England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE PORTSMOUTH COUNTY COURT
(sitting at BASINGSTOKE COUNTY COURT)

		6th June 2014

HHJ Miller QC :

1. The application before the court

This case is a final hearing concerning Child, born on the 26^th August 2005, making her now aged 8, rising 9. Her mother is "Mother" and her father is "Father".

2. The case was last before me for a contested hearing in December 2013 when it was listed as a fact finding and to determine whether the threshold criteria were met. I was also asked to decide the appropriate placement for Child until final hearing by approving the care plan. On that occasion I continued an Interim Care Order granted in October 2013 and approved the care plan for Child to live with her father, which has continued to date.
3. I set out the detailed history of the case in detail in my previous written judgment dated 4^th December 2013, which I will not repeat. Suffice to say that in earlier private law proceedings Mother claimed that Child had made disclosures of sexual abuse by her father in the time spent with him under a shared residence order. Mother also claimed that Child was demonstrating extremely disturbed behaviour, despite it not being witnessed by anyone else and in complete contradiction to her behaviour in supervised contact with her father. All investigations by the police and Children's Services into the allegations were negative, and a jointly instructed psychologist found that there was nothing to support them, but much in Mother's disturbed emotional history that suggested that they were false, and that Child was suffering real emotional harm as a result.
4. In the fact finding hearing in December 2013 Mother abandoned her attempt to prove the allegations of sexual abuse against Father, and I found as a fact that the allegations were untrue, and that threshold was made out in respect of Mother, largely in terms of emotional abuse. Child left foster care where she had been for a number of weeks awaiting the hearing, and went to live with her father under an interim care order before Christmas, which has been an unqualified success.
5. This hearing is a final hearing at which many issue are still live. Despite the findings I made and in particular the finding that threshold was proved against Mother, she challenges the placement of Child with Father. She wishes Child to be returned to her care, and she contests the position of the Local Authority, the Guardian and the Father that a Child Arrangements Order should be made confirming that Child remains living with her father. There was an issue between Father and the Local Authority as to the support that Father should be given, but it is now accepted by the Local Authority that he should have a Supervision Order for a year to assist him. The form and level of contact to Mother in the event that Child is not returned to her is also a live issue, and a number of Mother's relatives have also sought permission to make applications for contact to Child. Lastly, there is an application by Father for an order under s91(14) preventing Mother applying to the court again in respect of Child.
6. The hearing opened on the 3^rd June with my being informed that Mother wished an application to be made to strike out the three reports of MG, the psychologist who was originally jointly instructed in the private law proceedings, and upon whose evidence I had depended in December 2013. As a result MG was called to give evidence about her qualifications and she was cross examined by all relevant parties. I gave a short oral judgment in which I stated that I was satisfied that there are no proper grounds to question her expertise or her qualifications, and I refused the application to strike out the reports.
7. Thereafter it was confirmed that Mother's instructions were to challenge MG's evidence both on the question of Child's placement and if she remained with Father, as to contact.
8. The maternal relations (grandfather, grandmother, aunt and uncle) all confirmed that they wished to pursue applications for their own contact to Child should she remain with Father. Individual applications for contact have been made by each of them. In order for each of them to be able to make the applications, the court has to decide whether to grant leave by applying the terms for permission set out in s10(9) of the Children Act 1989. Those are the nature of the order applied for, the applicant's connection with the child, any risk that the application might disrupt Child's life to the extent of harming her, and as Child is currently looked after by a Local Authority, the plans for Child's future and the wishes and feelings of the children's parents.
9. In respect of these applications for contact by the maternal family, and having heard evidence from each of the applicants, it is clear to me that each of those applications is properly made. Each of the applicants has a blood tie with Child, and while she was living with Mother, saw her fairly regularly. The evidence is that Child enjoys her contact with her wider family, and if necessary it can be ensured that no disruption or emotional harm will come to her by managing contact as appropriate. I indicated to the parties during the hearing that I therefore give leave for each of the applications to be made.
10. I have heard evidence from the psychologist MG, the social worker TW, Mother, Father, each of the maternal relations and the Guardian.
11. Threshold

I turn first to the question of Threshold, as when MG gave evidence in December 2013 she was not challenged by Mother at all on instructions and neither did Mother give evidence. In those circumstances it seems to me only right that I should re-visit the question threshold in the light of the fuller evidence I have now heard.

