{"id":571549,"date":"2026-04-15T21:31:12","date_gmt":"2026-04-15T19:31:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/reuben-a-child-re-2\/"},"modified":"2026-04-15T21:31:12","modified_gmt":"2026-04-15T19:31:12","slug":"reuben-a-child-re-2","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/reuben-a-child-re-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Reuben (A Child), Re"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

Introduction & Background 1. This case concerns a nine-year-old boy who I will refer to by the pseudonym Reuben. He supports Liverpool and would like to be a professional footballer when he grows up. His father is Daniel (a pseudonym) who with no disrespect intended I will refer to as the Father. His mother is Jane (a pseudonym) who likewise, with no disrespect intended I will refer to as the Mother. Reuben has historically lived with his mother, in her home with the family cat. A lodger also lives at the address. Reuben has also historically spent time with his father and his father\u2019s partner in their home. 2. This oral judgment was given at the conclusion of a 2-day final hearing heard in the Family Court at Worthing over 29-30 September 2025. Because of the unusually long and protracted history that has led to the parties being here today, I am going to set out the chronology in some detail. 3. Reuben\u2019s parents met and moved in together at the start of 2015. Reuben was born shortly thereafter in May 2016. The parties separated in June that same year when Reuben was just one month old. In the context of that breakup, the Mother alleged that she experienced domestic abuse during her relationship with the Father. This took the form of purported verbal abuse and physically threatening behaviour, such as the Father slapping his own head or throwing items. She also had concerns about the Father\u2019s alcohol use. These allegations have never been subject to findings of fact or determination, in these or indeed any other proceedings. 4. Since his parents\u2019 separation, the majority of Reuben\u2019s young life has been consumed with four different sets of court proceedings. 5. The First Application for a child arrangements order was made by the Father in December 2016. This was triggered by Reuben\u2019s mother having suspended any contact with the Father. An alcohol hair strand and liver functioning test was undertaken by the Father in that case, which concluded that he had no issues with alcohol dependence. District Judge Taylor made an order for interim contact in a contact centre on 2 March 2017 and declined to order a fact-finding hearing on allegations deemed then to be historic. 6. A substantive section 7 report (the first of many) was undertaken on 1 June 2017. It recommended a stepped increase in unsupervised contact leading to the introduction of overnight stays by the time Reuben was 3 years old. That report concluded that, \u201cthe incidents described [of alleged abuse] happened in the context of a highly stressful relationship which became toxic. There is no pattern of physical abuse, nor is there any post separation harassment. The emails presented by the Mother as evidence of harassment would seem to me to reflect a parent desperately wanting to see their child as opposed to a sustained campaign of harassment.\u201d The parties then agreed a final order via mediation in August 2017 reflecting the recommended increase of contact. 7. The Second Application was brought by the Father in 2018 when Reuben was 2 years old. That application was to vary the existing Child Arrangements Order made in August 2017, and to progress to the stage of contact as had been agreed and set out within the pre-existing order. The safeguarding letter in that case dated 22 May 2018 recorded that the Mother, \u201chas noticed that since the alternate Saturday contact started, Reuben has become more aggressive after contact and thinks he may be struggling with the increase. Reuben has been hitting out, biting and slapping her as well as hitting out at other children. Therefore, she is opposing the Father\u2019s application to progress contact.\u201d 8. At this time the Mother requested a psychological assessment of Reuben due to her concerns about his changing behaviour and her wanting a space for him to explore his feelings. The Mother accordingly engaged a Child Adolescent Psychoanalytic Psychotherapist to engage Reuben in therapy when he was aged just 2 years old. 9. The Second Application resulted in a second final order made by Deputy District Judge Mills, concluded after mediation on 29 March 2019. This was for Reuben to live with his Mother and spend time with his father on Wednesdays, collecting from nursery, and every other weekend from Friday from after nursery\/school until Sunday at 4.30pm, along with some additional time such as 4 hours for Father\u2019s Day. Further increases in holiday contact were also agreed within that order. 10. It was only one month later in April 2019 that the Father issued the Third Application for enforcement. The Father alleged that the Mother had moved Reuben to a new nursery and had withheld the details from him, effectively terminating any contact. The Mother had a very different narrative around the cessation of nursery attendance which was intertwined with intractable financial disputes between the parties. The Mother reported the Father to the police. He was arrested prior to an ordered contact session but this was ultimately subject to no further police action. Indeed, all police involvement has concluded with no further action. 11. The Father was at this time concerned that Reuben was engaged in therapy at such a young age, considering him too young for such an interventionist approach. 12. The Covid pandemic then sadly intervened in proceedings. Although a substantive section 7 report was undertaken on 24 April 2020, the Cafcass officer who authored the report was unable to meet Reuben due to lockdown. The officer was therefore unable to make positive recommendations, having not been able to ascertain Reuben\u2019s wishes and feelings. The report observed the recurring concerns of the Mother that, \u201c[she] is concerned about Reuben\u2019s behaviour after returning from time with the Father. She said that this can last for anything up to two weeks. He can be withdrawn, tearful and unable to look at his mother or follow instruction. There are times when his behaviour is more extreme, he runs off, tries to get to dangerous items he shouldn\u2019t play with, and is aggressive to his mother and other people. Reuben started having night terrors about a week after he first had an overnight stay with the Father.\u201d The report also observed that the Mother\u2019s referral of Reuben to play therapy was in conjunction with advice received from his GP. 13. On 6 November 2020 the parents again concluded another consent order, formalised by District Judge Collins, following their again attending mediation. This essentially reflected their agreement for continuation of the child arrangements set out in the previous order. 14. There followed a two-and-a-half-year period of relative stability from the end of November 2020 until the Spring of 2023. By this time Reuben was having overnight contact with his father one night in the week per fortnight, with a teatime visit from 3pm \u2013 6pm on the intervening week, and every other weekend on a Friday from after school, returning to his mother\u2019s house on Sunday afternoons. 15. In 2023 Reuben was diagnosed with an illness which has since necessitated frequent monitoring of blood tests and urine, along with regular hospital appointments. That illness is well controlled and will resolve by adulthood. Reuben was also diagnosed with autism during that same year. The Mother refused the Father any rights of attendance for Reuben\u2019s various medical appointments pertaining to these diagnoses and treatments. 16. This current set of proceedings marks the Fourth Application, brought under case numberSD23P20317 on 8 April 2023. The Father\u2019s C100 stated, \u201cThe child's contact with the Applicant was intended to progress, but the Respondent has not allowed this. The Applicant now applies for a Child Arrangements Order defining the child's time with him. He requests equal time for each parent on a week on week off basis and shared school holidays.\u201d The Mother responded on 24 August 2023 by a C1A setting out various health concerns relating to Reuben and his ASD diagnosis. She also sought a non-molestation order and a specific issue order regarding Reuben\u2019s hospital appointments. No such orders were ever made. 17. The Father\u2019s contact with Reuben was then suspended by the Mother in September 2023, leading the Father to make an enforcement application in September 2023. The suspension of contact followed the Mother reporting that Reuben\u2019s behaviour had significantly deteriorated following a 5-day family holiday with his father in Spain. Reuben\u2019s school attendance was significantly impaired at this time too. The Mother attended A&E in September 2023, but the medical professionals did not make any additional medical diagnoses. However, concern was expressed about Reuben\u2019s presenting unruly behaviour and mental health. 18. District Judge Melville-Walker considered the case on the papers at a second gatekeeping appointment in the autumn of 2023. He ordered the release into proceedings of all previous case papers, and directed that the court would consider the making of a s.91(14) order and the appointment of a guardian. 19. The first hearing was before Deputy District Judge Parsons on 18 December 2023 who directed the filing of a section 7 report by 15 April 2024. She also directed the listing of a further DRA on 22 January 2024, the Father having not attended the December hearing under the misunderstanding that it had been vacated. 20. At that January 2024 hearing before Deputy District Judge Elliott the extant child arrangements order was not expressly discharged or suspended. Rather there was a separate paragraph of the directions order entitled \u201cFortnightly updates\u201d providing that \u201cThe Mother must provide fortnightly written updates to the Father in respect of Reuben, the first such update to be received by the Father by 4pm on 5th February 2024.