BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> SG v KT [2025] EWFC 159 (B) (23 May 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2025/159.html
Cite as: [2025] EWFC 159 (B)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

This judgment was given in private and a reporting restrictions order is in force. The judge gives permission for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of this judgment the anonymity of the child and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWFC 159 (B)

Case Nos: ZW23P01594, ZW25P00233,  ZW25P00104,  ZW25F00006,  ZW24P01107

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT WANDSWORTH

   

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989

Date:   23 May 2025

 

Before :

 

Recorder V L H Jackson

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

 

 

   SG  

Applicant Mother

 

 

- and –

 

 

 

   KT  

Defendant father

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Hearing dates:  12 May 2025    

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FINAL JUDGMENT



Recorder V L H Jackson:

 

Introduction and background

 

  1. I am concerned with the welfare of J, who is currently 4 years old and looking forward to starting school in September.  J lives with her father, KT, and has done so since April 2023 when her mother , SG, went into hospital as a voluntary inpatient for mental health treatment.  J's mother left inpatient treatment in July 2023.  J continued to live with her father on her mother's discharge.  Mother did not agree with this and proceedings were issued by the mother in 2023 through which she seeks variously a lives with order for J to live with her, an occupation order in respect of the matrimonial home, and a non-molestation order.  The father in return seeks a final lives with order for J to live with him and spend time with mother.  Throughout this judgment I will refer to KT as 'father' and SG as 'mother'.
  2.  

  3. These proceedings have been characterised by the issuing of numerous applications, including enforcement applications by both mother and father, as well as further applications for non-molestation orders by mother and a request that the court takes action against the father for contempt of court.  At the last hearing on 4 March of this year, HHJ Willans in an attempt to wrestle order out of the proliferation of applications for which I am very grateful directed that all current  live applications under case references ZW23P01594, ZW25P00233, ZW25P00104, ZW25F00006 and ZW24P01107 be consolidated.
  4.  

  5. The upshot of this is that on 12 May, I heard the final hearing of these  consolidated proceedings  in which I am asked to reach conclusions as appropriate on the question of child arrangements orders for J and a non-molestation order sought by mother on behalf of herself and J.  In light of the history of proceedings and the proliferation of applications, I have taken care in this judgment to ensure that the parties are clear that the court has heard, considered and reached a view on the multitude of issues raised by them which are relevant to the final disposal of this case.
  6.  

  7. The mother represented herself at the hearing.  The father was represented by Mr Asaad of Counsel.
  8.  

  9. I have read the contents of the bundle which includes application forms, previous orders and witness statements.
  10.  

  11. I heard oral evidence from mother and father and from Annette Hayes, the CAFCASS s7 reporter.
  12.  

  13. It is helpful to set out some of the background as to how mother and father have reached the position they find themselves in today.  Following this I will briefly outline the procedural issues which required determination at the start of the final hearing, before then going on to consider the issues, evidence, law and my conclusions.
  14.  

  15. The parties met in around 2017 whilst mother was studying at university and father was employed at the same university.  They entered into a relationship which was subject to a pause in 2018 as a result of an incident where mother states father deliberately broke her phone and father states it was accidentally broken. 
  16.  

  17. In 2019 the parties married and in February 2021 J was born.  The relationship both before and subsequent to J's birth does not appear to have been a calm one.  The parties lived together in father's family home with father's mother and uncle.  Mother has made various statements in the course of these proceedings that during this time she was subjected to coercive and controlling behaviour by father, which included not being allowed to leave the property on her own, verbal abuse, constant supervision and control over her spending and apparel.    Mother has also asserted that she was subject to physical abuse and prevented from telling medical professionals the truth about what had been done to her.  Father has denied all these allegations and has said that mother had ongoing mental health issues during their marriage which he was trying to assist her with.
  18.  

  19. What is clear is that in March 2021 a referral was made to the local authority by the health visitor who was concerned with mother's mental health.  A section 47 investigation was opened.  During the course of this investigation further issues were raised with mother and father arguing between themselves in front of J.  An incident was also logged by the police regarding an argument that was stated to turn violent with mother stated to have thrown items at paternal family.  Mother stated she had been hit in the neck by paternal mother, but this was recorded in the assessment at the time as unlikely to have occurred. A referral was also made regarding father acting in a controlling manner by removing mother's passport, access to funds and opening her mail.  The referral closed when mother left the family home with J in November 2021.
  20.  

  21. Mother and J resided initially in a refuge following leaving the family home.  An incident with another resident led to mother and J being evicted from the refuge and housed by the local authority in February 2022.  Mother states that she contacted father in February 2022 regarding finance and access to the family home, which father was not residing in.  Mother further states that father refused assistance and was aggressive, though this is also disputed by father.  Mother and J spent 2022 in temporary accommodation until mother went into hospital for mental health treatment in April 2023.  Mother subsequently moved into the matrimonial home in 2023 following her hospitalisation.
  22.  