12. MG has been cross examined as to her findings and conclusions in this hearing. She said that since the last hearing it is a great pity that her recommendations as to treatment for Mother have not been taken up. She had recommended that Mother be seen by an independent psychiatrist to formulate a treatment plan to reduce her anxieties and her medication. She said that therapy should be found for Mother in conjunction with the psychiatrist. Instead Mother has been discharged by her treating psychiatrist in the NHS mental health service with a diagnosis of "no serious mental illness," which MG said is regular practice these days by treating mental health professionals. And instead of seeing an independent psychiatrist, she has found a psychotherapist who she consults by webcam, and who has accepted without question everything that Mother has told her about her allegations of sexual abuse against Father. MG said that it is a great pity that this treatment is not evidence based and does not challenge her at all, so the net effect is that Mother is no further forward with any form of treatment, but appears to be reinforcing her views by getting professionals on-side.
13. Mother's actions since the December hearing, it should be recorded, have been to try and shore up her position that the allegations against Father were true. She has repeated them fully to her psychotherapist, who wrote a lengthy letter to the court on her behalf. A mental health professional contacted Children's Services on her behalf in connection with the allegations. Her vicar has become involved in the case, getting up a petition with over 100 signatures from churchgoers for the return of Child to Mother's care, and attending contact uninvited. And finally Mother has re-asserted the truth of the allegations in a document written by her for a contact planning meeting in January 2014 after a difficult contact session.
14. As to threshold, MG said when cross examined that it is clear from the allegations Mother continues to make (eg to the psychotherapist and in a document she compiled in January 2014) that she has clearly not reflected on the judgment of the court at all. If she maintains her conviction that Father abused Child, it will affect her level of anxiety and her ability to get better, and the longer she has beliefs like this unchallenged by professionals the more delusional she will get. MG said that she cannot see that Mother is going to move to acceptance.
15. MG agreed that Mother's continued abstinence from alcohol is positive, but it has been replaced by benzodiazepam at a high level. She accepted that there are clear moments of emotional warmth in the contact recordings, and that Child and her Mother love each other deeply, but she said the attachment between them is not good. They still both use compulsive and coercive strategies. It was suggested to MG that there is evidence to show that Child is distressed by her removal from her mother's care from the fact that she does not want her father to leave her at night. MG said that this is evidence of Child's own anxieties, not that she is distressed by leaving her mother. She said that her high anxiety level has developed over the years with Mother, and when it was suggested that this is something that can be worked upon if Child returned to her, she said "absolutely not".
16. The social worker TW was questioned on behalf of Mother about the Local Authority involvement in the case, and it was suggested that they have not dealt with Mother fairly since forming the view that the allegations against Father were false. TW said that she has met with Mother one to one, and she felt she had given her a fair chance, that she has not been sidelined or ignored. She said she had been guided by MG's views, not blinded by them. She reiterated the concerns that there had been when Child was in Mother's care, particularly the extreme behaviour Mother was alleging, and that Child appeared to be refusing food.
17. Mother gave her evidence in a calm way and clearly trying to be as accepting as possible of the findings I made in December 2013. She said that she has changed doctors and that her prescription of benzodiazepam is now much reduced. She had no difficulty in convincing me that she earnestly wishes her daughter to come back to her. But when she was cross examined about the threshold findings I had made, it was immediately evident that she cannot accept that the allegations of sexual abuse were untrue, or that she has caused Child any emotional harm as a result of putting them forward. She stood by her evidence that Child had shown extremely disturbed behaviour and that she had tried to self harm, although when questioned as an example about the triage notes of her visit to hospital with Child in August 2013, said that the hospital had got the details wrong. She said that the cut to Child from the bracelet was not self harm, but that afterwards Child self harmed by trying to make it worse.
18. I found Mother to be quite evasive when asked difficult questions about difficult issues. There were times when she did not answer the question, and on a number of occasions spoke about "my truth" when she wanted to maintain a denial in the face of a finding. I accept that she is in a very difficult position in these proceedings, the findings having been made against her. And with the many psychological difficulties that MG says Mother has and the lack of appropriate therapy to deal with them, it is hardly surprising that Mother tries to present a double case which does not stand up to scrutiny. She was taken through the threshold findings, and it was clear that she resiled from acceptance of any suggestion that she has acted to Child's detriment, and she particularly does not accept that Child suffered significant emotional harm in her care.
