BL v MK

The courts have said time and again in any number of ways that contact is almost always in the interests of a child. Lady Justice Macur in Re M (Children)  [2013] EWCA Civ 1147 said : “A child’s continuing relationship with a non-residential parent is highly desirable and contact should not be denied unless the child’s welfare demands it. Domestic violence is not, in itself, a bar to direct contact, but must be assessed in the circumstances as a whole..”

25. More recently Lord Justice Christopher Clarke in Re R ( A Child)[2014] EWCA Civ 1664 said: “[16].. the court has in a series of cases stressed the importance of contact between parent and child as a fundamental element of family life, which is almost always in the interests of the child, and which is to be terminated only in exceptional circumstances, where there are cogent reasons for doing so and where there is no alternative”

26. If, as I find, the fact that there will have to be long term supervision of contact is not in itself a reason to refuse face to face contact, the court must identify and set out, by reference to the evidence, its reasons for refusing contact.  In addition, where, as here, the judge has the benefit of a specialist risk assessment and two reports from an experienced CAFCASS officer, it is important that the judge’s reasons for rejecting their recommendation are clearly articulated in the judgment. The judge did not give any reasons for rejecting the recommendation of Mrs Oliver other than to comment that “I do not think that Mrs Oliver really addressed that” ( ie supervision) “on a long term basis”.

63. Having reviewed more recent jurisprudence this approach has not changed, although more may now be understood as to the impact of experiencing abusive behaviours on children. In this case supervision of the time the children spend with their mother would, in my judgment be necessary, but it would not have been a bar to supporting the relationships between the children and their mother in light of the findings I have made against her.

64. Turning to events more recently, the children had been, after being de-registered, deemed Children in Need. The last CIN meeting took place in May, but the allocated social worker and team manager attended this last hearing and confirmed that they would continue to offer supports post this hearing, in particular to Child A and would assist in signposting the father to any further supports.

65. The Guardian’s last position statement provided updating information on each of the children. It is sad and worrying to read how hard the children find not seeing their mother and how acute the loss of her still is to them.

66. In particular the court was advised that: · Father has sourced play therapy for Child B and C and and CBT for Child A following the recommendations from the family psychologist report. · School have commented that Child C has been more unsettled in recent weeks and has been asking more about mummy and when he will be seeing her again. School have put support in place for him around this. and when he speaks about mummy they offer him a session. He seems to feel better after he has had support from a key worker and had a discussion about the feelings he has about his mum. · Child B is getting on well in school, although the school express concern that she internalises a lot of her worries rather than speaking to adults about this. · Child A is getting on well in school and is now able to identify triggers to his emotions which is a positive step forward for him. He is still working with ELSA and enjoys this support in school. He knows he has access to support in school and will access this as and when he needs to. · Sibling contact is going well in school. The older children will go over to the junior school and sit and play with the children and do reading and homework with them. The Guardian understands that Child A talks to the older children a lot about mum and they have been very good in answering his questions and they have spoken to him about mum’s mental health. He has responded very well to these discussions. The children all seem to get a lot from this contact. · Father has confirmed he is in regular communication with the older children’s father and will organise sibling contact during holidays.

62. It is my judgment vital that sibling contact is supported, treated and being so very important for the children and that both father and the father of the older children can ensure that the children’s relationship is protected.

63. I encourage father to share this judgment with the father of the older children and he has my permission to do so. It is, in my judgment, time for the adults caring for the children to understand what life has been like for all of them and how they have been harmed by the mother’s behaviours, even though she loves each and every child and would not have wanted to cause any one of them harm.

64. Within all of the allegations and accusations there has been one which the mother has held to, even in the last months of the court process. This relates to a financial trust of which the children are beneficiaries. Much has been said about this trust throughout the court process. I understand that at one stage the trust provided financial support to the mother in these proceedings. When invited to financially assist both of the parents post fact-finding they declined to do so. The mother in short believes strongly that the father has been intent on securing the management of and money from the trust. She believes and has stated on many occasions that this has been his driving motive. I make it plain that I do not find any evidence of this and note that the trust has and retains control over how monies are paid to the children. They have agreed to fund therapy for the children and were also willing to assist in funding supervision for time the children may have spent with their mother if she chose to do so. There has been no evidence in my judgment of the trust and the father collaborating nor of the father seeking payments from the trust to his own financial gain.

65. I am clear that notwithstanding the findings I made and the admissions made by the father about his behaviours, his conduct and focus has been during my oversight of this case, child-focused. When at times he has presented as frustrated, angry or upset, it has been within a context which is understandable, when faced with the nature and type of allegations he (and indeed his children) have had to endure. He is aware that he must be careful not to allow his negativity towards the mother to be felt and or experienced by the children. I am satisfied he has and will continue to access therapy and support to ensure that this does not happen. He knows the harm that this will cause his children.

66. I have of course, in reaching decisions about what final orders to make, have had regard to the welfare checklist. The best interests of each of these three children have been the centre of my thinking and assessment. I am mindful that they may one day wish to read this judgment, to see if there is in it information which may help them make sense of their childhood, the loss of their mother and the experiences of harm they have endured.

67. I have considered with care each element of the welfare checklist and in particular the risk of harm to them, which in my view currently come from their mother’s view of their father and her emotionally harmful parenting of them. The children are safely cared for with their father and there are no plans to change either their home or their schooling. There is no significant change to their day to day lives. A home with their father meets their needs to be cared for by a parent, and management of contact with their mother would protect them from harm from their mother. As already set out above, there is a risk of harm to them in losing contact with their siblings but I am satisfied that their father will do all he can to prevent that from happening.