  23. During mother's time in hospital, J went to live with her father, who took full care of J.  J was placed with her father by social services.  The immediate incidents that led to these proceedings started in July 2023.  Mother states that she always intended to resume custody of J on her discharge from hospital and that father would not liaise with her over this.  She attended father's residence in July 2023 to collect J.  This was not agreed by father who took J back from mother when mother attempted to take J away.  Following this, mother attended J's nursery.  Father liaised with social services and nursery staff, and mother was informed by nursery staff that she could not see J at nursery.  Mother subsequently issued her application which forms part of these proceedings for child arrangements orders.
  24.  

  25.  During these proceedings interim contact has taken place, though even this has not been free from difficulty.  DDJ Bennett first ordered in December 2023 supervised contact at a contact centre for 1 hour per week.  In March 2024, DDJ Drew advanced contact with a direction for 6 further weeks of supervised contact, progressing to unsupervised contact and then to overnight stays followed by full weekend stays.  An interim lives with order was made in favour of father.
  26.  

  27. On 7 July 2024 when contact had progressed to unsupervised overnight stays, mother refused to return J to father's care.  This led to an enforcement application being issued and heard urgently on 2 August 2024 when the court made an interim lives with order for J to live with her father and directed that J be returned to her father's care by 3 August 2024.  Contact between mother and J was reduced to supervised contact at a contact centre.
  28.  

  29. In September 2024, alternate weekend overnight contact for mother was resumed, along with a midweek overnight stay.  This again broke down following mother's allegation to social services and police that father was physically abusing J.  A fresh section 47 investigation was opened in which concerns were identified that mother was coaching J in making allegations.  Social services did not report concerns about father's care of J in this assessment.  In March 2025, HHJ Willans directed that unsupervised contact resume according to the alternative weekend and midweek contact previously put in place.  A final hearing was directed, and a direction was also made for the s7 reporter to attend.
  30.  

    The issues and position of the parties

     

  31. The issues between the parties concern primarily who J should live with and how much time she should spend with her other parent.  There is also a live application for a non-molestation order made by mother.  I understand that there is currently no question about mother's occupation of the family home though the parties divorce proceedings have yet to finally conclude.
  32.  

  33. Mother's position is that J should live with her.  She states that this should be the case because father is persistently physically abusive of J.  She alleges that father slaps and pinches J regularly, to the extent that J is afraid to return to his care.  Further and most recently, she alleges that father grabbed J by one leg and dropped her down the stairs with the effect that J rolled down a flight of stairs and hit her head on a door.  Mother makes no particular proposals as to the level of contact father should have with J beyond that any contact should be supervised.  Mother's fallback position is that if J remains with father, her contact should be substantially increased in order to protect J from her father.
  34.  

  35. Father's position is diametrically opposed to mother.  His position is that J should continue to live with him.  He disagrees with the CAFCASS s7 report of 28 August 2024 as regards the level and nature of the contact with mother.  Father's final position is that mother should be restricted to supervised contact only on the basis that mother is engaging in behaviour to alienate J from father.  Father supports the resumption of unsupervised contact once mother completes appropriate courses to address her behaviour, but considers that orders should not be made for this at present as courses of appropriate rigour and duration need to be undertaken.  Finally father seeks prohibited steps orders to guard against the risks of mother abducting J and making unilateral decisions for J's future and an order permitting him to take J out of the country for 14 days at a time.
  36.  

  37. The CAFCASS report of 28 August 2024 supported a lives with order in favour of father with a spends time with order for mother.  In the report, Ms Hayes considered that mother should have alternate weekends with J, a mid-week contact and holiday time split between the parents.  At the hearing and following oral evidence from mother and father, Ms Hayes changed her position to support a lives with order in favour of father and supervised contact with mother pending mother completing work to address her behaviour that is impacting on J and J's relationship with her father.
  38.  

    `Procedural matters

     

  39. At the start of the hearing a number of procedural matters arose which required resolution prior to starting the hearing.  First mother arrived accompanied by her neighbour, Ms Jones, who has provided a witness statement in support of mother in these proceedings.  Mother initially indicated she expected Ms Jones to give oral evidence.  No direction had been made for this for the final hearing.  Ms Jones statement concerned the events around July 2024 when mother did not return J to father.  I considered it was unnecessary to hear oral evidence from Ms Jones to determine welfare issues for J at this stage.
  40.  

  41. Mother then sought permission for Ms Jones to act as her McKenzie friend.  I had regard to the guidance issued by the Presidents Office on McKenzie friends and heard submissions from father's counsel.  Noting the strong presumption in favour of litigants in person being allowed the benefit of McKenzie friends, this is one of the rare cases where the desired McKenzie friend is not an appropriate person to appoint.  Ms Jones has a clear interest in the case, having given a statement to support mother.  Mother indicated clearly that her desire for Ms Jones support is because Ms Jones will confirm all points Mother wants to make.  This is incompatible with the supportive role of a McKenzie friend and consequently it is not in the interests of justice for Ms Jones to act in this capacity. 
  42.  

  43. With regard to the hearing of oral evidence, no directions were made for this by HHJ Willans.  Counsel for father submitted that decisions could be made on the basis of oral evidence from Ms Hayes and submissions on behalf of the parties.  In my view, given the nature of the orders sought and allegations made by the parties, this was plainly an inappropriate basis on which to make final orders for J.  Both mother and father seek lives with orders on the basis of the harm the other party is causing to J.  If the allegations of either party are true, or if neither party's allegations are true, it has significant impacts on what orders can safely be made in J's interests.  It is in the interests of justice for making such decisions that I hear oral evidence from mother and father.
  44.  