19. In evidence Mother's initial explanation for her allegations of Child's extreme behaviour in 2013 was that as the court process went on, and as she became aware of what MG was writing, Child was exposed to a mother who was very frightened and distressed. She said that her fear was off the scale, she tried to hide it, but Child would have picked up on it. Once she did, there was a shift in the relationship and it became difficult. However when cross examined on behalf of Father, she also said that it was "her truth" that the extreme behaviour had been caused by the abuse by Father. She said "I feel it hard to believe that a 6 year old would do this without trauma. I don't mean to be disrespectful to the Judge, I cannot deviate from my truth. My daughter told me her Father sexually abused her. I do feel he remains a risk to Child". However she also accepted that Child loves her Father, but still thought she should have a phone so that she can ring Childline whenever she wants to.
20. Mother confirmed that she wanted Child returned to her, and that she herself is now living with her own mother. She said "it would be safe, happy and stable because it was before these proceedings, it was a lovely relationship, she had lots of friends and was a happy child. Not one person has ever raised any concern about my parenting, not the school, no-one. I feel that when Child is told she's not coming back to me she will be devastated, she has always wanted mummy and daddy. I have been the constant for her, and I have been pulled away from her. I don't know how to say how much I want my daughter back, but for her sake, not mine. And her friends and family miss her". She asserted that she saw behaviour in contact that shows that Child is still under stress, clicking her finger for example. She disputes that Child is looking better now she is with Father, and says that she has not put on weight, but simply grown.
21. It is clear that Mother sees MG as the source of all her difficulties, and says that she had made up her mind before she even met her. She did not acknowledge that other professionals in the case (including the police) had begun to have doubts about her allegations well before MG was instructed.
22. The maternal relatives all said that despite having now read the judgment from December 2013 and the other relevant papers, they remain of the view that Child was happy in her mother's care and that there were no problems. They all said that they respect the findings of the court, but also believe in Mother and do not recognise the picture presented by the Local Authority to the court. Grandfather said: "I accept what Child has said, I think it is very likely she has been abused by her father, I know my daughter is honest. I feel strongly about this, Child should not have been taken away". Grandmother said "I believe that something did happen to Child. My response to the rejection of the allegations by the court was upset. I don't believe that Mother has emotionally harmed Child. I did say that Father is a danger to my granddaughter, but I don't know if that's still right." Child's aunt said "I don't believe my sister made up anything or coached Child. I don't know if anything happened to her. I do not accept that Mother has caused Child significant emotional harm".
23. In justifying the support for Mother's position, both aunt and grandmother said that Child had made allegations to them which they had believed. I do not doubt that that is correct, but the reason for the reason for these things being said by Child I found in my last judgment was because she was saying what she knew her Mother wanted to hear.
24. The Guardian also gave evidence about the primary facts. The Guardian said it was wrong that there were no concerns about Mother's parenting before MG's report. She said that when she came into the case she was concerned about Mother's parenting, as she was struggling. Child was not sleeping in own bed, she was picky with food, she had high anxiety levels about school, there was low attendance, and she said that the presentation of the family worried her. She felt they needed support, and she was worried about Mother's high anxiety levels impacting on Child.
25. The Guardian said "it is correct that I became concerned that Mother was making unjustified allegations. She was giving me a big list of things that Child was supposedly saying, but she was still allowing contact because she claimed she would get into trouble if she did not. Then later it appeared that every time Father got the hope of contact being re-instated, further issues were brought up by Mother. I think she did her utmost to sabotage the contact and kept making allegations to stop contact". She said that she had done work with Child and found that she was very comfortable talking about her father, and said how much was liked seeing him and was missing him. Mother was saying Child was soiling and showing many forms of extreme behaviour, but that was not happening at school, and that is not the pattern where this sort of behaviour is actually occurring. The Guardian said that in the early days of meeting Mother, she came across quite plausible, but as she had unpicked the information she was concerned that Mother was pulling her into her camp. She said she thought she had been quite quick to establish what was going on, and made the referral to Children's Services. She said that Mother has refused to meet her since the last hearing.
26. Nothing that I have heard in evidence this week has caused me to revise the threshold findings that I made in the hearing in December 2013. The evidence from Mother and her relatives simply served to underline how far the family is from accepting that she has done anything wrong, and has not caused me to change my decision. I accept that all the members of the maternal family who have made applications for contact, attended the hearing and given evidence, have done so for what they see as Child's best interests. They are all decent, sensible and intelligent people and I accept that many people in their position would also support a much loved daughter or sister rather than accept the unthinkable, that Mother coached Child to make the allegations and that she has been caused considerable emotional harm by what followed. However they have not had the advantage that I have of seeing all the evidence, nor of approaching the case from a neutral stance.
27. I repeat what I said in paragraph 38 onwards of my first judgment:

