F v M

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 and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court. Mrs Justice Lieven DBE :

1. This case concerns a very long-running dispute between two parents, the father (“F”) and the mother, (“M”). There are four children concerned: ‘A’ a boy aged 13, ‘B’ a girl aged 12, ‘C’ a boy aged 10, and ‘D’ a boy aged

8. The parents separated in 2018 and the children have been subject to proceedings for most of the time since then. The current proceedings started in 2022 and are currently in week

117.

2. The F was represented before me by Ms Hewitt, the M by Ms Scott and the Children’s Guardian by Ms McKenzie.

3. These proceedings have been subject to 2 earlier judgments, one by Recorder Coles dated 7 February 2024 and another given by me on 29 January 2025. Both those judgments should be read together with this one for the full history of this matter.

4. As I have said, the parents separated in 2018 and proceedings started shortly thereafter. Between 2018 and March 2025 the children lived with their mother and the proceedings focused on trying to establish regular contact with the F. My understanding is that there was reasonably regular contact up until the outbreak of the Covid pandemic in early 2020. However, since then it has proved enormously difficult to establish regular contact.

5. On 4 May 2022 a Child Arrangements Order (“CAO”) was made for the children to have a pattern of contact with their father, however that did not happen. In December 2023 Recorder Coles held a two-day fact-finding hearing and on 7 February 2024 gave a detailed judgment in respect of enforcement of the previous order.

6. The F’s position was that the M had breached the existing CAO on a number of occasions. The M’s position was either that the children should not spend time with the F or only very limited time with him, and that, in respect of the alleged breaches, she had a reasonable excuse each time the order was breached. I set this out merely to demonstrate that the issues in this case have remained almost identical throughout.

7. There is a passage in Recorder Coles’ judgment regarding the M which I wish to set out in full, as they ring so true to my assessment of the M and her evidence: “19. The mother I find was overall fairly evasive in her answers when giving evidence. She wanted to put her case, rather than answer the question put to her, and was reluctant at times to give responses. For example, on the issue as to whether her responses were contained on the schedule, she repeatedly had to be told to focus on the question being asked as she seemed eager to avoid the question at times and put her case rather than answer what she was asked.

20. There were aspects of her evidence that I did not consider particularly credible. Her account that the children had had Covid type symptoms when asked was unconvincing on several levels, and that is said to have taken place on several occasions….

21. I found it very concerning through her evidence that she seeks to minimise the father’s role and restrict the relationship between the children and the father so significantly. I do not consider having heard from her, that she believes that he has an important, or indeed any role to play with the children, and I’m concerned about her influencing the children as described by the Guardian, which is an issue I will return to.”

8. Recorder Coles found that the M had breached the order on a number of occasions with no reasonable excuse being put forward. She imposed 40 hours of unpaid work, but she suspended that provision for a 12 month period. She made a CAO setting out a detailed schedule of contact building quickly to a shared care arrangement with the children moving between the parents and sharing holidays equally.

9. The matter first came before me in early March 2024 when the M had applied to vary Recorder Coles’ order and the F applied, yet again, for enforcement. There were then a series of hearings in which I tried to ensure contact going forward. The M consistently said that the children did not wish to go to contact and that is why the orders were breached. There was strong and fairly consistent evidence that the M’s position was not true.

10. On 27 April 2024 I made a CAO with very specific provisions about contact and there was a period thereafter when there was some contact. However, by the summer of 2024 matters had slipped again and the matter moved to HHJ Birk given that I was not regularly in Leicester. On 20 November 2024 HHJ Birk joined the children as parties, appointing a Children’s Guardian. As I understand it, by the autumn of 2024 the M was regularly not taking the children to school on a Friday when it was the F’s turn to collect the children from school and have them for the weekend. The consequence of this was that in December 2024 the children were expelled from their then schools, XX Academy and XX Academy. The M then placed the children at XXX School and its feeder school without any discussion or consultation with the F.

11. The case came back before me on 28 January 2025. I ordered Leicester City Council to undertake an investigation pursuant to s.37 Children Act 1989, whether to consider to apply for a care or supervision order, and to prepare a report. I ordered that an independent report be produced by Dr Mark Hardiman with a psychological assessment of the F, the M and the children. On 29 January I made a further CAO for the F to have contact with the children over alternative weekends. I attached penal notices to the M on the orders of both the 28 and 29 of January 2025 in the light of my clear view that she had persistently and deliberately breached earlier court orders.