  45. I considered whether this necessitated adjournment of the final hearing to another date.  Both mother and father supported proceeding if possible. I noted that in addition the nature of the dispute and relationship between the parties was such that it is in J's interests for these proceedings to be concluded if possible and a final, stable, resolution to be reached.  With that in mind, I indicated that I was prepared to reserve judgment and to sit later to ensure that oral evidence could be completed.
  46.  

  47. In light of the issues and allegations, I also indicated to both mother and father that I only required oral evidence on the question of whether mother had displayed behaviours likely to alienate J from her father, whether father had physically abused J and whether either party was able to support and promote a relationship between J and her other parent.
  48.  

  49. The final issue directly raised by mother was the contents of the trial bundle, which she stated were missing various documents and statements that she had put in.  Counsel for father submitted that the father's solicitors had received material piecemeal from mother and not in a coherent order, or necessarily according to the court timetable. Everything the father's solicitors had received had been put in.  I note that the bundle extends to 712 pages and includes some duplicate material.  However, as mother was able to demonstrate to me through sight of the email exchange she had had with the court, she had submitted a statement in support of her non-molestation order and contempt of court application.  This had been received by the court who had indicated they would serve the application and evidence.  Counsel for father submitted father's solicitors had not received this statement, though they had received the application.  Mother has demonstrated to me that she did all steps she had to in relation to the statement, and it is therefore in the interest of justice that this statement is included.
  50.  

  51. Finally, although not directly raised by mother in the form of a request or application to the court, on 6 May mother filed an additional witness statement from herself at court, including several video exhibits comprising of videos mother had made of J.  No directions permitting such additional evidence had been made and no application to admit it had been filed by mother.  Mother requested at the hearing that I nonetheless include it within the court bundle.
  52.  

  53. My conclusion on this point is that I should admit the statement and exhibits to the court bundle and that the parties should be cross-examined on the content of the statement.  In the statement mother alleges a very serious incident of recent physical abuse, which if true, would materially affect any order the court makes.  Counsel for father did not raise strong objections to the inclusion of the material as father had had an opportunity to prepare a statement in response, which I have also admitted to the bundle. I am satisfied that there is no significant prejudice to the father as a result and that it is in the interests of justice that this material is considered.  I am mindful of the video exhibits, which are not transcribed and for which I have only mother's assurances that they are a complete record and unedited.  Father has not raised any objections however and indeed says that they help demonstrate his case.  Noting that it is for me to determine what weight if any I place upon these exhibits and considering that further delay in the proceedings is undesirable, I admit the statement and exhibits along with the father's statement and exhibits in response (which does not contain any video evidence).
  54.  

    Evidence

     

  55. Mr Asaad questioned mother on the various allegations made that father had physically and verbally abused J.  Mother's evidence was to the effect that every incident had happened because J had told her about the incidents and mother believes and represents J.  Mother was firmly of the view that she had heard father swear at J in May 2024.  She told me that she considered it was the truth that the father hits J as J is scared and fearful to go to father.  Mother explained J's lack of communication to nursery staff as being a result of J not feeling safe at nursery and not considering nursery to be a safe space for her where she can confide in staff.
  56.  

  57. Mother denied coaching J in any of her statements.  She said that she had always encouraged J to go to her father, telling J that 'Daddy is good' and that she had never said to J that Daddy hits her.  Nor does she prompt J to say things to professionals.
  58.  

  59. Mother had filmed J a number of times making allegations.  She stated that J is very happy to be filmed.  She does it to keep the evidence so that J can be believed.  Mother's view was that J was not truly happy with her father, J had learned how to present a picture of what mother called 'resigned happy'.  J is only truly happy with mother. Mother accepted that she had dropped J late at nursery but this is because it is in J's interests and father is controlling her and mother with timing of nursery.  J is too distressed to go to nursery earlier.
  60.  

  61. In relation to the most recent incident that occurred only a few days prior to the final hearing, mother gave evidence that she believed J was telling the truth.  J had said she had been pulled up by her leg to the ceiling and dropped down the stairs.  Mother did not accept father's explanation of a bike accident contending there would have been more injuries from a bike accident.
  62.  

  63. Father was questioned directly by mother.  I made due allowances for mother being a litigant in person, ensuring that father's evidence did not commence until after lunch so that mother had lunch time to consider the questions she would like to ask.  On a number of occasions I clarified the points that mother was seeking to ask questions about to assist her with framing points for father to respond to.  Where questioning strayed into areas outside of the matters I had indicated oral evidence was needed on, namely the alleged incidents of abuse, alleged alienation and supporting J's relationship with both parents, I reminded mother of the need to focus on these points and indicated that she might find the chronology in father's position statement and her recent statement helpful in focussing her questions.
  64.  