38. "MG says that she found that Mother's large number of extreme allegations were not substantiated, which has compromised Child's safety to a great degree. She says that the boundaries between what is real and what is not have been blurred for Mother as she has tried to make sense of her own history. The allegations made by her about Child's behaviour are the most extreme allegations of mental distress and behaviour by a child that MG had ever encountered, including in her research. She said in evidence that it would not be possible for Child to have experienced such a degree of distress at home without it spilling out into other parts of her life, which it never has done. She therefore concluded that Mother was again catastrophising. MG said that Child has found herself compelled to make the allegations against her father in association with her highly insecure pattern of attachment with her Mother. In evidence MG said that Child is both coercive and compliant, that she can therefore both confuse and conflate information and be deceptive.

39. I do accept the matters that I have set out above from MG's report, having heard her evidence and being satisfied that she is both properly qualified to give this opinion and that she has investigated this case with great thoroughness and skill. I therefore have no hesitation at all in saying in terms that the allegations of sexual abuse are not proved against Father, and that he is not a risk to his daughter Child.

40. MG says that the allegations have been fabricated by Mother, but says they could have arisen from distorted thinking or from deliberate deception. I am urged by the Local Authority and Father to say that there is an element of both distorted thinking (arising from Mother's psychological problems) and deliberate false allegations in what she has done (evidenced by the more extreme examples of allegations not supported by Child and the fact that Father has always said that Mother threatened him with sexual allegations if he did not comply with her wish to change court orders).

41. My finding is that while Mother has indeed been the victim of her psychological problems, she has also consciously created some of the allegations here. I have been told that the Guardian is also of the view that there is a combined explanation for the allegations. The timing between contact re-starting and the next allegation being made is too much of a co-incidence for there not to have been some volition on her part. There are also examples of Mother embellishing stories as – the addition of the alleged threat of self harm she over-heard Child make to a nurse or doctor on the 31^st August when she was questioned about it by MG is a good example.

42. It must be understood by Mother that her allegations that Father has sexually abused Child have been found to be totally unfounded, created by her both unconsciously and consciously. She must also understand that what she has done has been hugely emotionally damaging to Child, who will take a long time to recover her own psychological equilibrium, even with her Father's help. She must never allow herself to make such allegations again, or she will risk never seeing her daughter."

28. I then turned to the question of threshold, and said the following in paragraphs 44 onwards:

44. "I have already stated that I found the evidence of MG concerning Mother's psychological make-up compelling. She has gone back into Mother's past to find the root cause of her current mental health difficulties with a thoroughness I have not often encountered before. She sets out the difficulties from Mother's childhood and traces the development of her depression, her alcoholism and her needy self-focus which has caused such a damaged relationship with Child. She says that her psychological state impacts significantly on her ability to parent and that without extensive therapeutic intervention she will be unable to give Child stable and responsible care-giving.

45. MG says "I do not believe Mother is able to parent Child or keep her safe … her actions … are causing both physical and psychological harm to Child on a daily basis. My assessment of Mother indicated both overt and covert hostility towards Child resulting in a highly inconsistent attachment behaviour".

