shared Lives with Order is a bridge too far at this stage.[147]As for the wishes and feelings of the child, Mother accepts what the child says, but this must be seen through the prism of manipulation. There are no safeguarding concerns with regards to Mum’s care and her bond with her child is positive and must be maintained. Any change should be progressed gradually given the family dynamics to ensure maximum success.[148]She opposes the holiday abroad at this stage and Mother feels unsupported by the local authority but would welcome ongoing support from Cafcass.[149]A section 91(14) direction is not opposed.

The Child’s Guardian

[150]The Child’s Guardian is concerned as to the father’s insight into wanting to progress too quickly, for example holidays abroad, given the fragilities in this case. She describes it as his failure to read the room and that the summer holidays 2026 would be the first occasion under the progression plan that he would have a whole week with the child this year, thus enhancing Mum’s anxieties.[151]It was contended that the Childn’s Guardian’s recommendations should be adopted wholesale. They are well thought through which the social worker themselves recognises, including a section 91(14) direction for 12 months.[152]A Monitoring Order in favour of Cafcass is not recommended due to its limited nature, albeit the family clearly needs help. Father needs to be less pushy and the mother more resilient. Whatever K’s life experiences, he clearly loves both his parents. Judgment Analysis of the Evidence Father’s Evidence

Judgment

[153]In relation to the Prohibited Steps Order for the continuous of drama therapy. Father felt that this should stop and questions its necessity and neutrality, being funded by the mother. Whilst I can understand this, Father, rather than becoming more involved in the work being undertaken, would rather appoint a new therapist by the parties mutual agreement, rather than continue with one who has been involved with his son since April 2025 and who had developed a rapport with them.[154]I regard that as a blinkered approach. However, to his credit, he subsequently agreed to this continuing provided there is information sharing and that the therapy takes place outside school time, for which I understand there is a level of agreement and which I endorse.[155]With regard to parental conflict, in my view Father struggled to accept his part in the incident of 20 January 2025 and the consequential upset to the child, albeit he accepts in hindsight K should not have been involved in this, nor indeed the appropriateness of getting K to tell his mum via a video call on 17 January 2025 that he was not coming home. I find that he was defensive when challenged about this.[156]His evidence also displayed a tactic of deflection at times onto the mother.[157]Indeed, when asked about dropping K back late he said:
“We need to abide by any order.” 146. Rather than him abiding, and in relation to the school incident he says: “Emotions got the better of us.”
Where perhaps should again be him.[158]I am left with the impression that he does not accept full responsibility for his part in the incidents he was challenged about. Having said that, these incidents are now over 12 months old and it appears this is not a common theme or recent event.

Mother’s Evidence

[159]I find that Mum, as a parent, is hypervigilant, overly anxious, and is fixated in her views as to the risk posed by the father. She is clearly very insecure and in my view overthinks situations and overanalyses them, often speaking as her own expert in the field of psychotherapy and psychology. This may well be down to her own neurodiversity. However, this imbalanced perspective in my view causes her to misinterpret incidents otherwise capable of an alternative innocent explanation. For example, a child being dysregulated at a time of not insignificant challenge for them as to a number of changes.[160]Even the lessening of that dysregulated behaviour is now seen as a negative. It seems to me, whatever the situation, the same conclusions will be drawn to fit in with the Mother’s narrative and fixed views.[161]No parent I accept is perfect, but Mum has created, in my view, a self-perpetuating narrative with a limited evidence base and her conclusions are disproportionate and she is unable to escape from it and see it from others’ perspectives.[162]Like the father to a degree, she sees no wrongdoing on her part and does not countenance the possibility that her anxieties towards the father are not being picked up by K, albeit unconsciously. Given the strength of her views I regard that as somewhat unrealistic.[163]It is clear K loves his dad. There is a strong bond. The mother to her credit uses words ‘adore’ and ‘hero worship’. Mother, in my view, substantially downplays the impact on K if contact is not progressed.[164]There is a real risk that if K is not allowed to see his father he may end up at some point blaming his mother, which in turn will exacerbate his behaviour and cause difficulties in their relationship which is precisely the outcome that she fears, albeit from a different source.[165]It is my view that the mother has failed to take on board professional advice and undertaken an appropriate balancing exercise and proportionate risk assessment due to her entrenched and fixated views, views which have not borne fruit following the progression of contact to that of unsupervised following my order in November 2025.[166]Even if there are some elements of exposure to adult matters and influence, the mother’s response to that I find wholly disproportionate.