  65. In his evidence father stated categorically that he had never hit or harmed J physically in any way.  He did not accept that J was scared or upset to be with him and gave evidence that in his view, J loves him dearly.  She has lots of toys and clothes at home and a happy relationship with paternal family.  Father does put routines in place including nursery times as he considers this to be beneficial to J's development.  Father noted that a fixed routine was recommended by CAFCASS.
  66.  

  67. Father had not observed any injuries on J such as the bruises to her thigh that mother referred to and had taken J to the hospital for examination on.  Father noted that J is in nursery and often wears wellies there.  In such an environment, father noted that J may get occasional bumps and bruises from falling over or bumping into things in play.
  68.  

  69. Father denied that he had ever picked J up by the leg and dropped her down the stairs as mother stated J had said happened at the start of May.  Father explained the incident at the start of May as being an incident where J had fallen off her bicycle in the park and bumped her head.  She had sustained no significant injury at the time, but father sought medical attention and was referred to the pharmacist who recommended a cold compress and ice pack.  Father then took her to the GP in any event the next morning.  Father had provided a copy of the GP notes recording a slight bump to right side of head.
  70.  

  71. Father noted that he had always provided J for contact as ordered, except in the period December to March where he was told that social services had safeguarding concerns about J's contact with mother, and so he halted contact at that point.  Father said he was keen for J to have a relationship with her mother, provided this was safe for J.
  72.  

  73. Ms Hayes gave straightforward evidence that she believed at the time of writing her report that her recommendations for a lives with order in favour of father and spending unsupervised time with mother was correct.  However having seen the additional evidence filed and after having heard the parties in court, Ms Hayes now considered that the appropriate order was a lives with order for father and supervised contact only for mother in light of the risks to J around mother's behaviour.
  74.  

  75. Ms Hayes considered a key issue was the pattern of allegations made by mother.  It was notable in Ms Hayes' view that allegations were consistently made only after J had spent time with her mother.  Further, mother has expanded her allegations to include nursery staff who are accused of perpetrating significant abuse on J by locking her in a room.  Ms Hayes was also very concerned by mother's videos of J, which she considered raised concerns of grooming by mother.  In Ms Hayes view, mother's actions were creating an environment where J felt it necessary to make ever increasingly serious allegations.  It was notable that the allegations were only made to mother and only mentioned to authorities after encouragement from mother.  No professional had observed J being reluctant to go to father or any indication of abuse towards J such as mother alleges.
  76.  

  77. Ms Hayes conclusion is that mother is emotionally harming J.  There are no credible accounts of J being harmed whilst in her father's care.  There are no signs of abuse on J.  J has been repeatedly subject to medical examination and has been observed by many professionals in her young life, none of whom have raised domestic abuse on J as being an issue.  In Ms Hayes' view the projection of the mother's feelings around her experiences with father are impacting on J.  As such, Ms Hayes concluded that mother would not be able to support a positive relationship with father and supervised care was appropriate.  Mother should also carry out specific work to address her behaviour and the risks that she poses.  This is particularly important in light of mother's statement that she would continue to video J to, in mother's view, protect J.
  78.  

    Findings

     

  79. I will start by giving my overall impression of the witnesses giving oral evidence before turning to the specific issues which I consider I need to find facts on.  Mother was clearly emotional at a number of points in giving her evidence.  In my view she believed herself what she was saying and it is clear that she deeply loves J.  However, much of what mother has told me today is based on her perceptions of J and I consider that  this is a case where mother has convinced herself that her perceptions are in all respects accurate whilst everyone else around her is wrong.  Whilst I understand her strong views are closely linked to her views and experiences of father in her personal relationship, the overall incompatibility of mother's evidence when examined alongside the professional records of the nursery, GP, hospital and local authority make it difficult to give much credibility to mother's evidence on the abuse that she states J has been .
  80.  

  81. Father was measured and consistent in his oral evidence.  Like mother, I formed the view that father very much cares for and loves J.  Father also clearly had difficulties with the relationship between him and mother, but father came across as genuinely wanting to find a way through for J to have a relationship with both of her parents.
  82.  

  83. I found the evidence of Ms Hayes to be measured and very helpful.  It was of great assistance that she was able to be present for the entire hearing and give her evidence last, having heard the parents' evidence.  This enabled her to give clear assistance in light of the ongoing issues between the parties and mother's allegations.
  84.  

    Physical abuse by father of J

  85. It is understandable that mother was concerned when J is stated to have first said that she was hit by her father.  However, the evidence before me provides no basis for considering that such allegations are true.  The contemporaneous notes from J's nursery all indicate that J has no concerns being with her father and is happy with him.  The nursery has not noticed any injury to J of any type, let alone injuries that might be consistent with physical abuse.  J has also been examined by the hospital at mother's request in December 2024, recorded in the s47 Report at pages 606-607 of the bundle. The hospital's report to the local authority was that there were bruises present of no concern.  No other signs of physical abuse are recorded.  Nor did the GP who examined J in May of this year record any concerns with physical abuse.
  86.  

  87. The allegations made by mother are that:
  88.  

    a.      Father hits J on the face and legs

    b.      Father hit J in the face when she was playing

    c.      Father picked J up by one leg and dropped her down the stairs.