12. On 4 March 2025 the relatively new Children’s Guardian Mr Kudzai Mwaita visited the children at school. On 7 March Cafcass filed a s.16A risk assessment recommending an urgent hearing and change of residence to the F. The Guardian had spoken to the children and was clear that they wished to have regular contact with the F, but the M was quite deliberately preventing them from doing so.

13. On 13 March the matter came back before me. I ordered that the children move to live with the F and that they have two contact sessions per week with the M, one on MS teams and one face to face, all contact to be at that stage professionally supervised. This decision was based on the Guardian’s position statement and recommendations. Since that date the children have lived with the F. All direct contact with the M has been supervised but supervision has shifted to being undertaken by agreed family members and friends.

14. On 11 June 2025 there was a 2 day final hearing. The position of the parties

15. The M’s position at the final hearing was to seek the return of the children to her care. The F sought care of the children and agreed with all the recommendations of the Guardian. Evidence

16. I heard evidence from two social workers (Ms Holland and Ms Shodeinde), from Dr Hardiman, the M, the F and the Guardian.

17. The professionals were all consistent in their evidence as to the children’s wishes and feelings. ‘A’ wanted to continue to live with Father and had initially said that he did not want to spend time with the M, but had now said that he does want to see her every other weekend for the whole weekend. He did not want contact to be supervised, although he had suggested that the M had sought to control what he and the other children said about her and about what they wished for in terms of contact. ‘B’s’ views were similar to those of ‘A’s’. She wanted to continue to live with her father and have contact in accordance with the current plan of four hours at the weekend. However, she appeared to be more supportive of contact being supervised.

18. ‘C’ on the social worker’s first visit said he didn’t want to live with the F and wanted to live with his mother. He had more recently said to Ms Shodeinde that it was fine living at the F’s house but he wanted to live with his mother and spend time with his father.

19. ‘D’, who is only 8, expressed views similar to ‘C’ but spoke about spending equal time between the parents. Ms Shodeinde said that all the boys did not want supervision but ‘B’ was less clear on this. She was clear that the children’s wishes and feelings needed to be balanced against their best interests and the need to address the emotional harm that the M has inflicted upon them.

20. Ms Holland had been the social worker in February and March 2025 and Ms Shodeinde took over from 1 April. They were both highly professional and fair witnesses. Neither of them had any concerns about the quality of care that the children were receiving with their father. Both of them acknowledge the positives of the M’s support for the children’s education but felt that she had emotionally harmed the children by preventing them from having contact with the F.

21. The local authority plan is for the children to be removed from the Child Protection Plan and moved to a Child in Need plan. There will then be 12 weeks of working with the children and the parents, and assess how contact with the M is going and the need for supervision. If there are still issues then the social worker will recommend a further 6 months of supervised contact and work with the family. There will then be a further review. If necessary one of the parents could then re-refer the matter to the local authority.

22. Dr Hardiman produced a long and very detailed report on the family members. He had spent considerable time with them all including speaking to the children individually. It was clear from his evidence that the parents adopt very different styles of parenting. The M is very focused on the children’s education, both academic and religious, and she is quite controlling of the children. In Dr Hardiman’s assessment, the M has an idealised sense of self, and he was not confident about the mother’s ability to change unless she engaged with the more negative aspects of her psychological presentation.

23. The F is more likely to give the children choices and to seek to guide them rather than control them. This can lead to something of a lack of boundaries and structure.

24. In Dr Hardiman’s opinion, what needed to be achieved was a position where the children could gain from the very different styles their two parents adopted. He recommended that the M engage in therapy and that until this happens, and there were clear outcomes from the therapy, it would be very difficult for the M to support contact or indeed a meaningful relationship with the F. He had regard to the fact that the M is herself a child psychologist, and as such it was particularly important that she worked with a therapist she respected, and that close regard was given to the nature of her engagement.

25. In respect of the children, Dr Hardiman recorded that they had a very strong sibling bond and were highly supportive of each other. He found that all the children exhibited a high level of inhibition and were reluctant to speak openly about their parents. He felt that ‘A’ was particularly inhibited and low in mood and needed particular support, probably from the school. ‘B’ was also quite inhibited in what she said. He felt that the M had been able to give ‘B’ concrete support, but that she had received little emotional support from the M.