46. Child now presents as both compliant and coercive. As a result of Mother's false allegations of sexual abuse, she has been the subject of intrusive examination and questioning on many occasions, including twice by the police. Mother's constant allegations of extreme disturbed behaviour by Child has never been witnessed by any professional, but it culminated in the hospital stay in August 2013 when Mother alleged that she had been self-harming, causing inappropriate medical intervention.

47. MG's view is that Child has been caused significant emotional and physical harm. The emotional harm is obvious from the history of the case, but the physical harm is also present. Part of Child's presentation in her Mother's care is that she had restricted her eating intake. Since being placed in Foster Care she has begun to eat well, and her school are saying that she is a different child. MG says that if Child were to remain in her Mother's care she would be at very significant risk of mental ill health herself, specifically an eating disorder, depression, substance abuse, somatic disorders and severe anxiety.

48. Nothing I have heard in the case causes me to question any of the threshold matters that have been succinctly extracted from MG's report. They are an accurate distillation of MG's views and she specifically confirmed that each is correct in her evidence. No challenge was made to any of her opinions in evidence, as it had been made clear before the case started that Mother did not want to try and undermine MG's evidence.

49. It is very clear that Threshold is crossed in this case. I accept that each of the matters set out in the Threshold document is made out on the balance of probabilities".

29. There was no concession at all from MG as to threshold when she was cross examined, and nothing that has been said either by Mother or her relatives causes me to revise my opinion set out above. Threshold continues to be made out in the terms already found despite the challenges to it in the evidence in this hearing.
30. Disposal

Having decided threshold, I need next to consider the various options for disposal before the court. The Social Worker TW has helpfully done a careful placement analysis in respect of Child which I approve and adopt.