68. After the fact-finding hearing I wrote to the children (seeking guidance from the children’s Guardian) and I told them I would write to them again and I have done so. It is not in the interest of these children to not have their mother in their lives, even if through indirect contact and regulated time together. However, this court cannot compel a parent into contact. It plainly would, in any event and in my judgment, cause harm to the children’s mother and risk much for the children were any attempts made now to compel her.

69. I must stand back and consider the Article 8 rights of each of the children and of their parents. It is necessary for me consider whether orders should be made, or whether there should be no orders in relation to the involvement of the mother in the lives of her children at this time. I have considered the capacities of the parents to meet the full needs of the children and find that the father is a capable and loving father. The mother too is a loving parent, but currently she is not able to meet the children’s emotional and psychological needs. To place them in a situation where she can harm them by sharing her views of their father would risk further harm to the children.

70. The children’s needs are being met by their parents and if there is no change to their current arrangements (which no person is advocating) then there is no risk to which I must have regard. They are safe and well cared for and accessing therapy and supports at school The children see their older siblings. A change for the positive would be some contact with their mother.

71. The father is not saying that the children should not have their mother in their lives: he remains of course very worried for the risks of harm she poses, but in my judgment is able to reflect on how to balance that harm and agrees that managed and carefully supervised contact would be in the children’s best interests. The Guardian too echoes this and would, were all things possible, have wanted the mother to be able to engage in therapy for herself and that she was able to have some form of contact with the children.

72. The children even at their young ages are able to articulate their wishes and feelings to see their mother. Child B perhaps of them all has been least vocal, she before had expressed some uncertainty at seeing her mother due to the harm I have found she was then suffering.

73. To that end the following orders are in my judgment a clear pathway for everyone to follow if and when the mother is able to re engage in the lives of her children. In the event the mother comes forward seeking to spend time with the children: a) Indirect time shall take place for three months. ‘Indirect’ means that the mother may send letters and cards to the children twice a month on condition that the items are sent to father who may screen the contents before giving them to the children. Father shall encourage the children to each respond. If suitable indirect contact has been maintained b) Supervised time shall take place as follows i. video calls once a fortnight for 8 weeks for up to 30 minutes on each occasion. All being well: ii. visiting time shall then take place once a month with a view to it increasing to once a fortnight. c) The supervision shall be carried out by a suitable organisation identified by the father (such as New Leaf). d) The above stepped arrangement/pathway is required before any unsupervised time thereafter be considered take place and this then, shall be arranged by the applicant father.

74. This is a pathway this court endorses, but the order shall provide that there is no order for contact and that any progression shall follow the pathway set out above.

75. The orders I make that the children live with their father hold the children’s lives experiences and cements that important relationship and provides certainty to them and to their father. Within that live with order he must however continue to share parental responsibility with the children’s mother. It is important and in the best interests of the children that their father is able to make decisions for them and take day-to-day parenting decisions around education health and welfare. While their mother continues to see the father as a risk, and while she declines to engage in the lives of the children, it is in my judgment necessary and proportionate that I make orders which assist the father to exercise his parental responsibility in a way which ensure the welfare needs of the children come first.

76. To that end I order that the father can make day-to-day decisions about routine health education and welfare matters such as and not limited to: · The children engaging in therapy which I expressly order today that the father has permission to arrange. · Which school activities the children engage in and which school trips they go on · Routine health and NHS-approved vaccinations · Routine eye and dental appointments.

76. I further order that: In the event that the respondent mother remains absent from the children and there is a need to exercise parental responsibility from time to time in relation to matters including but not limited to: a) School, further and higher education choices and costs (save for routine matters) b) Where the children live c) Medical and health issues (except for routine appointments and minor matters) d) Travel abroad with the children over 8 weeks The applicant father shall have permission to make such decisions without the consent of the mother on condition that he has given notice to the applicant in writing on each occasion to her last known postal address by registered post and also her last known email address requesting that she respond in 14 days of receipt and she fails to do so.

77. Nothing in these orders shall be taken to prevent the father from making and taking urgent decisions as and if they arise.

78. It will be important for professionals working with the children to have access to the judgments of this court and the child-friendly letters/narrative I and others produce. Permission is given for GPs, safeguarding leads and the pastoral heads at the school to see these documents as well of course as any professional working with any one of the children and or their parents. I have already stated that in my judgment it is also important for the father of the older siblings to also see the courts’ judgments.

79. These proceedings have taken their toll on the family. I have seen and witnessed the exhaustion from both parents and have read about the emotional harm the children have suffered. There is now a time for calm and repair. I urge the father to manage his needs to enable him to continue to be the best father he can to three children who have clear emotional and psychological needs: it is likely these will manifest more as time passes.

80. To the mother I express a hope that she can navigate her needs and hold her children’s needs at the centre of her thoughts and decisions.

81. I express my gratitude to the social work team and to the guardian and the children’s solicitor Ms Newcombe who have worked tirelessly for the children they represent in this complex case and also to their representatives, in particular to Ms Howell and to Ms Barnett (who represents the father) who have assisted me immensely over the past year and 6 months.

82. I have provided an updated narrative for the children which will be sent to them once the Guardian has reviewed it.