     

  89. The incident at c) is alleged to have occurred on or around 1 May 2025. The incidents at a) and b) are not specific on time, and mother indicates she considers this is an ongoing pattern of behaviour involving more than one incident.  The allegations are principally recorded as being made in July 2024 and October and November 2024.
  90.  

  91. I find that father has not physically abused J as alleged by mother.  Specifically, I find that father has not hit J in the face and legs, father did not hit J when playing and father did not pick J up by one leg and drop her down the stairs.  I accept the father's explanation for the May incident, which is that J had an accident when riding her bicycle in the park.
  92.  

  93. There is no evidence from any source other than mother to support mother's allegations of physical abuse.  There is no indication beyond mother pointing to one incident of finding some bruises on J's legs of any injury being caused to J at all, let alone injuries consistent with a pattern of ongoing physical abuse including hitting J's face which mother alleges has taken place.  I also place weight on the notes from the nursery and the recent s47 report which clearly indicate that J is happy to be in the care of her father and there are no concerns about this.  These are two separate sets of professionals reporting over two different periods.  I do not consider it is realistic, let alone true, as mother believes that all the nursery staff have been coerced or bullied into reporting inaccurate or incorrect information.
  94.  

  95. In relation to the most recent allegation that J was dropped down the stairs, I find it troubling that mother has accepted and pushed such an allegation with no evidence or indication to support that it occurred.  Mother points in her final submissions to various concerns she has with father's account of a fall from a bicycle, alleging that father has manipulated the photo placed in evidence and that the GP evidence is falsified.  Mother has asserted that the event happened simply because J has said that it happened.
  96.  

  97. The description given by J as displayed in the videos recorded by mother (which I will return to later) is however completely implausible as a scenario in light of J's condition and the medical evidence.  The evidence from the GP, which I do not accept has been falsified, is that J had a small bruise to her head.  As Ms Hayes noted, a serious incident such as that alleged would have resulted at least in many more bruises as J fell down the stairs, if not a more serious injury.  I note that mother in return asserts that falling off her bicycle should have resulted in other cuts and scrapes and so in her view J never fell off her bicycle.  Mother cannot have it one way that more injuries would be expected for father's account whilst at the same time rejecting that anything similar should be expected for her account.  On the balance of probabilities the account given by mother of J being dropped down the stairs is entirely implausible and I find that it did not happen.
  98.  

    Mother's behaviours in relation to alienation

  99. I have had in my mind the recent guidance from the Family Justice Council on alienating behaviours, although given that J has not displayed reluctance to engage with either her father or mother, this is not directly applicable.  In my view, this case is at a preliminary stage of the possibility of alienating behaviours which could lead in the future to J being reluctant to engage with her father.  I note that whether such behaviours have occurred is first and foremost a question of fact for me to decide.
  100.  

  101. I note that her mother says that J is reluctant to engage with her father when mother takes her to nursery.  Mother's case is that this is appropriate and justified rejection due to physical abuse, on which my findings are set out above. In contrast, nursery has not observed any reluctance to engage with father and father's evidence was that J is not reluctant to engage with him, but it does take her time to settle back at home with him after a weekend with her mother.
  102.  

  103. Mother has vehemently denied coaching or grooming J in any way to make allegations as regards her father.  She states that such allegations have been entirely led by J and mother has only asked appropriate questions to find out more details as she was sceptical about J's statements and wanted to know more.
  104.  

  105. Mr Asaad on behalf of father has urged me to consider the pattern of allegations and the timing which coincides with J's periods of spending time with mother.  Mother has explained this as being the only place in which J feels safe and alleges that J does not feel safe in her nursery because nursery staff locked her into a room as a punishment.  Ms Hayes questions both the likelihood of this incident occurring and mother's view that J does not feel safe at nursery as there is no indication of this in the nursery notes.  Further Ms Hayes assessment is that children who are abused will show distress and often tell nursery or other professional staff relevant information.
  106.  

  107. I find that mother has created an environment for J in which J feels that it is appropriate, expected and approved of to make increasingly serious allegations about father whilst in mother's care.  I have considered the videos attached to mother's last statement filed in these proceedings and these cause me serious concerns about mother's behaviours towards J.  The videos in question total several minutes in duration.  The first two videos involve mother filming J for several minutes whilst J is lying on the bed after a bath/shower and persisting in asking J questions whilst J is not dressed.  Mother can be audibly heard gasping and having visible reactions to J's statements.  By contrast J appears to have no particular involvement in what she is stating.  She raises her voice at some points to emphasise her statements, but does not apparently show distress or pain at reciting that she was dropped down the stairs.
  108.  

  109. Mother follows this up with a further video in which J, in her pyjamas is taken through step by step what J says happened.  Mother says J enjoys making the videos and is not affected by it.  In my view this persistent questioning and filming of a very young child is highly inappropriate and contributes to Ms Hayes' assessment that an environment is created where J to seek mother's approval feels that allegations need to be made.  It is of great concern to me that mother stated in court that it is her intention to continue to make videos of J to, in the mother's words 'protect her'.  I can only emphasise in the strongest possible way that such behaviour does not protect J and is instead highly likely to cause J emotional harm.
  110.  