\u201d The implication of the same was that the previous order was indeed suspended, or at least not to be enforced until further order. A recital confirmed that, \u201cthe Mother confirming that she is opposed any type of contact, direct or indirect as she is of the view it is emotionally harmful for the child\u201d. 21. A Dispute Resolution Appointment took place on 22 April 2024 before District Judge Spanton whereby the Mother was ordered to \u201cmake Reuben available for contact with his father as follows: i. Every Saturday from 9.30am \u2013 1.30pm starting on Saturday 4th May 2024 unless and until the court orders otherwise.\u201d The appointment of a rule 16.4 Guardian was also ordered, despite the strong objections of the Mother. Within weeks of that order, the Mother applied to the court to vary down the contact from weekly to fortnightly. 22. That application was heard and declined by Deputy District Judge Parsons on 28 May 2024. Notwithstanding the same, the Mother applied again only weeks later to vary, and in fact, to cease all direct contact between Reuben and his father. Her C2 dated 15 July 2024 stated, \u201cThe Mother considers that further direct contact for Reuben at this stage would be detrimental to his wellbeing.\u201d 23. The matter then came before me for the first time on 1 August 2024. Because of my significant concerns about the protracted litigation history and lack of judicial continuity I reserved the case to myself for all future hearings. I dismissed the Mother\u2019s application to suspend contact and directed weekly Saturday contact between Reuben and his father from 9:30am-1:30pm. I also declined an oral application of the Mother to appoint an expert assessment of Reuben to opine as to the causation of his alleged poor behaviour following contact with the Father. It was recorded at this hearing that the Father had changed his position to seek a change of residence for Reuben to live with him rather than for shared care. 24. The first Guardian\u2019s report was filed on 15 October 2024 which concluded that, \u201cthere is no evidence that supports that Reuben is experiencing harm while he is in the care of his father, and he has consistently reported that he wishes to see him and spend time with him, at his home.\u201d There was a recommendation for increase in time towards shared residence. The Guardian also sought time for further consideration as to whether there should be a change of residence to the Father, pending assessment of the increase in Reuben\u2019s time with his father. 25. The matter next came before me for a further Dispute Resolution Appointment on 22 October 2024. There I dismissed the Mother\u2019s written application for a child psychological assessment of Reuben which had been filed on 27 September 2024. I also increased Reuben\u2019s contact with his father to fortnightly staying weekend contact along with every Wednesday after school from 3pm to 6pm. Because of the inability of the parents to agree Christmas arrangements and the constraints on listing time before me, I also directed a single-issue hearing to address the Christmas arrangements before Family Magistrates on 9 December 2024. 26. That hearing proceeded and resulted in the Mother being ordered to make Reuben available for contact with his father from 22 December 2024 to 26 December 2024, and from 31 December 2024 to 3 January 2025. 27. On 28 February 2025 the Mother filed yet another C2 application to vary contact, opposing any extension of time for Reuben to be spending Sunday evenings with his father. This was refused at a Dispute Resolution Appointment before me on 13 March 2025. There I drew up a comprehensive child arrangements schedule. This progressed arrangements so that Reuben would be alternating weeks with his parents by the time of the summer holidays, continuing thereafter on an alternating weekly pattern into the autumn term until the Final Hearing. An addendum guardian report was also ordered in accordance with my listing the matter for a final hearing in September, preceded by a pre-trial review. 28. During the Summer of 2025, the Mother sought (via correspondence with the Father\u2019s solicitors) to again reduce the amount of time that Reuben was ordered to spend with his father, citing an alleged negative impact on Reuben\u2019s emotional and physical wellbeing. This was not agreed to by the Father. 29. The Guardian filed an addendum report on 1 September 2025 recommending that Reuben change his residence to his father, spending alternate weekends and Wednesday nights with his mother. 30. The PTR went ahead on 4 September 2025 where it was confirmed that the issues for the final hearing would be (i) whether there should be a change of residence, (ii) what time Reuben should spend with either parent, and (iii) what school Reuben ought to attend. This third issue arose because the Mother sought a change of school for Reuben to attend one nearer to her address, her having moved to a neighbouring town which was approximately a 15\u201320-minute drive from the Father\u2019s home. 31. As a result, the final hearing took place to address those three issues which were not agreed. 32. The court has a core bundle of 474 pages. There are also two additional bundles; a 2,199-page supplementary bundle containing exhibits from the parties\u2019 numerous statements, historic position statements, and papers from the previous sets of proceedings. There is also a separate 670-page \u2018Local Authority Bundle\u2019 consisting of a multitude of historic Local Authority documents such as Mash referrals, contact records and Early Help enquiries and summaries. It is striking to stand back and appreciate that Reuben\u2019s 9-year life has already been consumed by these 3,200+ pages. It is also unfortunate that agreement could not be reached to exclude the vast amount of extraneous documentation, given how little of it was actually referenced or referred to me during the final hearing. 33. Even with that volume of paperwork having been permitted by me at PTR (for pragmatic reasons to avoid any potential complaint that I had not had regard to any critical historic documents), the Mother applied to adduce yet a further bundle of 21 pages on the first morning of the Final Hearing, and to adduce a further document on the morning of the second day. For reasons given in short oral case management decisions, I admitted the former, but not the latter. 34. Despite the resource and attention applied to the conceptual preparation of the court bundles, I was once again led to bemoan the failure to ensure that the same had been prepared for the use of witnesses. It was not until 10.15 on the first morning that the parties became aware that there were neither any paper bundles nor a digital tablet or screen preloaded with the bundles for the witness box. \u00a0I have previously observed that on a routine basis, the District Bench is confronted with managing the prosaic yet pressing administrative concern relating to provision of bundles. An inadvertent consequence of the welcome move to a digital court environment is the failure to ensure that an accessible witness bundle is provided for use during the hearing. I had ordered the provision of a witness bundle in this case, but that order had been overlooked. In light of the diminishing court resource generally available to the District Bench which is generally not clerked, it is beyond the administrative ability of the court itself to be checking up on compliance ahead of hearings. The responsibility rests with the lawyers to ensure that such basic directions are followed, whether by the timely provision of a paper bundle or a digital device preloaded with the e-bundle. 35. This case was also bedevilled by the all-too-common problem that the PDF page numbering of the 4 bundles did not align with the internal numbering of the same. Lawyers and witnesses alike articulated the difficulty that they had in managing the same over the course of the hearing. The President\u2019s Guidance on E-Bundles for use in The Family Court and Family Division published as long ago as December 2021 mandates the following (emphasis added), \u201cAll pages in an e-bundle must be numbered by computer-generated numbering, not by hand. The numbering should start at page 1 for the first page of the bundle (whether or not that is part of an index) and the numbering must follow sequentially to the last page of the bundle, so that the pagination matches the pdf numbering. If a hard copy of the bundle is produced, the pagination must match the e-bundle.\u201d 36. I note also that the proposed new draft PD27A promulgated by the Family Rules Committee sets out at paragraphs 3.2 and 10.1 that, \u201c3.2 Even if an e-bundle is filed and served, paper bundle(s) must also be provided to the court by the person who has filed and served the e-bundle- (a) where the court so directs, for use by the judge, by a witness in the witness box at a hearing and\/ or by a litigant in person who cannot access an e-bundle; or (b) even if the court does not so direct, where there is a realistic possibility of a witness giving evidence in person in the court.\u201d \u201c10.1 the computer-generated page numbering must match the PDF \u201cpage label\u201d numbering.\u201d 37. I highlight these points as necessary reminders to practitioners, to ensure that electronic bundles are properly prepared and paginated and made available for witnesses to use in court. 38. All parties were legally represented during the hearing. The Father by Ms Sayer, the Mother by Mr Valks and Reuben\u2019s Guardian by Mr Bull. I am grateful to them all for their professionalism displayed throughout the hearing. The parties\u2019 positions and the issues 39. The issues upon which I need to make a decision have widened slightly since the PTR. They now stand as follows; a. Whether there should be a change of residence; b. What time Reuben should spend with his non-resident parent, whoever that may be; c. What school Reuben should attend; d. What phone and\/or video calling and\/or messaging should be permitted when Reuben is with the other parent; e. Whether there should be a s.91(14) order. 