26. Both of the older children plainly love their mother, but both report her seeking to influence what they said to professionals. Dr Hardiman said it was particularly important to respect the accounts given by the older children because otherwise they would be sent the message that it was wrong for them to speak out.

27. ‘C’ said to Dr Hardiman that he wanted to live with his mother. ‘D’ was closer to saying that he wanted to split time. Importantly, in the light of the M’s case that the children had been influenced in what they said by the fear of being moved to foster care, Dr Hardiman said that was not a concern that the children ever expressed to him.

28. The M had made a detailed written statement and gave oral evidence. Her position was that she wishes the children to return to her care. She denied preventing the children from going to contact with the F. She said on every occasion that the children had not gone to school and had not then gone to contact, it was because the children were unwell. She said she was always led by the children. They have not wanted to go to contact and she had only done what they wanted.

29. I am afraid to say that I do not think that any reliance can be placed on the M’s evidence. In respect of saying that the children were ill when they were supposed to go to contact, this was the same excuse that she gave to Recorder Coles and Recorder Coles did not accept it. ‘A’ told the Guardian the opposite and the M had no explanation why he would have said this. As I set out in detail below, the evidence shows beyond doubt that the M has been seeking to influence the children and persuade them to lie to the professionals.

30. I have no doubt that the M has done her utmost to prevent the children from having a meaningful relationship with the F. She has done this not merely by preventing them from having contact, but also by trying to exclude the F from the children’s lives. The clearest example of this is moving the children’s schools without even telling the F. When I asked the M about this, she gave what I can only describe as the feeble excuse of it all having happened very quickly. She could give no reason why she did not even send the F an email.

31. The M’s primary position was that all the children should return to her care, however she did also suggest that, if that could not happen, the two younger children should return to her. In terms of the M’s ability to prioritise the children’s need and be sensitive to them, this suggestion caused me particular concern. All the professionals and the F say the children have a strong sibling bond. Even a short watching of the videos shows this is true. However, the M is prepared to argue for the children being separated because it is in her emotional interests to do so.

32. In my view, at the current time the M shows no signs of a capacity to change. She said that she was not prepared to accept that she needed therapy until after she had heard Dr Hardiman’s oral evidence, which for reasons of timing came after her evidence. This was despite the fact that Dr Hardiman had filed a detailed report setting out why he thought the M did need therapy. At one point she said that she would undertake therapy “if the professionals feel I need the therapy”, which is hardly a ringing endorsement of the M’s commitment and insight.

33. The F appeared to me, as he had to Recorder Coles, to be an open and straightforward witness. He accepted that he had spent time getting to know the children and that he did need some help in setting boundaries and routines for them. He emphasised, as did the professionals, that the children had enjoyed getting to know their extended family since they have moved to his home. I was impressed, and to some degree surprised, by the degree to which he clearly supported the children having a relationship with their mother, and had evidenced this, for example by extending time for indirect contact.

34. It appears to me that since the children’s move to the F’s care, he has taken a very child focused approach. He was very open in saying that he would accept any help and advice that would assist the children.

35. The Guardian was allocated to the case in January 2025. Since that date he has had multiple meetings with the children and with the parents. His involvement with the children has been significantly greater than would normally be the case for a Cafcass Guardian. His views of the children’s wishes and feelings are the same as those set out above. In his report he included a letter from ‘B’ which she wrote to the judge. She was the only one of the children who wished to write to me directly. That letter states: “Dear Judge I have spoken to Laura and Kudzai and I have decided what I would like to happen. I would like to continue to live with my dad and have supervised visits with my mum for 2 to 4 hours. I feel that I need to gradually build up the time with my mum. I would like for perhaps next year for us to maybe spend the full day there and as the years go by the weekend contact. I feel that the videos sometimes it has been extended past the time limit. When I carry on going to contact my mum I would like it to carry on being supervised. Thank you. ‘B’”

36. In the Guardian’s view the children have suffered emotional harm in the M’s care. She has failed to promote contact with the F and has failed to listen to the children. He was very concerned that the M has sought to influence the children against the F and will continue to do so, particularly with the younger children if contact is not supervised. In respect of the F, he needs help with setting routines and boundaries for the children. The F has had a period of time getting to know the children again, particularly the younger children, and so it is not surprising that he has needed some help with this process. The Guardian has been impressed both by the F’s standard of care but also by how relatively easily the children have settled into his care. The Guardian recommends, in accordance with the local authority’s plan, that the children continue to live with the F, that they spend time with the M, alternate weeks for direct contact for four hours and one hour per week indirect on Teams. He also recommends a s.91(14) order for 3 years.