  111. In reaching my conclusion that mother's behaviours are such as to amount to manipulation of J to believe that father has been acting abusively towards her and to encourage her to make allegations to this effect which are not in fact true, I take into account the timing of the reported allegations and the timing of reported distress at nursery, all of which coincide with mother's care of J.  I find it persuasive that in the periods when J did not see mother, the nursery notes record no issues with father's hand overs and pick ups, and that J was happy with father.  I also accept that nursery staff and hospital staff have accurately reported incidents where J has stated that father hit her and where mother has been present encouraging and prompting J to repeat the allegation regarding her father hitting her.
  112.  

  113. It is axiomatic that encouraging a child whether actively or tacitly to make false allegations against a parent and to believe incorrectly that a parent is abusing her will be emotionally harmful to the child.  J has already demonstrated distress and emotional dysregulation in the periods when she returns to nursery after mother's care and I accept father's evidence that it can take her a couple of days to settle again when she returns to live with father. 
  114.  

  115. I also accept the submissions of father and the concerns of Ms Hayes that J has, as a result of these behaviours, had extensive professional involvement in her life that is well beyond what any normal 4 year old child would experience.  Whilst J may have limited appreciation of it herself at present, as her understanding develops, it is likely that she will grow to appreciate the unusual intensity of professional involvement and that this will impact on her sense of self and her emotions.
  116.  

    Ability of each parent to support a relationship with the other parent

     

  117. My findings above regarding mother's conduct lead me to the conclusion that she is unable at the current time to support a relationship between J and her father.  I accept that mother and father have had a far from amicable separation and that there are serious allegations in the context of that separation which I have not found necessary to determine for the purposes of decisions on J's welfare today.  This emotional background has led mother to behave and act in a way which I find is incompatible with her supporting any relationship between J and her father. 
  118.  

  119. It is extremely concerning that as mother herself accepts, she has retained J after contact, requiring a court order to be made in these proceedings before J was returned to live with her father as had originally been directed by the court.  Her final submissions in these proceedings do not indicate any willingness to promote any relationship with father.  She is focussed on her perception of protection of J, which in her view involves J living with her, with no provision made for contact with father.
  120.  

  121. I have noted the history of these proceedings which has also given me concern as to the father's ability to support a relationship between J and her mother.  The parties have each sought to enforce the interim child arrangements orders and the statements indicate that handovers for contact have been fraught with difficulty with both parties making accusations about the other party's behaviour.  Acrimony at handovers is unlikely to promote a positive view of either parent to J or encourage the building of a relationship with a parent.
  122.  

  123. However, father has made J available for contact as directed by the court save for when social services expressed safeguarding concerns.  Contact has resumed according to the court directed pattern each time the case has come to court.  This indicates a willingness to proceed with arrangements for J to have a relationship with her mother.  Further, there are no reports in the bundle of any issues arising following father's care of J about J being reluctant to see her mother or discouraged from doing so.  With that in mind, I consider that despite a difficult relationship between the parties, father is generally able to promote a relationship between J and mother, albeit that he has expressed concerns that the relationship is managed in a safe way for J.
  124.  

    The Law

     

  125. I turn now to the law which I must apply.  In relation to the primary application for various child arrangements orders including lives with orders, prohibited steps orders, I have regard for the welfare checklist as set out in Section 1 (3) of the Children Act 1989. 
  126.  

  127. In reaching my decision the welfare of J is paramount and her welfare has been at the forefront of my mind throughout this hearing.  I also have full regard to the principal on proportionality.  A court should not sanction or make any orders unless the court is satisfied that it is both necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order will achieve the essential end of promoting J's welfare. 
  128.  

  129. I am also asked by mother to make a non-molestation order under the Family Law Act 1996.  I remind myself that under s42 of the Family Law Act that the test of whether a non-molestation order should be made involves consideration of all the circumstances including the need to secure the health, safety and wellbeing of the mother and the children.   For an order to be made or discharge to be refused, I need to be satisfied that there is evidence of molestation, that mother and/or children need protection and that on the balance of probabilities judicial intervention is required to control the behaviour. 
  130.  

    Child arrangements orders

     

  131. The ascertainable wishes and feelings of J.  J is 4 years old and has limited ability at this stage to clearly and consistently express her wishes and feelings.  I also take into account my findings above that she has been exposed to a situation where she is encouraged  through mother's behaviour, attention and approval to make false allegations about abuse from her father.  At present J has presented as happy with the care of both her mother and father and I consider that she would ideally wish to spend time with both mother and father, subject to this being safe for her.
  132.  

  133. Her physical, emotional and educational needs.  At J's current age, she needs the adults in her life to provide for her.  She is about to start school, having been at nursery.  She needs the life of a normal happy 4 year old, with stability in her arrangements to enable her to confidently start school, build friendships and develop to her full potential.  It is important that she is not placed under pressure to favour one parent over another, that she does not feel that she has to choose one parent over another or that she needs to please one parent by rejecting the other parent.  She should not be exposed to ongoing recording of her making allegations which will place undue emotional pressure on her.
  134.  