The Social Workers Evidence

[167]With regard to the social worker’s evidence as to the contact progression, albeit I accept there is a change to her overall recommendations given the ebb and flow of the evidence during the proceedings, seems to have fluctuated and perhaps not have been given the considered attention and thought that one might have expected and therefore requiring overnight clarification.[168]Quite understandably, this does not create a favourable impression insofar as the mother is concerned which I can well understand, and to a degree the father.[169]I am sad to say that I did not find the social worker’s evidence wholly convincing. The plan for contact, even as amended, now seems hastily put together without detailed thought being given to it. She talks about a settling in period before overnight contact commences, yet since November 2025 K has been having regular contact with the father one week after school and on Sunday with no safeguarding concerns. Indeed, he is desperate to stay overnight. This is not disputed.[170]The social worker feels that a Shared Lives with Order at this stage is a step too far. With that I do agree.[171]She also states that if contact is progressed too hastily the family will be set up to fail, given that there will be no ongoing support.[172]Due to the family dynamics in this case, I am concerned, as was the Child’s Guardian, that the local authority intend to close their involvement. This may be out of the social worker’s hands however, reluctantly, she can see the force of the argument for the local authority remaining involved.[173]On her case there will be a transition to overnight and the inevitable emotional fallout from Mum, which could well impact on K’s emotional wellbeing in what is a crucial stage.[174]In conclusion, she saw no real reason as to why the Guardian’s recommendations for progression of contact should not be adopted.

The Child’s Guardian’s Evidence

[175]She recommends a Lives with Order initially in favour of the mother and, following her proposed progression of contact, a Shared Lives with Order. She also recommends a section 91(14) direction for 12 months.[176]Litigation in this case has been lengthy and further litigation would be harmful unless there is good reason, for example a significant safeguarding concern. She implores the local authority to remain involved so as to provide a multiagency approach to oversee the progression plan and head off any potential crisis leading to further proceedings resulting in a cycle of proceedings and further harm to the child.[177]Her evidence is clear. Despite the father’s wish to progress matters at a quicker pace, a slower phased transition is needed to ensure optimal success given Mother’s anxieties. As to the Guardian’s proposed progression plan, I find it well thought out.