40. The principle of shared holidays\/non term time was agreed during the course of the hearing. I had notified the advocates that unless a specific written framework was agreed before the conclusion of proceedings, that the court order would have made a default order detailing the mechanics of the same. That was because the court was not willing to countenance the parties going away from court and then seeking to continue to litigate such matters by email, particularly in circumstances where the Mother did not have solicitors on record as acting (her counsel Mr Valks appearing on a Direct Access basis). Thankfully, pragmatic discussions on the second day of the hearing resulted in an agreed schedule of Reuben\u2019s time to be spent with his parents during holidays\/non-term time. 41. The mother has also changed her historic position with regard to the term-time arrangements. She now offers a fortnightly pattern whereby Reuben would spend Thursday after school until Monday drop-off at school with his father during Week 1, and for overnights on Wednesdays in Week 2. This is equivalent to five nights out of fourteen. As a \u2018fallback\u2019 position, she would otherwise prefer that the weekly alternating pattern continues rather than there be a change of residence to the Father. The Law 42. In considering this case, my fundamental and paramount concern is the welfare of Reuben, as set out in s.1(1) of the Children Act 1989. Although I may not expressly address them all, I also have regard in my judgment to the factors set out in what is known as the \u2018Welfare Checklist\u2019 as set out in s.1(3) of the Children Act 1989 as follows; (a) the ascertainable wishes and feelings of Reuben (considered in the light of his age and understanding); (b) his physical, emotional and educational needs; (c) the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances; (d) his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant; (e) any harm which Reuben has suffered or is at risk of suffering; (f) how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs; (g) the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question. 43. I observe also that there is currently a legal presumption under s.(2A) of the Children Act 1989 that — unless the contrary is shown — the involvement of the Father in the life of Reuben will further his welfare. It is also recognised that any delay will be prejudicial to Reuben\u2019 welfare. Finally I also record that where a court is considering whether or not to make one or more orders under the Children Act 1989 in a case like this, it shall not make the order or any of the orders unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all (\u201cthe No-order principle\u201d). 44. The standard of proof is the civil standard \u2013 the balance of probabilities. The law operates a binary system, so if a fact is shown to be more likely than not to have happened, then it happened, and if it is shown not to cross that threshold, then it is treated as not having happened. 45. Sometimes the burden of proof will come to the judge's rescue: the party with the burden of showing that something took place will not have satisfied them that it did. But, generally speaking, a judge ought to be able to make up their mind where the truth lies without needing to rely upon the burden of proof; 46. The court can have regard to the inherent probabilities of events or occurrences; the more serious or improbable the allegation the greater the need for evidential 'cogency'. 47. Findings of fact in these cases must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation. 48. The court must consider and take into account all the evidence available. My role here is to survey the evidence on a wide canvas, considering each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence. I must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to any necessary conclusions. 49. My function in resolving disputes of fact in the family court is fundamentally different from the role of the judge and jury in the Crown Court. As the Court of Appeal made clear in Re R [2018] EWCA Civ 198 at \u00a761, "The primary purpose of the family process is to determine, as best that may be done, what has gone on in the past, so that that knowledge may inform the ultimate welfare evaluation where the court will choose which option is best for a child with the court's eyes open to such risks as the factual determination may have established". 50. Section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 provides that when a court disposes of any application for an order under the Act it can make an order that no application for an order under that Act of any specified kind may be made with respect to the child concerned by any person named in the order without the leave of the court. This applies whether or not it makes any other order in response to the application. An order under section 91(14) does not stop an application being made to the court. Rather is serves as a protective filter made by the court, in the interests of children. The effect of a such an order is to restrict an applicant who would otherwise have an automatic entitlement to apply to the court for an order from being able to do so. 51. PD 12Q of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 now gives considerable scope for the use of s.91(14) orders in appropriate cases. The child's welfare remains the court's paramount consideration. Other circumstances outlined in paragraph 2.3 in which the court may make a s.91(14) order may include: a. where one party has made repeated and unreasonable applications; b. where a period of respite is needed following litigation; c. where a period of time is needed for certain actions to be taken for the protection of the child or other person; d. where a person\u2019s conduct overall is such that an order is merited to protect the welfare of the child directly, or indirectly due to damaging effects on a parent carer\u2014such conduct could include harassment, or other oppressive or distressing behaviour beyond or within the proceedings including via social media and e-mail, and via third parties and might also constitute domestic abuse. 52. When considering transfer of residence from one parent to another, the case of Re L (A Child) [2019] EWHC 867 (Fam) confirms that the test concerning the transfer of a child's residence in is simply based on a comprehensive analysis of the child's welfare under the Children Act 1989. At \u00a754 MacFarlane P clarified that he wished to distance himself from the language used in Re: A (Residence Order) [2009] EWCA Civ 1141 \u201cinsofar as it refers to a decision to change the residence of a child as being \u201ca weapon\u201d or \u201ca tool\u201d. Whilst such language may be apt in discussion between one lawyer and another in the context of consideration of the forensic options available to a judge who is seeking to move a case on, such language, in my view, risks moving the focus of the decision-making away from the welfare of the child which must be the court's paramount consideration.\u201d He also confirmed at \u00a761 that while it was\u00a0a\u00a0fundamental principle, applicable to every case, that the\u00a0child, who was the subject of the proceedings, 'shall' be heard, the manner and the degree to which the\u00a0child\u00a0was heard would vary from case to case. 53. The case of AZ v BX (Child Arrangements Order: Appeal) [2024] EWHC 1528 makes it clear that the choice of whether to make a shared lives with order or a 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 children and must be made by applying the principles of the Children Act 1989 s1(3). 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 to be an unequal division of time. It does not necessarily follow from the fact that the parents are antagonistic or unsupportive of each other that a shared lives with order will be unsuitable. 54. I am also alert to Poole J\u2019s criticism in that case of the court\u2019s failing in not more closely defining holidays, hence my fallback mechanism for setting shared holidays which was made clear to the parties during the hearing. The Evidence 55. In reaching my decision I have heard sworn evidence from both parents and have also read their numerous witness statements. I have also had the benefit of reading the three section 7 reports and the two more recent guardian reports. I also heard further sworn evidence from the Guardian in court. Her views remained consistent with those set out in her final updating report dated 1 September 2025, 56. The Father was the first to give evidence under affirmation. He was subject to wide ranging cross examination from Mr Valks. 57. The Father\u2019s demeanour throughout his giving evidence was calm. He came across as thoughtful although his answers were often marked by a lack of specificity. He often circled back around to his primary focus, which was on parenting Reuben as a person in his own right, rather than reducing him to a list of symptoms or diagnoses. He was not discursive or particularly eloquent in his responses, and would often tail off towards the end of a sentence. He was candid in acknowledging that Reuben \u201chas extra needs, and his diagnoses show that those needs require extra support. In my care they are managed very well. I\u2019m not sure what more I can say to the fact.\u201d 58. He gave examples such as Reuben\u2019s need for general structure and stability, without being straightjacketed to that. He gave examples of Reuben perhaps not being comfortable in certain clothes, or needing more time and care in processing a new experience in which he did not wish to participate. In demonstrating the same he detailed how he counselled Reuben to attend both a swimming lesson and a dentist appointment in perfectly sensitive and appropriate ways. He observed that as a result, there was no hesitation or worry displayed by Reuben on attending a second dental appointment or future swimming lessons with his father. 59. That said, many of the questions put to him were often drawn on a very broad canvas. They revealed a binary resting at the heart of this case. Should the Father parent Reuben as though he was behaving how the Mother reports, any more than the Mother should parent Reuben as though he were behaving how the Father reports? After all, the Father has been consistent in his written and oral evidence that, \u201cReuben's time with me has been nothing less than enjoyable. When in my care he is a bright, confident and happy child who enjoys spending time with his family and friends, and particularly, playing football.