  135. J also needs stability in the arrangements for her schooling.  Mother has previously sought to change J's GP and nursery without reference to father.  It is important that such decisions as her educational provider are ideally made jointly by her mother and father acting together in her best interests.  She should not be exposed to changes in these arrangements without good reason.
  136.  

  137. The likely effect on her of any change in her circumstances.  J currently lives with her father and has been spending time with her mother.  A change in her living arrangements would be a significant change for her which would need to be managed carefully if it were to occur.
  138.  

  139. Similarly J has been spending alternate weekends with her mother and an overnight stay mid week.  If she continued to live with her father, any changes to the level of contact she has with her mother would be a change that would need explaining, especially if, as requested by father and supported by Cafcass, that change was to revert to supervised contact only.
  140.  

  141. That said, J has through the course of these proceedings experienced a variety of contact arrangements, ranging from not seeing her mother at all, to supervised contact, unsupervised contact and her mother refusing to return her to her father, which resulted in J not seeing her father for over a month.  J has taken such changes in her stride, though it is difficult to believe they have been anything other than confusing for her.  Whilst it does not appear that changes would have a significant impact, I bear in mind that her experience of contact with her parents has been an unstable one and that stability and predictability is likely to be her greatest need at present.
  142.  

  143. J's age, sex, background and any other relevant characteristics.  J comes from a mixed heritage background.  Her father's family is from India and are practising Hindus.  Her mother is from China and her mother currently attends a Christian church.  It is important that J is able to grow up with a full picture of her background and exposure to both cultures.  Mother has provided little to no evidence of how she would support J in understanding her heritage on her father's side or exploring this.  The only indication in the bundle is that mother refused to discuss contact arrangements to allow J to attend diwali celebrations with paternal family.  This does not give me confidence that mother would support J in exploring this side of her background or support the flexibility of contact arrangements to allow J time with paternal family to ensure that she understands her background.
  144.  

  145. The chaotic nature and frequent break down of contact arrangements have however equally provided little concrete evidence of father supporting J in understanding her background from her maternal side.  J did not see her mother over the last Christmas period due to father restricting contact following Brent Social Services indicating they had safeguarding concerns over mother's contact with J and potential coaching and grooming.  I bear in mind though that father has put forward contact proposals to enable J to have contact with mother and father indicated in court that subject to contact being safe, father would support progression to an arrangement where J spent significant religious or cultural events with the appropriate parent.
  146.  

  147. Any harm J has suffered or is at risk of suffering.  I have found that J has already suffered emotional harm through her mother's actions in creating an environment where J is encouraged to make false allegations against her father.  Further harm has occurred through the ongoing videoing of J by mother.  Mother has stated openly that she intends to continue to video J.  Mother has also not indicated any willingness or accepted any need to do any work either to address her behaviour or to manage co-parenting as recommended in the CAFCASS s7 report.  There is consequently an ongoing risk of harm from mother's behaviour that needs to be managed to ensure contact is safe for J.
  148.  

  149. In relation to father, I have already found that the alleged physical abuse towards J did not occur.  There remains a risk of emotional harm to J through the hand over arrangements in the event mother has unsupervised contact with J.  The acrimony between the parties and the statements in the bundle on this demonstrate that the parties struggle to regulate their behaviour and emotions on these occasions which is liable to cause harm to J.  Handover arrangements have operated better when it has been to and from nursery, indicating that there are options to mitigate risks.
  150.  

  151. Capability of parents in meeting J's needs. There is no concern expressed that either parent is incapable of meeting J's basic physical needs.  The section 47 report records that J has a close and loving bond with her father and that father provides consistent and appropriate care for J.  It is not reported that there have been any issues with mother meeting J's basic needs.
  152.  

  153. As already set out, J needs a stable pattern in her life with routine and predictability.  The evidence before me is that father has supported this, including insisting on regular drop off times and pick up at nursery and extending this into the holiday period so contact happens at a consistent time for J.  Mother views this as father exercising coercive control over her and J.  Mother agrees she has regularly brought J to nursery late but states that this is meeting J's needs due to her emotional state at the prospect of having to return to father.  Mother rejected the evidence of Ms Hayes as a professional that routine was important to J and that father has supported this.
  154.  

  155. I also bear in mind my findings regarding the harm being caused to J with regard to her relationship with her father and with regard to the videoing of J, both of which indicate concerns as to mother's ability to meet J's emotional needs and need for familial relationships.
  156.  

  157. I remind myself that whatever orders are being sought the court can make a whole range of Section 8 Children Act Orders or indeed no order at all if I consider that to be appropriate.  In considering the appropriate orders in relation to J, I have been troubled by the fact that my findings will inevitably mean a change for J in a life that has already been marked by changing relationships and changing contact with the two people who are most important to her.  However J's welfare and safety are my primary concern and my findings indicate that J's current arrangements expose her to significant harm and a real risk that her relationship with her father will be irreparably damaged.
  158.  

  159. To protect J whilst still ensuring that she maintains a relationship with her mother, it is appropriate that J lives with her father and has supervised contact with her mother.  To maintain the relationship with her mother, contact should initially be supervised in a contact centre once a week for 2 hour sessions at a time.  This should take place for 4 sessions.
  160.  