Conclusion

[178]This is a case where the child is clearly affected by the breakdown of the relationship between the two people in his life that he loves more than anything else, his parents. The ongoing parental conflict has clearly impacted on him and he has been caught in the middle.[179]I do not accept, on the evidence, that the child has been subjected to a pattern of manipulative behaviour or coercive and controlling behaviour by the father. There may well be some instances when the father’s actions or words were inappropriate and misguided, but I do not see it as a course of conduct or pattern undermining the mother.[180]The evidence base for this is lacking and consists in my view of a few isolated incidents. K clearly loves both parents. The school have no concerns other than the child appears torn between the parents. His dysregulated behaviour is now settling and he is otherwise, remarkably, a child unaffected by his parents’ separation.[181]The father contends that there has been alienation. I will not give a lengthy diatribe with regard to the law in this area, suffice to say that there are three elements that are required to be met before the Court can conclude that there have been alienating behaviours.[182]Firstly, the child is refusing, resisting, or reluctant to engage in a relationship with a parent or carer.[183]Second, the refusal or resistance or reluctance is not consequent on the actions of the non-resident parent or the child with the resident parent.[184]Thirdly the resident parent has engaged in behaviours that have directly or indirectly, impacted on the child, leading to the child’s refusal, resistance, or reluctance to engage in a relationship with the other parent.[185]To answer this:[186]Firstly, is there evidence the child is refusing, resistant or reluctant to engage with the parent. The evidence in this case is clearly not, so in my view the other prongs fall away.[187]I do not find that the mother has set out intentionally to alienate the child from the father or that there are alienating behaviours. Her displaying of artwork put together by the father within the home is commendable and speaks volumes. However, her fixation on perceived risk this father poses, if this is not reined in, will place the child at risk of emotional harm should they persist and the acrimony between these parents and lack of trust does not subside.[188]As to the risks themselves, I have repeatedly found that the allegations of domestic abuse and coercive control that purportedly occurred during the marriage which ended in 2024 are not at a level to justify specific findings in order to determine the welfare of the child. It is neither necessary or proportionate to do so.[189]I remind myself of Re L (Relocation: Second Appeal) [2017] EWCA 2121:
“Few relationships lack instances of bad behaviour on the part of one or both parties at some time and it is a rare family case that does not contain complaints by one party against the other and often complaints are made by both, yet not all behaviours will amount to domestic abuse where coercive behaviour is defined as behaviour that is used to harm, punish, or frighten the victim, and controlling behaviour is behaviour designed to make a person subordinate. In cases where the alleged behaviour does not have this character, it is likely to be unnecessary and is proportionate for detailed findings of fact to be made against the complaints. Indeed, in such cases it would not be in the interests of the child or of justice for the Court to allow itself to become another battleground for adult conflict.”
[190]Indeed, in Re K (Children) [2022] EWCA 468:
“All judges hearing children cases will know that there will almost inevitably be emotional fallout following the separation of adults who have been in a close relationship. Whilst the Court will not hesitate to adjudicate upon parental behaviour where this impacts upon the protection or welfare of a child, it is not for the Court to hear about, much less to resolve issues between the parents relating to their time together, unless to do so is likely to be necessary for and proportionate to the resolution of a dispute relating to the protection or welfare of a child.”
[191]For all the previous reasons I have given in preceding case management decisions in this case, I am steadfast in my view that a Finding of Fact Hearing is not necessary or proportionate. Mother’s safeguarding concerns as to sexualised behaviour, of sleeping naked with the father and the kissing incident at school have all been fully investigated and not substantiated and there has been no repeat of them. I accept that it is also difficult for a child to maintain masking over a prolonged period to multiple professionals and moreover, K adores his father, and Mum herself accepts the evidence is not there.[192]As to what I regard as Mum’s main concern of the father’s manipulation of the child and his control of him with the intention of fracturing the mother and child bond, there is limited evidence. It is my view that Mother is essentially clutching at straws to justify her own narrative and is constantly on the look out for any signs, however small, to reinforce that.[193]Even now that contact has increased to that of unsupervised, K’s love for both parents remains a constant. Mum accepts K loves his father and is happy to see him. He has a good time with him and would be excited to stay overnight.[194]I accept that, on the face of it, there is nothing to suggest that contact should not progress. In my view, the question is one of timing. One also has to have regard to the family dynamics and Mum’s anxieties, whether disproportionate or otherwise. Too hasty a progression before the foundations have been built will potentially result in a ‘Jenga’ outcome.[195]Father needs to be patient and realistic and Mum needs to accept the analysis and decision of this Court after extensive proceedings and three days of evidence. I bemoan that fact that the local authority will not remain involved to at least oversee the progression, and until at least September 2026.[196]In relation to contact and the wishes and feelings of the child, the word used in the Children Act concerning wishes and feelings is ascertainable and not expressed.[197]Ascertainable often means the Court has to look at the actions rather than the words, and of course it would be wrong to proceed on the basis of wishes and feelings alone. Wishes and feelings are secondary to a child’s welfare and they should not of course be taken at face value. They need to be assessed in the light of the child’s age and understanding and whether they reflect their true wishes and feelings, and of course they must be tempered by the overarching requirement to afford paramount consideration to the child’s welfare.[198]In my view, taking everything into account, it is clear, having regards to section 1(3) of the Children Act, the welfare checklist and the evidence before the Court, that contact must progress, and in my view in line with the Child’s Guardian’s proposals as amended.[199]Whilst I do not downplay what Mum has to say in respect of her experiences in her relationship with the father and the two incidents she refers to in January 2025, there is limited evidence of ongoing coercive and controlling behaviour and certainly not at a level to prevent the progression of contact, given the child’s express wishes and his feelings towards the father, which the mother accepts.[200]To her credit, whatever his life experiences, K clearly loves both his parents and that says a lot, and is a foundation stone going forward. I do not accept the child’s views are coloured by either alienation, as I have indicated, or indeed manipulation by the father. The child’s bond with both parents is positive and there is no evidence of any weakening of that despite contact having progressed.[201]With regard to holidays abroad, there is no specific application by the father in relation to this and I do not believe it is in the child’s overall welfare to make any determination as to this at this stage. Father needs to proceed more sensibly given Mum’s anxieties, whether he agrees with them or not. To her they are very real and trust needs to be earned. Father’s failure to appreciate this is a concern and he needs to show a greater level of empathy in my view.