\u201d He was clear that but for a few occasional minor headaches, he had not witnessed the sort of chronic emotional meltdowns reported by the Mother, or any consistent or troubling physical symptoms outside of those typically experienced by a young child of Reuben\u2019s age. 60. He was realistic in admitting that Reuben has never evinced a desire to transfer his residence to his father, whilst at the same time pointing out the nuance of the fact that Reuben has consistently stated that he would like to spend more time with him. 61. When asked about matters outside of his own direct knowledge he was honest and precise. When it was put to him that Reuben\u2019s medical susceptibility to infections were what had led to his decreased school attendance when with his mother, he replied, \u201cI am unaware of what exact reasons he\u2019s been unwell enough to go to school.\u201d 62. When asked about his hope for the future, I accepted his evidence as honest that he had a genuine desire for him and the Mother to be able to mutually attend Reuben\u2019s medical appointments and to improve communication by use of a family communication app. In response to a slim line of questions from Mr Bull, he stated, \u201cI have always promoted it [Reuben\u2019s relationship with his mother] for want of a better word. I\u2019m never negative about his mother in front of him. He clearly loves his mum and he should spend time with her. It\u2019s certainly not for me to cut the Mother off. It would be a bit of extra reassurance that the Mother was contactable via his phone my phone as and when he needed to.\u201d 63. The Mother then gave evidence for the best part of three hours during the afternoon of the first day under affirmation. The tenor of her evidence, particularly when subject to cross-examination from Ms Sayer, was of a markedly different tone. It was combative, expressive and far more colourful and wide-ranging. Her answers were almost exclusively lengthy and often tangential. There were frequent flashpoints of disagreement. On occasion the Mother was correctly and necessarily precise in clarifying an historic point of detail. At other times, her evidence was unreliable and inconsistent with the objective factual points evidenced in the contemporaneous documentation. 64. For example, when it was put to her that she had again applied to stop the Father\u2019s time with Reuben in July 2024 she replied \u201cNo I\u2019m sure that\u2019s not right.\u201d This is despite the fact that there is a C2 on the court file dated 15 July 2024 stating, \u201cThe mother seeks to vary the interim contact so that there is no direct contact between Reuben and his father\u2026The mother considers that further direct contact for Reuben at this stage would be detrimental to his wellbeing.\u201d Likewise when it was put to her that she applied to reduce the Guardian\u2019s structured increase of contact between Reuben and his father in February 2025 she replied \u201cI don\u2019t believe I did.\u201d Again, this was contradicted by the signed C2 application she made on 26 February 2024 to vary down that very same contact. 65. She was adamant in her oral evidence that she had not labelled the father an \u2018abuser\u2019 of Reuben. When the Guardian\u2019s report of 15 October 2024 was put to her as follows, \u201cMore importantly, there are times when Reuben is not receiving medical treatment due to his extreme behaviours, which is crucial to his welfare and physical needs. I asked the Mother directly that given the importance of this issue, and as Reuben is not presenting in this way with his father, had she considered allowing the Father to take him for appointments. Her response was initially scornful that I would suggest allowing his \u201cabuser\u201d and the cause of his behaviour to take him, and also that Reuben has said that he does not want his father to take him. I was concerned by this response, not least because it is not for a child to make decisions about something as important as medical treatment and if it is likely that he would be calm enough to receive treatment with his father present, this must surely be the priority,\u201d the Mother\u2019s response was, \u201cI didn\u2019t say that. I think she\u2019s got confused.\u201d 66. It was likewise put to her that the previous Early Help worker had also documented that the Mother had alleged that Reuben was exposed to abusive behaviour from his Father. The Mother again disagreed with the summary of that evidence, stating \u201cIt\u2019s incredibly difficult to sit here and contradict that. But that is not what happened in Early Help.\u201d She disagreed with the evidence reported in the Guardian\u2019s report from the Early Help worker that, \u201c[the Mother] \u201calways had her own agenda which did not match the Service\u2026most visits were \u201ctaken up by [the Mother] pursuing a narrative of Reuben being uncomfortable about spending time with his father\u201d. The Mother\u2019s response was simply, \u201cthe evidence is completely contrary to this.\u201d 67. Again, when taken to a school record from 19 September 2023 which reported, \u201cSchool have never had a problem with dad, always amenable and easy to speak with. Mum was not keen for school to speak with dad. Mum has told school she will sedate Reuben to get him into school. Mum has now said she will not take Reuben into school as school said they couldn\u2019t stop dad taking Reuben with him because he has PR. School looked into the medication mum disclosed, this is an antihistamine. School concerned about Reuben\u2019s welfare with his mum and said they feel he would be safer with his dad\u2026School concerned mum is provoking the behaviours as when they were speaking with her on the phone it was silent, mum asked them to hold on as she needed to speak to Reuben and it was then that Reuben started screaming\u2026Mum reported to school that she had taken Reuben to hospital as he wasn\u2019t able to weight bear but had taken him out on a bike ride in the afternoon,\u201d the Mother disagreed with this summary. She stated, \u201cI am not keeping him away from school or teachers or friends. I work with them to keep him in school.\u201d 68. In perhaps the most critical diversion from a professionally recorded observation, it was put to her that the Guardian had been taken aback at how aggressively Reuben responded to her initial visit to his home, where the report observed, \u201cNot only was Reuben aggressively rejecting my even being in the home, but he also threw stones at the window where I was sitting, kicked a football in my direction. At no point did the Mother intervene or address this behaviour when it was directed at me, and only intervened when there became a risk that he may break the glass by kicking a football at the door\u2026It was only later when Reuben continually kicked a football at a glass door that the Mother warned Reuben she would remove the ball, and then attempted to do so. At this point, Reuben\u2019s behaviour became significantly violent and aggressive towards his mother, kicking and hitting her and screaming in her face. At the time, she appeared powerless to manage this, however calmed him by allowing him to watch TV.\u201d The Mother\u2019s response in evidence was to state that it was \u2018quite normal\u2019 for a neurodivergent child to act in this way, and that he was \u201cnot shockingly rude no.\u201d This was odd, because in an IFD Referral from 2024, there is an entry from 5 June 2024 recording that \u201c[the Mother] said Reuben\u2019s Guardian came over and saw Reuben "go ballistic and attack me"\u201d. This is again demonstrative of the inconsistency of the Mother\u2019s evidence. 69. When questioned about this same incident later, the Guardian stated, \u201cIt was absolutely shocking. There\u2019s no other word for it. Reuben refused to even come into same room. He was in the dog\u2019s bed screaming and shouting, refusing to come in. Later when I was inside he was throwing stones at the window and kicking ball at the window. It wasn\u2019t just about refusal to engage, it was the looks and the shouting that were really aggressive. What was so shocking was that there was no reason for it. I couldn\u2019t fathom what would cause that behaviour.\u201d 70. It was clear that the Mother\u2019s position placed highly significant, if not determinative weight, on Reuben\u2019s wishes and feelings as purportedly disclosed to her. At one point she stated, \u201cas far as Reuben thinks it\u2019s a foregone conclusion that he gets what he asked for.\u201d This was a highly revealing comment giving significant insight into the power dynamic at play between Reuben and his mother. This was closely bound up with her consistent refrain that she was the only person who was able to understand and meet Reuben\u2019s needs, and that his Father was simply incapable of understanding and meeting the complex multidimensional presentation of their son. When it was put to her that she believed that the Father could not meet Reuben\u2019s needs like she could, she simply stated, \u201cabsolutely.\u201d 71. A question was put to the Mother regarding a text message exchange between the Father and Reuben, where Reuben had sent a message saying, \u201cHi Daddy just wanted to say last time was too long and I felt funny when I came home and I was missing mummy next time can you tell me how long I\u2019m gonna stay [emoji].\u201d Before the Father replied, another message was sent by Reuben only 2 minutes later saying, \u201cMummy didn\u2019t force me to say this\u201d. The Mother\u2019s response was \u201cI haven\u2019t had anything to do with that.\u201d She revealed no curiosity or perplexity as to why Reuben would have felt it necessary to add such an odd coda to what was a relatively adult and mature first message. 72. When asked if she was not reassured by the observations that Reuben appeared to be thriving both at school and in his father\u2019s care in more recent times, her emphatic reply was illuminating. \u201cHe is struggling with his father\u2019s care. Just because he\u2019s not showing it there it doesn\u2019t mean he\u2019s not. I don\u2019t believe it, I know it.\u201d This declaration was made in no uncertain terms. 73. Her evidence was punctuated by moments of wholly understandable raw and vulnerable emotion. When asked how she would cope with the proposed change, she replied with her voice catching \u201cI almost can\u2019t put it into words. It\u2019s unconscionable to move him after living with me for nine years.\u201d 74. I myself asked two short questions at the conclusion of her evidence and here the Mother\u2019s guard was down and she was far quieter and more tender in response. It was revealing that she referred to Reuben as a \u201chome boy\u201d, stating that \u201che needs to be at home with his mum. His favourite thing is watching tv on the sofa with me.