IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OF F CHILDREN
B e f o r e :
|- and -
2nd -4th Respondents by their Guardian
1st Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP
Telephone: 020 7067 2900 Fax: 020 7831 6864 DX: 410 LDE
Mr John Tughan for the First Respondent
Mr Gary Stafford for the Second to Fourth Respondents
Hearing date: 28th July 2014
Crown Copyright ©
HER HONOUR JUDGE ROBERTS:
"I am satisfied that to remove Mr. EF from their lives is likely to cause them a different sort of anxiety and it seems to me, on balance, to be right to see if it is possible to keep Mr. EF in their lives, but in a different way until now."
Sadly for these children, it has transpired that it is not possible.
"J, K and G are often reluctant to attend contact but then G, in particular, is reluctant to leave contact as well. He still clings to his Dad at times. Certainly the children often express a lot of unhappiness during the contact and feel let down by what they do during their time with their Dad. As stated above, Mr. EF does not make the children's welfare and happiness his priority. It seems his one aim is to battle against Mrs. EF at the cost of the children's emotions. Mr. EF has said some very inappropriate things to the children at times. All the children have suffered, especially G.
It is my opinion that the children are being emotionally damaged by the continuing conflict between the parents and the comments made to them by their father. Every effort is made to supervise Mr. EF closely during contacts, but he still makes inappropriate statements to the children and refuses to listen when corrected. He continues to be a very angry man.
In my view something has to change for the sake of the children's emotional welfare. The EF children are in need of a lot of professional support." [Quote unchecked]
"I have treble checked this wording with Mr. EF. He intends to appeal the June 2013 order. He is still concerned about the tapes and he has doubts about the process last summer. The same people are involved now so he has lost confidence in this process and he will take the June 2013 decision to the Court of Appeal. In relation to any decision that the court might make this week he has lost confidence and will appeal so he does not wish to have a trial this week and wants to go to London to appeal."
"The refusal of Mr. EF to accept responsibility and thereby make changes in his behaviour to promote safe contact results in the emotional risk to the children from contact remaining unacceptably high."
Gentlemen, anything I have left out?
MR. RICHARDSON: I do not know whether your Honour wishes to say anything in the judgment concerning the amendment of the Family Law Act order?
JUDGE ROBERTS: I see; yes, that is sensible.
(For continuation of proceedings: please see separate transcript)