[202]In relation to a Shared Live With Order, much has been said in the past in relation to this, but this is what I will say.[203]As set out in Re M (A Child) [2014] EWCA 1755, although a Shared Lives with Order is no longer an exceptional Order, it is still the case that a 50:50 Shared Lives with Order between parents is comparatively rare in private law children cases.[204]Research shows a number of factors have to be in place. Practical matters such as the close geographical proximity, but above all, the couple have to be on reasonable good terms so that the to and fro of everyday life for a child is accommodated without undue emotional fallout, and there is no longer any need, because of the change in the legislation brought about by the Children and Families Act 2014, to impose a shared live with order under section 8.[205]Both parents have equal status so a division of time 50:50 remains a rare order and will only be contemplated where there is some confidence that it will not work to the disadvantage of the child, with the aim to give good quality and substantial time with each parent.[206]In the case of AZ v BX (Child Arrangements Order Appeal) [2024] EWCA 1328, it was determined that the following principes apply to a decision whether or not to make a Shared Lives with[207]It is contended that matters should progress from a Lives with Order in favour of the mother to a Shared Lives with Order as from January 2027.[208]I endorse that recommendation. I accept there has been negligible co-parenting and lack of trust and a Shared Lives with Order is argued to be potentially unworkable and could increase the level of acrimony and expose the child to potentially significant emotional harm; but having said that, one has to look at the overall child’s welfare in having both parents involved fully in the child’s life, given his wishes and feelings in light of his age and understanding and the other section 1(3) checklist factors, albeit none take precedence over the others.[209]Going forward, in January 2027 I believe such an order meets the child’s best interests and places the emphasis on the fact that there needs to be a positive relationship between both parents and that both parents are important in the child’s life. I believe that this is important going forward and is a goal that the parents should strive towards.[210]I would further remark that I also have to consider the child’s perceptions of the order and indeed, any parental misuse in the way it is framed. It provides, in my view, equality between the parents and hopefully will assist with their co-parenting and any work the local authority are able to continue to do.[211]With regard to the oversight of this matter, if the parents agree, (I do not need the local authority to agree) to the making of a Family Assistance Order, I intend to make a Family Assistance Order for 12 months in favour of the local authority.[212]If the parents do not agree, then I am inclined to make a Monitoring Order in favour of Cafcass because in my view ,it is better to have at least some oversight in this case than none at all, but I hope that the parents will agree that the local authority are the right people to remain involved in what is going to be a key transition stage for K.[213]In relation to section 91(14), the case law remains that of Re P (Section 91(14) Guidelines) (Residence and Religious Heritage) [1999] 2 FLR 573.[214]I will not repeat what it says. It is known to all, but of course that case has now been revisited in light of the changes brought about by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 section 67 where the Court does not now have to make an order on the basis that it is an exceptional order.[215]As set out in the case of Re A (A Child: Supervised Contact Section 91(14) Children Act 1999 Order) [2021] EWCA 1749:
“In my judgment in many cases, but particularly in those cases where the judge forms the view that the type of behaviour indulged in by one of the parents amounts to lawfare, that is to say the use of the court proceedings as a weapon of conflict, the Court may feel significantly less reluctant than has been the case hitherto before stepping in to provide, by the making of an order under section 91(14), protection for a parent from what is in effect a form of coercive control on their former partner’s part, bearing in mind it is of course only a filter.”
[216]Indeed, as set out in the case of Re F (Children) [2023] EWFC 212:
“Whilst such an order is still an exception and not the rule, it does not follow that the case or its circumstances must somehow be adjudged to be exceptional before such an order can be made. The Court should bear in mind that such orders represent a protective filter, not a bar on applications and there is considerable scope for their use in appropriate cases. There are varied use and circumstances for their justification and they include cases which the Court considers an application would put the child concerned, or another individual, at risk of harm without the need to find the risk to be serious or the likely harm to be significant or serious. In all of this, the welfare of the child is paramount, but that said, any interference with the parents’ otherwise unfettered right of access to the court, including the duration of any such prohibition, pending permission, must be proportionate to the harm the Court is seeking to avoid.”
[217]I repeat, it is a filter, not a bar. If a parent can show that there is a real change of circumstances then they will be permitted to make a fresh application.[218]In my view, this case cries out for such an order and therefore I will make a Section 91(14) Order until post Easter 2027. That bar will cover section 8 applications but not in relation to enforcement.[219]The order will also need to recite that the child should not be involved in adult discussions insofar as both parents are concerned, and when staying over with the father should have their own bed. There should be use of a parenting app. Handovers should be via school where possible, and there should be timed collection and drop offs.[220]Lateness, subject to a de minimus provision, is a potential breach of the order, unless there is a reasonable excuse. If there is going to be lateness, the parties should communicate one with the other. Failure to do so creates unnecessary anxiety, particularly insofar as the mother is concerned. That cannot be good.[221]The father’s application for a Prohibited Steps Order is dismissed on the basis that the therapy takes place outside of school and the father is actively involved and information is shared.[222]Any further applications following on from this matter will be reserved to me.[223]I intend to publish this judgement, albeit anonymised.[224]That is my judgment and the reason for it. This Transcript has been approved by the Judge. The Transcription Agency hereby certifies that the above is an accurate and complete recording of the proceedings or part thereof. The Transcription Agency, 24-28 High Street, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5AT Tel: 01303 230038 Email: court@thetranscriptionagency.com

Order

“The choice of whether to make a Shared Lives with Order or Lives with Spend Time with Order is not merely a question of labelling. It is likely to be relevant to the welfare of the subject child(ren) and must be made by applying the principles of section 1 of the Children Act. In every case, the appropriate choice depends on a full evaluation of all the circumstances with the child’s welfare being the Court’s paramount consideration. The choice of the form of any Lives with Order should be considered alongside the division of time and any other parts of the proposed Child Arrangements Order. A Shared Lives with Order may be suitable not only when there is to be an equal division of time with each parent, but also when there is an unequal division of time. It does not necessarily follow that the fact the parents are antagonistic or unsupportive of each other that a Shared Lives with Order will be unsuitable.”