\u201d It was clear from my assessment that this identification of Reuben\u2019s need was also wholly intertwined with perhaps a reciprocal need of hers. 75. The Guardian gave her oral evidence during the morning of Day 2 alongside her two substantive reports from October 2024 and September 2025. She was a very experienced and confident witness who engaged very forcefully with questioning, particularly when cross-examined by Mr Valks. She confirmed that her recommendation remained the same; namely for a change of residence to Reuben\u2019s father, and for term times to have a fortnightly pattern of every other weekend from Friday after school to Monday school drop off, along with an overnight stay every Wednesday. 76. She elaborated on her concerns that the Mother was not able to offer the calm and stable lifestyle that the Father could. She stated that, \u201cIt is stark that the presentation of Reuben with the Mother and Father could be of a completely different child. It is as different as night and day, and at school as well.\u201d She considered it \u2018stunning\u2019 to read that the Mother had placed Reuben into therapy at the young age of two for management of his behaviour. 77. Despite her general and genuine professionalism, it was abundantly clear that her relationship and engagement with the Mother was fractured. This is perhaps unsurprising given the complaints made by the Mother against her, but the Guardian made it plain that the Mother\u2019s behaviour had been consistently aggressive and hostile towards her, and her conclusion was that this was because the Guardian was not simply \u2018going along\u2019 with the narrative presented by the Mother. When put to her that she should have considered recusing herself, she quite fairly observed, \u201cIf we recuse ourselves every time a parent doesn\u2019t like what we are saying we would never complete a report.\u201d She later said that, \u201cWhat I actually found, was that there are things the Mother has said that were untrue and inaccurate. Her complaints against me weren\u2019t true and inaccurate. I have found her incredibly hostile throughout. She is incredibly inflexible in her thinking. She finds it hard to think beyond was already set in her mind\u201d 78. On the topic of Reuben\u2019s neurodiversity she considered it atypical to have a school expressing such genuine surprise at a relatively late diagnosis. She observed that originally \u201cthe usual pathway for these sorts of diagnosis comes from school, it flows from school noticing difficulties in certain areas, the child psychologist getting involved and a pathway assessment following. It is interesting that the school had not picked up on anything. It is important that this demonstrates how Reuben presents at school, that is not obviously as a child with additional needs.\u201d 79. She was not satisfied that it was credible to conclude that Reuben either was, or even had the ability to, mask his behaviour for such prolonged periods of time in school and with his father. She highlighted her twenty years of experience in dealing with neurodivergent children and training in masking in forming this view. In a telling narrative she stated, \u201cI have observed Reuben with his father on more than one occasion. It is not just that he is not kicking-off. I have watched his body language, how he responds, the jokes, the eye contact, all those sort of things which demonstrate how comfortable, how natural this feels. I would say that the view he is simply hiding his true feelings, that he is not happy or comfortable, again he is nine years old. Before that he was much younger. Children have instincts that they can\u2019t consistently control. I have acted with children gritting teeth getting through it. All social workers would be able to pick that up immediately. I have seen Reuben be cheeky, stroppy, laughing and joking, and also physically affectionate. There is nothing to believe he is simply putting this on. The idea he would not want the Father anywhere near a medical appointment seems nonsense to me.\u201d 80. The Guardian opined that the types of heightened and concerning behaviours reported by the Mother mapped onto cases of extreme trauma, which had no explicable basis in Reuben\u2019s case or life experience. 81. Her evidence was consistent that Reuben\u2019s presentation on the autistic spectrum was of a more minor symptomatic manifestation. She observed that autism was not a binary switch and that, \u201cthere is a wide spectrum of different issues for a person. Different elements of severity and not severity.\u201d In a general sense — although not a medical diagnosis — she said it would be fair to describe Reuben as \u2018high achieving\u2019 to reflect his excellent grades, good social status, close friendships, good social skills, and high functioning mobility and dexterity. She considered the support that was at hand from the school to be low-level and more generic; a more accommodating approach to uniform, reminders to drink water and use the bathroom, along with additional transition support. The engagement with play therapy in the school was part of what was termed \u2018the standard school offer\u2019. 82. As compelling as the Guardian\u2019s evidence was, there was a slim line of critique that was fair, that her reporting had not expressly addressed the views of previous Cafcass reports, or some of the mosaic documents. That said, it was also a fair counter-observation of the Guardian to make that it was not her role to critique other professionals, and that her engagement with Reuben had been far deeper and more wide-ranging than the previous standard section 7 reports. She was at pains to point out that she had gone \u2018above and beyond\u2019 in working very deeply and thoroughly with Reuben over the time of her appointment. 83. Aside from the oral evidence, I have also had regard to the huge mass of documentary evidence, only a fraction of which I have been invited to read. I have taken significant additional time out of court to read the entirety of the Supplementary bundle and the majority of the Local Authority bundle. I will not cite all of the pertinent documentation, but simply highlight a select few excerpts in my judgment as follows. 84. Reuben\u2019s recent school report from the end of Year 4 made for very positive reading. He had an attainment level of 1 across the board. Likewise his effort was recorded at an impressive B across all subjects. No reference was made to his neurodiversity or any need for additional support. A letter from June 2025 indicated the provision of low level generic support as was highlighted by the Guardian in her oral evidence. 85. An Early Help Closure Record from 15 May 2024 recounted an A&E attendance that \u201cMum is now really struggling to control his behaviour\u2026In A&E Reuben was hitting the doctor, throwing toys around the waiting room and swearing.\u201d 86. The outcome letter of Reuben\u2019s ASD assessment dated 4 November 2023 included the following observation, \u201cA Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire was completed by Reuben's class teacher on 29\/03\/23. Reuben was rated 'close to average' across the subscales of 'emotional distress', 'behavioural difficulties', 'hyperactivity and concentration difficulties', 'difficulties getting along with other children' and for 'impact of any difficulties on the child's life' and in the 'overall stress' measure. The measure of 'kind and helpful' behaviour fell in the 'very low' range, but this was likely impacted by his teacher not responding to one item. These scores contrasted with Reuben's mother's responses to the SDQ, completed via the DAWBA online questionnaire. Here her score for emotional distress was 'very high', along with the impact on Reuben's life. Her scores in the domains of behavioural difficulties and total difficulties were 'high' and the measure of difficulties getting along with other children 'slightly raised'. The difference in these scores indicates the different presentation seen in Reuben at home and school, as well as the level of concern at home, not currently echoed at school.\u201d 87. A letter from a paediatric doctor from 22 November 2023 letter stated, \u201cI first saw Reuben in a Paediatric clinic at hospital on 15th August 2022 along with his mother. From the outset Reuben has been difficult to assess due to challenges with his behaviour (this was mentioned in the initial GP referral).\u201d 88. A letter from another doctor dated, 22 November 2023 stated, \u201cI assessed Reuben as part of a tertiary multidisciplinary neurodevelopmental assessment which commenced on 21st April 2023 and we issued our final report on 4th November 2023. We have concluded that Reuben has a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder. This is a lifelong neurodevelopmental condition but we expect a positive prognosis currently as Reuben presents with several strengths like social interest and good educational functioning at present. We are not providing any current or further follow-up as part of our typical service remit\u201d 89. The documentary evidence shows that Reuben had historically low school attendance when with living with the Mother, sometimes in the 70% range. An undated IFD referral from the latter part of 2024 showed at one point his attendance was as low as 68.6%. I accept that some absence may have been attributable to his medical illness but the majority was not, or at least not directly so. His settled prognosis only necessitated a planned absence once every 3 months for a hospital visit. In contrast \u2018School refusal\u201d was reported to account for 8.7% of absences in April 2024 alone. The IFD referral from 2024 likewise stated, \u201cReuben has become a school refuser, he doesn\u2019t want to leave mum.\u201d It also records that, \u201c[the Mother] feels he [the Father] is emotionally abusive to her son\u201d giving an example of his allegedly making Reuben smile for a photo. 90. There was a constant refrain in the historic documentation from various professionals and the local authority that the acrimonious breakdown of relationship between the parties was feeding into Reuben\u2019s poor behaviour. The lack of open communication combined with immense acrimony were noted to be extreme stressors in the case. 91. A Cafcass referral from 10 April 2024 stated that, \u201cI have spoken to Reuben who has expressed a wish to spend time with his father. The Mother reports Reuben\u2019s behaviour improved following the stopping of contact, however this will have also stopped Reuben\u2019s exposure to any conflict. I have not identified any risk that justifies preventing the Father spending time with Reuben and as a result I am worried he will be at risk of emotional harm once again due to a change in arrangements.