31. The Children Act 1989 makes a presumption that, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of a parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child's welfare provided that parent can be involved in the child's life in a way that does not put the child at risk of suffering harm. This court recognises that children should be brought up if at all possible, and consistent with their welfare needs by their parents, or one of them or if not, within their wider family.
32. TW considers in her placement analysis the options of long term foster placement and adoption, both of which can be discounted as there are suitable placements within the family. The paternal aunt has also been assessed as a suitable placement.
33. Mother contends that I should place Child with her, preferably under a child arrangements order, but she says she would accept any basis, including a care or supervision order. She says that with appropriate psychiatric and therapeutic input Child could be rehabilitated to her. It is contended that Child feels abandoned by her and misses her (although there is no expert evidence to that effect) and that because she is Child's mother she sees things that no-one else does. It is emphasised that Child did recently place Mother as being close to her when spoken to by the social worker, TW. This all unfortunately ignores two very important issues, firstly the considerable emotional damage that has been done to Child in Mother's care, and secondly her inability to put aside the damaging allegations she has made, such that emotional abuse would certainly continue if there were to be any form of rehabilitation.
34. MG was asked about two instances in contact when Child has said slightly questionable things about her father to her mother, which she described as "pushing Mother's buttons" and which she says Child now does deliberately to get a reaction from Mother and to upset her. It is my view that given this situation, it is inevitable that with Child in her care Mother would start the witch hunt against Father again. She may be able to control herself in supervised contact, but not if Child lived with her full time. Then additionally there is the fact that MG says that if Child were to remain in her Mother's care she would be at very significant risk of mental ill health herself, specifically an eating disorder, depression, substance abuse, somatic disorders and severe anxiety.
35. Mother's own evidence made it very clear that while she tried to say she respected the court's judgment in December 2013, she still says that the allegations against Father are true. This is clearly not something that is going to change. She has also made it very clear that she will not be changing her therapist, so that her views will go unchallenged in the future. This, as the Local Authority contend, is very unfortunate as the therapy she has had to date has all confirmed her mind set, rather than challenging her, so that she is effectively going in the opposite direction from the one I pointed out for her in my last judgment. All her family back her position and while understanding the reasons why the court rejected the allegations of abuse, do not accept the decision. Each of them was cross examined in respect of their applications for contact, and all of them said essentially that they trust and believe Mother, and therefore the allegations are true.
36. It was suggested that Father has shown some inappropriate parenting since Child has been with him. It was suggested that Child has been playing adult computer games, but TW said that she has never seen this, and that Child is a chatty little girl with her, and has never suggested playing a game designed for those above her age.
37. The Guardian says in terms in her final analysis that it is Child's exposure to emotional abuse and poor parenting, with the likely consequences to her ability to achieve as an adult, which is "why it is imperative that Child is not returned to her mother's care ... I cannot support Child being returned to her Mother's care". She said that it is absolutely clear that placement with Mother, even under a care order, would be hugely detrimental to Child and cannot take place. In evidence she said "I have no concerns about Father's care of Child at all, I think there was a campaign against him."
38. Child has now been with her father for over 5 months and has fully settled in and blossomed. The social worker gave evidence that she is doing increasingly well at school, and has grown in confidence both academically and socially. Suitable therapy has been arranged by her father that will start shortly. TW also said that she believes Child has put on weight rather than simply growing, and that she looks well with more colour in her cheeks. She said that Father has taken all support and advice offered, and has engaged fully in the VIG sessions arranged. He is described by the Social Worker as "insightful".
39. The Guardian says in her report that Child is "more confident, chatty and does not appear to be anxious" and that "her individual needs are best met by her Father Mr Father". In evidence she said that when she saw Child earlier this year "my impression was of a completely different child, a lot more confident. When I first met her she kept her head down, there was little eye contact, she was like a rabbit in headlights, with dark circles under her eyes. That has all changed, the pallor of her skin has improved, her eyes are brighter, she's bubbly, she talks about her friends, she's relaxed, laughing and joking".
40. Mr Father gave evidence also in this hearing, and confirmed what TW had said about Child. He struck me again as being sensitive and child-focussed. He said that he has kept the fact of this hearing away from Child due to her anxieties. He also said that Child has never asked him why she did not see him for so long. He said that the evidence he had heard from the maternal relatives had made him feel nauseated, "I didn't expect to feel that way, it was the single-mindedness of opinion despite the evidence to the contrary". He said that while the injustice of the allegations still rankles with him, he has come a long way "and its joyous to have Child with me".
41. I am very concerned that despite what must have been the huge twin shocks to Mother last year of firstly having Child taken from her, and then her going to live with her father, that she has been wholly unable to set aside what happened. It is also very unfortunate that Mother's family have been unable to accept the court's judgment and help her move on, although it is only in this latest hearing that they have seen my full judgment and the core evidence. The way Mother talks of "her truth" is simply a way of saying that she is right and everyone else is wrong. The Local Authority point out that MG observed as long ago as her first report that Mother was talking about "her truth", which MG pointed out is associated with a substantial distortion of information. Mother also asserted in her evidence that she had not read my December judgment, which is very hard to believe, especially since her sister said she discussed it with her when she received it during the hearing.
42. It has been contended that MG's report has biased everyone against Mother, and that she has not been given a chance since it was written. On her behalf it is pointed out that Mother has taken steps to change her position, by changing her GP and reducing her medication, and by finding a therapist. These things are correct, but unfortunately have gone nowhere towards putting right the real problems in the case, and the therapist is simply accepting and confirming Mother's false allegations.
43. Both the Local Authority and the Guardian say that Mother cannot safely parent Child, and that none of MG's conclusions have been undermined either by the evidence in this hearing, or what has happened since Child's move to his care. They say that she would be at significant risk of further emotional harm if she moved back to her Mother's care. She is a vulnerable little girl who is doing remarkably well in her Father's care, which should not be disturbed.
44. In deciding Child's placement, her welfare is of course my paramount consideration. In the terms of the welfare checklist, it is abundantly clear that under all the headings bar one, the weight of the evidence clearly requires placement with father for the many reasons I have set out above. The only heading on which there is any ambivalence is concerning the ascertainable wishes and feelings of Child, considered in the light of her age and understanding. Quite properly no-one has asked Child to make a choice as she is still aged only eight. When she was asked recently by the Social worker who she felt close to, she put both her parents close to her. Whilst I suspect that she might now say she wanted to stay with her father, it is clear that she loves her mother deeply, so this heading would be put in the balance equally. But in the terms of Child's emotional needs, the likely effect of a change in her circumstances if she moved to her Mother, the harm which she has suffered and is at risk of suffering, the fact that Father is fully capable of meeting her needs, and the fact that if she lives with her father it can be under a child arrangements order rather than under a care order, everything is in favour of placement with Father.
45. I should record that I fully accept the views of the Guardian, the Social worker and MG. It is absolutely clear that Child should live with her Father under a child arrangement order.
46. Contact

Contact has taken up a good deal of time in this hearing. Mother has been having supervised contact with Child fortnightly for one and a half hours. They have been carefully recorded by the same worker who has supervised all contacts.