  161. Following this, contact should move on a supervised basis into the community and should be for up to 4 hours duration at a time.  This should take place fortnightly.
  162.  

  163. The cost of supervised contact should be borne by mother in line with Griffiths v Griffiths (Guidance on Contact Costs) [2022] EWHC 113 (Fam).
  164.  

  165. I accept the views of Cafcass that contact should remain supervised until such time as the mother can demonstrate having undertaken suitable courses to address her behaviour.  I also accept that these courses should be suitably rigorous and of a meaningful duration so that mother can engage with the issues identified in this judgment.  Cafcass indicated that mother can reach out to her local authority or Barnados for assistance with courses.  I agree that family therapeutic work could also be beneficial for mother and note that mother would need to consider a private therapist for this.
  166.  

  167. In light of this it is not possible to provide in a final order for progression of contact.  However, I remind the parties that disputes do not have to be resolved through court and indeed court should be a last resort.  I encourage mother and father to engage in discussions and even mediation once mother has completed therapeutic work to look at progression of contact to a more typical unsupervised arrangement.  I would envisage that on completion of a suitable course, swift progress could be made to include a video call of up to 30 minutes between mother and J on the weeks where contact is not taking place.  I anticipate that progress to a more normal arrangement would need slower stages, but I would envisage progress being made via a staged process of unsupervised time gradually leading to overnight stays before a typical final pattern of alternate weekends and shared holiday care is reached.  I am happy to record in the recitals to the order that the parties should be able to agree progress of contact in a patten similar to the one I have outlined provided that progress of contact should not be discussed until mother has completed the necessary therapeutic work.
  168.  

  169. Mother and father also need to learn to work together.  J is very young and needs her parents to support her throughout her childhood.  She does not need to be exposed to parental dispute over every stage of her development.  I will direct that both parents should complete the planning together for children course.  I understand father has already completed the Freedom programme, but mother should also complete this.
  170.  

  171. In light of mother's previous actions in changing arrangements for J, I agree that prohibited steps orders are necessary to prevent mother removing J from father's care, unilaterally changing J's GP or school.  Mother and father may, of course, agree to change the school or GP jointly.  I also agree that father should be able to take a normal 2 week holiday out of the jurisdiction with J and that this should be provided for in the order.
  172.  

  173. Father urges that I should include recitals around J wearing make up and mother cutting J's hair.  Given the limited contact the order allows mother with J, I do not consider these recitals are necessary.  Once mother has completed the indicated work, more time will have passed and it is not necessarily the case that J will welcome make up or her hair being cut in the same way that she does now.
  174.  

    Non-molestation order

     

  175. Neither party addressed the issue of the requested non-molestation order in their submissions.  In her evidence to support her application, mother refers to seeking a non-molestation order and an occupation order, though I understand that she is in fact occupying the family home on her own and father does not reside or visit there, so there appears to be no need for an occupation order.
  176.  

  177. Concerning the non-molestation element, mother has recited a considerable amount of the history of her relationship with father before before and after J's birth.  Her statement makes reference to three key elements which she states constitutes the behaviour justifying a non-molestation order.  These are a) father's unwillingness to co-operate over agreeing a contact arrangement for J, b) his insistence on imposing his own time schedule for when J will be available and c) insisting mother cover the costs of a contact centre (pages 300-301 of the bundle).  The application also refers to an allegation father has incited other people to stalk and harass mother and that father has retained the keys to the alley gate.  Finally mother has referred in other statements to incidents where father has filmed her at contact handovers.  The last one of these occurred in August 2024.
  178.  

  179. In considering the test in the Family Law Act 1996, I am aware of the history of the relationship between the parties and that this includes a number of serious allegations of domestic violence, on which findings have not been made.  A non-molestation order is however concerned with more immediate needs for protection.  The application was issued in January 2025 for incidents the last of which is indicated to have occurred in August 2024.Whilst I appreciate mother's concerns, there does not appear to be any immediate need for protection from father's behaviour and I am not convinced that judicial intervention is required.  I therefore refuse the application.
  180.  

  181. For the avoidance of doubt, I consider it unnecessary to make orders in relation to the enforcement applications, the final child arrangements order having disposed of the key issue which has led to the enforcement applications.
  182.  

    For the reasons set out above I Order :

     

    a)    J to live with her father

    b)    J to have supervised contact with her mother comprising of 4 sessions of 2 hrs each in the contact centre to take place weekly.  Following this fortnightly sessions of 4 hrs of supervised contact in the community

    c)    Mother to pay for costs of contact

    d)    Mother not to remove J from father's care

    e)    Mother not to make unilateral decisions about J's school and GP

    f)     Father to be allowed to take J out of the jurisdiction for up to 2 weeks.

    g)    Both parents to complete the planning together for children course and mother to complete the Freedom Programme

    h)    non-Molestation application refused

     

    This Judgment was handed down privately on 23 May 2025.  The parties were invited to make submissions regarding publication of the judgment within 7 days.  No submissions having been received, the above anonymised version of the judgment is approved for publication.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010