\u201d 92. The Cafcass section 7 report from April 2024 included letters written from Reuben to the report author, including one that read, \u201cNo daddy taking me to hospital.\u201d It later recorded a meeting with Reuben that recounted the following, \u201cReuben told me Mum played yesterday for ages, but he had not played with Dad for a while. I asked if he knows why this change happened and he shrugged. I asked Reuben if he felt this was a good change and he said \u201cNo\u201d. Reuben said he \u201cmissed Dad\u201d and wanted to see him. Reuben said he would like to see Dad at \u201chis house\u201d (Dad's house). I asked if there was anything that would worry him about spending time with Dad at his house and he said no. I asked if there were any worries at Mum's house and he said no.\u201d His school attendance at that time was recorded at 73%. 93. That report also recommended a s.91(14) order as follows, \u201cIt is my recommendation because there have been three sets of proceedings with similar findings and the court proceedings are fuelling the conflict which risks emotional harm. There are cross allegations of domestic abuse and both parties are reporting significant stress from proceedings. As these parents need to be mentally healthy for Reuben, it is important a return to court is considered carefully to prevent Reuben being seen repeatedly and the parents experiencing stress or abuse through repeated litigation.\u201d 94. Following conclusion of the evidence, all advocates gave focused submissions just before lunch, inviting me to accede to their preferred positions. A slim amount of law was cited as set out above and in position statements provided by Ms Sayer and Mr Valks. Analysis and Findings 95. Having heard and considered all the evidence in light of the legal framework set out above, I intend to make only very limited findings. This is because it would patently be inappropriate for me to summarily determine so many of the factual disputes that quite literally date back over 9 years now. This ensures that I do not unfairly or prejudicially make determinations against the Mother in respect of what led to previous Child Arrangements Orders either breaking down or being subject to repeat applications. I likewise am not being drawn into any findings of historic allegations of abusive behaviour or alcohol abuse by the Father. The few limited factual findings I make are in the course in my analysis set out below, as conducted through the lens of the welfare checklist. 96. My resulting decision will be for Reuben to live with both of his parents during term time. The majority of that time will be with his father on a 9:5 division each fortnight, for the following reasons; 97. the ascertainable wishes and feelings of Reuben (considered in the light of his age and understanding); a. There is a broad consensus that Reuben\u2019s views, as expressed to the court via his guardian, are that he does not like the current week on-week off arrangement. His stated preference to his guardian at \u00a717 of her updating report was, \u201cI did encourage him to think about that for a moment, and he then shared that he was feeling a little worried about the decision the Judge will make. This enabled us to talk about what decision he would like the Judge to make. He said that he does not like the \u2018week on\/week off\u2019 pattern but would rather spend alternate weekends with his father. He clarified that this meant from Friday after school till Monday morning. But he also wanted to spend an overnight every week on a Wednesday.\u201d b. The Guardian also included within her updating report that, \u201cI received a copy of a letter purported to have been written by Reuben and sent to the Father in which Reuben writes that he does not wish to spend alternate weeks at his father\u2019s home. He writes \u201cI feel angry because I don\u2019t want to stay at your house for a week and go back to mummy\u2019s\u201d and \u201cI want it to stay like this and maybe when I\u2019m older I\u2019ll come to you house for a week\u201d. Reuben also writes \u201cand mummy asked the \u2018sellisiter\u2019 (crossed out and written \u2018guardian\u2019 underneath) to come and she hasn\u2019t come and it\u2019s making me angry at mummy and I don\u2019t like it\u201d\u201d. c. At \u00a721 of her report she stated, \u201cI was also able to ask him about the letter he wrote to his father. He went from smiling and joking with me to immediately quiet and said that he did write it. He could not remember what he\u2019d written other than that he did not want it to be one week on, one week off with his father.\u201d d. Whilst these views therefore appear to be relatively settled, I must only give them the correct weight in light of Reuben\u2019s age and understanding. As a 9-year-old neurodiverse child, Reuben\u2019s understanding of the holistic situation in which he finds himself is partial at best. I also find that, intuitively, subconsciously or expressly, he is heavily influenced by his mother\u2019s wishes and feelings also. It is abundantly clear that he is exhibiting signs of stress when being asked for his views. The Guardian was clear that even when asked the most simple, basic and non intimidatory opening question from the \u2018How it looks to me\u2019 booklet of \u2018Where I live and who lives with me\u2019, which she thought was a good starting point, \u201cReuben immediately began to shut down again and looked upset. It was obvious to me that this was a difficult topic.\u201d e. I would be concerned that if Reuben had to bear the weight of feeling as the outcome to this case was \u2018his choice\u2019. The burden for his young age and the associated stressors would be far too much for him to carry. It is therefore important both that I only attach limited weight to these wishes and feelings. It is critically important also that the messaging that Reuben receives from his guardian is that he was listened to, that the judge was very grateful to him for letting us all know what he wanted, but that the decision was always going to be one taken by the adults. This was never going to be the \u2018done deal\u2019 as narrated by his mother. He must not be led to feel in any way responsible for the outcome of this case. 98. his physical, emotional and educational needs; a. Reuben\u2019s physical needs are largely typical aside from his medical illness. His school report makes it plain that he is doing very well educationally, and has been so at a time when in the shared care of both parents. Indeed he has received top marks across the board in terms of attainment, and very good marks in terms of his effort. I am satisfied that both of Reuben\u2019s parents have the ability to meet those physical and educational needs. His school attendance when in his father\u2019s care has been 100%. The Father\u2019s care of Reuben\u2019s dental health is demonstrative that he is more than capable of meeting even the more acute medical needs of his son, including the attendance at professional appointments. This belies the Mother\u2019s case that Reuben does not want his father to attend hospital with him. I find as a fact that the holistic evidence presents that Reuben would be and indeed is content and happy for his father to attend medical appointments with him. b. I am also satisfied that Reuben is thriving in his current school, and that there are no welfare factors to suggest that he would be better served by a change of school. When weighing the evidence along with the \u2018no-order\u2019 principle I am satisfied that it would be inappropriate for this court to order that Reuben change primary school for Years 5-6 as sought by his mother. Any desire to \u2018stretch\u2019 him academically can be addressed within his current educational setting and by ongoing parental discussion. c. I am more concerned about Reuben\u2019s emotional needs and the emotional pressures wrought from this case. I have reached the conclusion that his mother has an impaired ability to meet Reuben\u2019s emotional needs. Her permissive and overly medicalised approach to parenting has created a heightened emotional frailty and anxiety within him when he spends time with her. My conclusion is that his behaviour when in her care cannot be causally attributed to the time with his father, or any suggestion of maltreatment or \u2018abuse\u2019 there. It is simply not explicable on the Guardian\u2019s evidence or on Reuben\u2019s more recent healthy presentation when with his father. d. Rather I am bound to find that the Mother has become so entrenched and consumed by the anxiety of Reuben spending time away from her, that it has created a distorted emotional environment for him when with her. There is no other credible explanation for the ongoing self-reported physical manifestations of this stress and emotional discord. I do not find that the Mother has wilfully or purposefully sought to adversely create these reactions in Reuben; it would be beyond me to safely make any such finding on the evidence before me. Rather I find that this is simply a by-product of the emotional environment that has been intuitively cultured by the Mother over the years, of excessive reporting and then reactive hostility to other professionals when faced with any disconnect with her narrative. The divergence of the Mother\u2019s views with those expressly documented by multiple professionals is conclusive of this. 99. the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances; a. Reuben will undoubtedly be affected by a change in his circumstances. This may be more acute for him than it would for a neuro-typical child. I am alert to the professional reporting that suggests he requires additional support for such change. Alongside that however, I note that Reuben changed nursery several times when an infant, has recently moved house with his mother, and that the mother herself is seeking a further significant change by way of a change for his schooling in years 5-6. This last point is the most probative. On the Mother\u2019s own case she is the only person capable of adequately meeting Reuben\u2019s needs. And yet she is proposing what for most children is a very destabilising and unsettling change of school, which would remove him from a settled friendship group and a long-term sage and familiar environment. This notably comes after a school year in which he has achieved top marks in everything and the school has reported that he is thriving. b. This is confirmation to me that the likely effect on a change of living arrangement to spend more time with his father may be destabilising, and in the short-term perhaps emotionally upsetting for Reuben. However, I do not find that any such change will be catastrophic or emotionally devastating. His parents live very close to one another. Regardless of the outcome he will spend lots of time with both of his parents, equally during holidays. Indeed, in general annual terms he will be living 143 days or 39% of his time with his mother. The court cannot in this case be straightjacketed by a neurodiverse diagnosis to rule out such a change. 