47. MG wanted to film contacts in order to make a better assessment of them, but Mother refused permission, even if MG did not remain in the room. She said in evidence that was because MG's report had been factually incorrect. Mrs Cheesman the maternal grandmother also refused to have her contact filmed. The grandparents have been attending contact with Mother about once a month, and Child's aunt has also been to a contact since January this year.
48. It is clear that Mother has tried hard to make the contacts enjoyable for Child. The Guardian however says that Mother has struggled to remain focused on Child, and is prone to making negative comments about Father. The was one contact in the community at the end of January which was very problematic, as Mother asked direct questions about Father, specifically asking Child if she remembered the things she had said Daddy did to her. She then shouted at the contact worker and the vicar friend also attended and harangued the contact worker. Mother was asked to sign a written agreement about contact before it restarted, but she refused to do so for two weeks.
49. Mother said in her evidence that she finds contact very limited and difficult because she has gone from being a full time mother to 1 hour every other week. She said "when we are together I would describe contact as quite awkward, I'm very aware it's being supervised, there's a pressure to perform. Beforehand we were really really close. I don't agree that there is any anger or toxicity, I'm not an angry mother". She also admitted that she has found it difficult not to make negative comments about Father. She also said "I just don't want to hear about him, it's very hard when you have lost your child".
50. It is pointed out on Mother's behalf that she has tried to control her feelings in contact, and has largely succeeded. The occasions on which MG observed that Child was "pushing Mother's buttons" did not cause her to over-react, which is a real improvement.
51. According to the Social Worker, Child has become withdrawn and quiet after contacts. TW says that she is unhappy discussing her mother, her demeanour changes and she tries to change the subject. She has stated "I wish Mummy wouldn't get angry" to her on about three occasions. TW said that after the highly inappropriate contact in January 2014 referred to above, Child became teary when asked about her mother. It was suggested to her that this was because Child missed her mother, but TW said no, it was because Child was upset about what had happened and her mother getting angry. The Local Authority has been very concerned as to whether contact is in Child's best interests, but it has continued to date.
52. The recommendations as to Mother's contact if Child is placed with her father had varied until the start of the hearing. MG's recommendation was for monthly contact, the Guardian said every three months, and the Local Authority in their care plan said every six weeks to coincide with holidays. There was a meeting between professionals at the start of the hearing and they have since presented a united front. The joint recommendation is now for supervised contact 6 times a year. Mother would have 3 contacts alone, two with her family, and the family one alone. Mother says that this is far too draconian a reduction, and flies in the face of what Child truly wants. She does not recognise the picture MG paints, and strongly denies that her relationship with Child is "toxic" as she has contended.
53. MG was cross examined about contact for Mother and the wider family. She said that the contact needs to remain supervised as Mother has not done the necessary psychiatric and psychotherapeutic work. She said that Child needs stable contact where she is not worried about her mother's anger, making her anxious and hyper-vigilant. She says there continues to be a "highly toxic" relationship: there is a lot of hidden anger in both Child and her mother, she described their relationship as a subtle tit for tat. Child is still watching for her mother's reactions, and even a slight facial change can signal to Child that her mother is angry.
54. She said that now Child is living in a relaxed environment with her father, she is not having to manage her anxiety on a daily basis, which is why it now comes out as a form of post traumatic stress around contact. Child has described seeing her mother's "scary face" before contact. She said that the reason she had reduced her recommendation from 12 contacts to 6 times a year was principally the fact that Mother has made no progress towards accepting the findings against her, and she understood that her family supported her in that view.
55. MG said that there are positives in contact, and that Child clearly enjoys the family contact, particularly her grandfather. The problem is that Child needs to talk about her father in contact, and the maternal family's inability to accept the position means that a lot has to change before contact can progress. She also said that the fact that Child is about to start therapy may de-stabilise her for a while. She accepted when questioned by the maternal aunt that she had not met her before or seen her contact, but she said she understood that the maternal family have taken a joint position with Mother.