37. There is one specific issue raised by the Guardian which caused me very considerable concern. The Guardian records that after the contact on 14 April he was sent screenshots from the Zoom video call between the children and their mother. The F sent screenshots and said that ‘A’ sent them to him. The screenshots are of the chat bar in which under the name ‘M’ it says “and make sure you say you hate it there you do nothing” and “is really really important”.

38. Because it was the clearest possible evidence of the M seeking to influence the children against the F, I asked the M about these messages and she denied having written them. In the light of that evidence I held that the F needed to be recalled to explain his understanding of the messages. Ms Hewitt then told me that the F had a full recording of the contact of 14 April on his computer. This was brought to court and I and the parties watched that recording.

39. In the recording it is, in my view, very clear that the M has written the messages, not least because at the point where they appear on the screen she can be seen typing and mouthing to the children “you are coming home”. This is both a clear attempt to influence the children but also an attempt not to be recorded saying this. I note that this contact was the day before they were supposed to be seeing Dr Hardiman. There is a further message which appears in the chat where the M appears to write “say Kudzai + d (father) said you will go into foster home if you don’t do what they say”. This is a blatant attempt to make the children lie and to create evidence against the F. I am extremely concerned about this evidence for a number of reasons.

40. After the full recording was produced, I gave the M a chance to return to the witness box and revisit her evidence on this matter. She declined to do so. Miss Scott said that, on advice, the M had decided not to give further evidence.

41. Firstly, the evidence shows in clear terms that the M was seeking to influence the children against the F. Secondly, the M has lied on oath to the court when she said that she did not write the two earlier messages. Thirdly, the M is a professional child psychologist. The fact that she is prepared to harm her own children in this way and to lie on oath to the court is a matter of considerable professional concern. I have already ordered that my judgments in this case should be sent to the M’s professional regulatory body. Conclusions

42. In reaching my conclusions I take into account the welfare checklist in s.1 Children Act 1989 and the importance of children having a relationship, where safe, with both parents.

43. This has been an extremely long-running case, and at one point appeared to be a very intractable one. There has been a consistent story of the M seeking to prevent contact with the F and to exclude him from the children’s lives. The evidence that she has not supported contact, prevented the children from seeing their father and ignored court orders is overwhelming.

44. I do not accept that the M has been following what the children wanted. The evidence to the contrary is clear. There has been consistent evidence of the children telling professionals that they wanted to see their father.

45. I find that the M has caused the children both emotional and educational harm. She deliberately kept them off school when they were not unwell in order to prevent the F having contact. This led the children to be expelled from their school.

46. I do not think that the M has now genuinely changed and will support the F’s relationship with the children. I am very sceptical that she will do so until she has not just undergone therapy, but also fully engaged with it and accepted her need for it.

47. I am very pleased to record that all the children have settled extremely well into their father’s care. They are all doing well at school and there is no concern about their current wellbeing. It should be noted that, particularly for the younger children, the move to their father’s care was not necessarily going to be a smooth one. It is to the F’s credit that they have moved so easily and settled into their new home with relative ease.

48. In the circumstances I have no doubt that the children should remain living with their father. I appreciate that the two younger children have said they would rather live with their mother. However, that is hardly surprising given that they had previously lived with her their entire lives, and had very limited contact with the F. I have no confidence that if I moved their residence the M would now promote contact. Most importantly, the children have a very strong sibling bond, and all professionals agree that to separate them would cause them harm. I therefore take the view that their best interests are served by all remaining living with the F, and having contact with the M.

49. Contact with the M should continue to be supervised until the local authority, in discussion with the F, consider supervision to no longer be necessary. The plan of the children being subject to a Child in Need plan for 12 weeks, with a review at the end, then followed by potentially another 6 months of local authority support, is in my view a good one.

50. I will make a s.91(14) order for 3 years. The children have been in litigation for most of the last 8 years and they, and the parents, need a break. The s.91(14) is a filter but not a bar, so if there has been real change from the M, but the F is refusing to allow more contact, the Court can allow an application by the M to go before the court.