100. his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant; a. Reuben\u2019s age and sex do not reveal any specific indicators requiring additional analysis. He does however have the characteristics associated with his ASD diagnosis and his medical illness. This combination of more acute medical need and neurodivergent presentation brings with it additional challenges which have been incorporated into my prior analysis. b. Reuben\u2019s most relevant background is clearly the fact that he has been enmeshed in court proceedings for more of his life that he has not been. To be in court for a fourth time at the age of nine is a profound concern, regardless of the reasons why. It is harmful for a child to be exposed to unnecessary litigation and the emotional burdens wrought by the excessive strain of continued professional reporting. This is a hugely significant consideration for me, because a critical aspect of my judgment and order must be future-looking. The court therefore seeks to protect Reuben from being again embroiled in future unnecessary applications of fresh proceedings to vary, enforce or even start afresh. 101. any harm which Reuben has suffered or is at risk of suffering and how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs; a. These are perhaps the magnetic intertwined features in this case. I am sadly bound to find that Reuben has been emotionally harmed by excessive court proceedings and his developing perceived responsibility to mediate his own presentation between his parents. It is of concern that \u2013 whether directed to by the Mother or not \u2013 Reuben is now routinely seeking to write letters and text messages to the Father which dictate how contact is to proceed. As recently as this summer there are messages to the Father from Reuben\u2019s phone asking \u201cCan you tell your solicitor that only every other weekend at yours and Wednesdays and at mummy\u2019s every other weekend and the rest of the week but not Wednesday.\u201d It is patently detrimental to Reuben\u2019s welfare that he should be considering it appropriate to ask his father to give legal instructions to a lawyer about child arrangements. b. Despite her best attempts, I am not satisfied that the Mother is able to satisfactorily protect Reuben from the emotional harm of her entrenched narrative. Neither I am satisfied that she has been able to protect Reuben from a mistaken sense of responsibility to persuade the Father to give his solicitors different legal instruction. I am not satisfied by her very late change of position and attempt to resile from the label of the Father an abuser of Reuben during her evidence. If Reuben remains in his Mother\u2019s primary care, I find that there is a very high risk that he will continue to suffer the emotional harm that will be inflicted by such an anxiety-ridden home environment. For him to experience this ongoing tension and conflict and carry the weight of a continual attempt to reign back his paternal relationship through direct messaging is harmful. It is likewise harmful that this is resulting in an apparent medicalising of his stress symptoms such as headaches and stomach aches which are not experienced elsewhere. It is my conclusion that the older Reuben gets, the more difficult and strained it will be for him to be constrained in the Mother\u2019s controlled maternal space. His welfare will be better met by being released into a wider space within which he can flourish whilst retaining healthy and strain-free relationships with both of his parents. c. I am satisfied on the evidence that Reuben\u2019s father has a greater ability both to meet his emotional needs and to support a relationship with his Mother. Despite her best intentions, I am not satisfied that the Mother has the reciprocal ability to encourage a meaningful problem-free relationship with Reuben\u2019s father without labelling him as an abuser. The older Reuben gets, the more he will become attuned to this and the more it will harm him. Over the course of these proceedings the Father has engaged in CBT, undertaken a Triple P parenting course, completed an anxious child course, and has undertaken a course on understanding autism. He has a range of growing skills and experience now at his disposal. d. Nothing other than a reset of this arrangement will release the Mother to realise that Reuben\u2019s father can meet his needs as well. Not in an identical way, and not necessarily using the same strategies, but in different and healthy ways. The Guardian\u2019s evidence is clear on this. When with his father, Reuben has the space and freedom to love, laugh, joke, be grumpy, talk about not wanting to go to a dental appointment or a swimming lesson, but to be counselled through his worries in a healthy way. This is the basic stuff of parenting and the Father has demonstrated that ability. e. I do not find on the balance of probabilities that Reuben\u2019s presentation with his Father is one of comprehensive and constant masking. The Guardian\u2019s thorough and experienced evidence on this was emphatic and categorical. On the Mother\u2019s case this would demand the conclusion that Reuben is effectively masking for more than half of his current lived existence; both when at school and when at home with his father. That is not to rule out that he will inevitably be masking to some degree and to a limited extent in some environments. It is well documented that both neurodiverse and neurotypical persons will mask to varying degrees in varying situations, as set out in Miller D, Rees J, Pearson A. "Masking Is Life": Experiences of Masking in Autistic and Nonautistic Adults. Autism Adulthood. 2021 Dec 1;3(4):330-338. doi: 10.1089\/aut.2020.0083. Epub 2021 Dec 7. PMID: 36601640; PMCID: PMC8992921. However, the observations that Reuben is potentially supressing or masking some \u2018stimming\u2019 in some classroom environments is categorically different to the case presented by the Mother; that he is effectively living a completely stressed and false existence in all other environments except than when he is with her. f. On the balance of probabilities I am bound to conclude that it is more likely that Reuben\u2019s extreme behaviour in her care is innately bound to her own permissive parenting style and her inability to meet his emotional needs in that setting. This has been observed by medical professionals and social workers for many years now. Any correlation that may or may not be present at times with Reuben previously spending time in his father\u2019s care is an insufficient base upon which to safely conclude a causal connection or to infer some sort of unspecified paternal abuse. 102. the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question; a. The court has a wide range of powers under section 8, although the scope of positions put forward by the parties is actually now relatively narrow, despite the gravity of the labels attached. I am satisfied that however so construed, Reuben will in fact be living with both of his parents in the future and that an order should fairly reflect that. On that basis I will not be ordering any \u2018change\u2019 in residence. The order will be for a joint lives-with order, albeit one where Reuben spends a modestly greater amount of time with his father than his mother (in percentage terms approximately 61%\/39%). b. I am also making a more unusual order to regulate or restrain the time that Reuben spends messaging or speaking with his other parent when not in their home. I am satisfied that it is in Reuben\u2019s welfare interests for him to be able to mentally reset and be \u2018at peace\u2019 when in either his Mother\u2019s home or his Father\u2019s home without constantly responding to messages from the other parent. Concern has previously been raised that Reuben was receiving text messages from his mother late at night or early in the morning. I have not forensically been in a position to make findings on the same, but nonetheless I am clear that a young child should not be placed in a position when they are constantly responding to messages on their own phone, particularly late at night. This of course does not prevent normal and proper parental interaction by phone or messaging that may be necessary for any welfare or medical issues relating to their son. c. As to the applicability of a \u2018muscular\u2019 s.91(14) order, it is abundantly clear to me that Reuben stands to be harmed by the high likelihood of future proceedings being quickly instigated unless restraint is made by the exercise of this power. The reasons are almost immaterial, but the facts are that he has been the subject of four substantive sets of proceedings now, and he is not yet nine and a half years old. The importance lies not only in the number of proceedings issues, but the conduct during them d. In this set of proceedings alone, the Mother has made no fewer than five further C2 applications, along with additional informal overtures to the Father\u2019s lawyers this summer to vary down the interim arrangements. Each of these applications were to change, vary and reduce the Father\u2019s time with Reuben. It is clear beyond doubt that the Mother is unable to take on board court direction. I concur with the oft-repeated professional opinion that she is very rigid in her thinking and adamantly sure that her position is the sole correct one. This is why she has continually demonstrated a perceived necessity to apply to court to vary down the time Reuben spends with his father. She is now so entrenched in an attritional litigation war, that there can be no real prospect of her not making repeated applications in the future. The procedural hurdle of a section 91(14) order is therefore justified, to allow this order to settle. e. This is a case where a period of respite is required. Although I have been invited by Ms Sayer to so order until Reuben is 16, I have determined that it is too draconian to make a 7-year order until Reuben is outside of the court\u2019s regular jurisdiction. f. I am instead going to make a s.91(14) order for three and a half years, until March 2029. This will allow Reuben to finish his time at primary school. It will awaken his parents to the necessity to discuss, navigate and agree a choice of secondary school without court oversight. It will also give time for his first year and a half in that secondary school to bed-in. By that time, my hope is that the parents will have learned a co-parenting relationship independent of court intervention. By then Reuben will also be 12 turning 13 and will have a far more significant voice at the table. I wish to make it plain that I categorically would not encourage any future application to be made at that time, recognising that the parents could agree any variations between themselves. But if there truly were intractable problems going into Reuben\u2019s more important secondary education on the approach to GCSEs and beyond, that would be a fair time to no longer require the permission of the court to so apply. Conclusion 103. In the light of my analysis and findings above, I make the following order, (to include non term-time arrangements settled between the parents by consent); 104. All previous child arrangements orders are discharged forthwith. 105. Reuben shall live with his father and his mother as a final order. The time he shall live with each parent is as follows; a. During term times Reuben shall live with his father on a fortnightly pattern whereby on Week One he shall be collected from school on a Friday by his mother and returned to school on the following Monday. On both Weeks One and Two he shall be collected by his mother from after school on a Wednesday and returned to school on the Thursday morning. At all other times he shall live with his father. b. During non-term times as follows: i. All school holidays are to be shared equally. ii. Dates to be agreed, not less than 6 weeks in advance via a parenting App. iii. Summer school holidays- on a two weeks, two weeks, one week, one week pattern, the default unless agreed otherwise for the Mother to have first 2 weeks, then Father to have the next 2 weeks and then Mother to have the next week and the Father to have the last week last week. iv. Half terms to alternate with the Father to have Reuben during the October half term and alternating thereafter. v. Christmas and Easter holidays to be shared equally with Reuben spending the first week with his Mother and the second week with Father and to alternate thereafter. vi. On Reuben\u2019s birthday, he shall spend at least two hours with the parent he is not staying with at that time. vii. Reuben shall spend Father\u2019s Day with the Father and Mother\u2019s Day with the Mother. viii. Times, dates and any variations are to be agreed via a family communication app. c. It is a condition of this child arrangements order that the parents must use all reasonable endeavours to communicate via a mutually agreeable family communication app. d. Reuben\u2019s communication by mobile phone with the parent with whom he is not living at any given time (\u201cthe other parent\u201d) shall be regulated as follows; i. There is no restriction on Reuben initiating a phone call or messaging with the other parent, save for either parent using their normal parental discretion to monitor and regulate Reuben\u2019s use of his phone; ii. From the date of this order until 1 January 2026, the Mother shall be limited to initiating one message with Reuben per fortnight, on the weekend when he is not residing with her, and the Father shall not initiate any message with Reuben during the times he is with his Mother. Any other intention to message or initiate any calls during this three-month period must be agreed between the parents and not directly with Reuben. iii. From 1 January 2026 until 1 August 2027, the other parent shall be limited to initiating messaging with Reuben to no more than 3 times per week. Any other intention to message or initiate any calls during this three-month period must be agreed between the parents and not directly with Reuben. iv. From 1 August 2027 onwards, direct communication with Reuben by the other parent should be by any mutually agreeable arrangement. v. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this order restrains either parents from agreeing as much plentiful messaging, calls or video messaging with Reuben by way of agreed arrangement with the other parent, but simply regulates the unilateral initiation of the same with Reuben via his own phone. 106. Specific Issue Order a. Neither parent shall remove Reuben from his current primary school, unless by mutual written agreement to jointly enrol him in an alternative school. 107. s.91(14) Order a. Pursuant to section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 no application for an order that relates to Reuben pursuant to section 8 of the Children Act 1989, shall be made by either parent without the court\u2019s permission until 1 March 2029, save for any application to enforce this final order. b. During the currency of the s91(14) order, any applications that either party makes in respect of Reuben shall be listed before District Judge Worthley in the first instance. 108. Disclosure a. The parties are permitted to disclose a copy of this order to Reuben\u2019s current and future school, medical providers and to the DWP. 109. I endorse the Guardian\u2019s proposal for her to meet with Reuben one final time and explain the outcome of this hearing. This will include sharing a joint narrative agreed by the parents, and also an explanation to Reuben that his wishes and feelings were heard and valued but were not determinative and that he should not feel any responsibility for the outcome of this case. 110. An anonymised and edited record of this oral judgment will be drafted and disseminated to the parties lawyers to ensure that no jigsaw identification remains in place before publication on the National Archives. 30 September 2025<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Introduction & Background 1. This case concerns a nine-year-old boy who I will refer to by the pseudonym Reuben. He supports Liverpool and would like to be a professional footballer when he grows up. His father is Daniel (a pseudonym) who with no disrespect intended I will refer to as the Father. His mother is Jane (a pseudonym) who likewise,…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8063],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[8463],"kji_subject":[7638],"kji_keyword":[8048,8047,7707,15205,7721],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-571549","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-family-court-b-district-and-circuit-judges","kji_year-8463","kji_subject-famille","kji_keyword-father","kji_keyword-mother","kji_keyword-order","kji_keyword-reuben","kji_keyword-school","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nReuben (A Child), Re - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/reuben-a-child-re-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Reuben (A Child), Re\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Introduction & Background 1. This case concerns a nine-year-old boy who I will refer to by the pseudonym Reuben. He supports Liverpool and would like to be a professional footballer when he grows up. His father is Daniel (a pseudonym) who with no disrespect intended I will refer to as the Father. His mother is Jane (a pseudonym) who likewise,...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/reuben-a-child-re-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"67 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/reuben-a-child-re-2\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/reuben-a-child-re-2\\\/\",\"name\":\"Reuben (A Child), Re - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-15T19:31:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/reuben-a-child-re-2\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/reuben-a-child-re-2\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/reuben-a-child-re-2\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Reuben (A Child), Re\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Reuben (A Child), Re - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/reuben-a-child-re-2\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"Reuben (A Child), Re","og_description":"Introduction & Background 1. This case concerns a nine-year-old boy who I will refer to by the pseudonym Reuben. He supports Liverpool and would like to be a professional footballer when he grows up. His father is Daniel (a pseudonym) who with no disrespect intended I will refer to as the Father. His mother is Jane (a pseudonym) who likewise,...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/reuben-a-child-re-2\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"67 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/reuben-a-child-re-2\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/reuben-a-child-re-2\/","name":"Reuben (A Child), Re - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-15T19:31:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/reuben-a-child-re-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/reuben-a-child-re-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/reuben-a-child-re-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Reuben (A Child), Re"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/571549","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=571549"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=571549"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=571549"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=571549"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=571549"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=571549"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=571549"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=571549"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}