56. The Social Worker TW said that whilst she accepts that Mother has tried not to cause concern in contact, she is still asking leading questions and doing inappropriate things. There are numerous examples in the contact recordings of her saying something derogatory about Father, and trying to get information from Child about him. On one occasion she appeared to be making a note on her phone of information she had elicited about a video game Child was playing. Mother said she did this just to keep Child safe. TW said she does not believe that the contact five times a year proposed for Mother will make Child more anxious about her, but that it should be kept under review.
57. TW accepted that once the Local Authority is out of the picture, Father will have to make arrangements with the maternal family, which will not be easy for him. But she said that Father does have Child's best interests at heart, including where contact is concerned. She said that the court can trust him when he says he doesn't have a closed mind, he has been pleased when contact has gone well, and has put his family forward as another option for supervision to try ensure that the maternal family connection is kept.
58. Father said that as to contact "my view is that Child wants to see her mother, and it's beneficial. She's confused about her feelings towards her mother. The prevailing problem is her anxiety in the car driving to see her, she tells me about it repeatedly. I think she expects me to act on it, she knows I know it, but she keeps telling me". He said that he used to tell Child about contact the night before, but she wouldn't sleep, and she would wake frequently in the night. He said "now I tell her in the morning. After contact she seems fine, but a bit solemn. And in the night afterwards she will wake 2 or 3 times, she calls out to me, she's not distressed but I have to go to her." He said "going forward Child needs stability and consistency, she needs to have confidence in her future and certainty as to contact. I'm not happy telling her about contact on the mornings. I don't want contact to impact on her, but after school contact (as at present) is disruptive, it upsets her routine. And her behaviour afterwards is unpredictable and destabilising". He said that he agrees the joint proposals from the experts. When cross examined he said "I agree she does love her mother. But I think reducing the contact will improve the quality".
59. Mr Father said he was happy to use an intermediary to give Mother information about Child as necessary. He said he did not think that Child could see her uncle and his family in London yet, but he does not rule it out for the future. He said he would want to see a change in attitude and some sort of relationship developed between the uncle and himself first.
60. The Guardian said that Child has told her about her anxiety over contact, she talked about nightmares, seeing creatures and monsters. "Child has never said she doesn't want to see her mother, I think she does want to see her". In the Guardian's view, as the family do not accept the findings, contact will pose an emotional risk to Child. She said that contact needs to be supervised for the foreseeable future because she is concerned about what the family say about Father, and there is potential for future allegations. She said the family haven't moved on, and Child needs stability.
61. The Guardian accepted that contact in a contact centre is unnatural and hard for everyone concerned. She said that contact cannot be moved forward as it needs to stay supervised. She said that there is no exit plan from the contact centre here, which would normally have lead to her saying that contact should not take place at all, but Child needs to see her Mother. She said that Child's need is "simply to know that her family are safe and well. I know they want to see her more, but she needs to be able to relax and enjoy her life". She thought that there should be monthly indirect contact however, that it should go through the social worker at first, and that thereafter Father should look at the material before giving it to Child.
62. The Guardian said that she cannot predict how Child will cope with the court's decision. Children normally settle quickly and accept the situation. She pointed out that in the next year the Local Authority will be reviewing contact, and she said that thereafter Father can be trusted to manage contact and move it on in Child's best interests. She said that Father has never been negative or derogatory about the maternal family, he has been very dignified. Her view is that if the family can move on, Father would support contact. She accepted that the therapist may make recommendations about contact in the future, but felt that he should see both MG's reports and the judgments of the court.
63. As to the contact to the maternal family, when the social worker asked Child who was close to her recently, it is significant that she did not name any of her maternal family. They make the point that they have seen little of Child since she went into foster care, but the grandparents had visited her in contact about three weeks before TW spoke to Child, and it has been demonstrated through the contact recordings that Mother talks a lot about her family, including her brother and sister.
64. TW accepted that she does not know the maternal family at all well, and has not met the uncle at all. But she said that it is a problem that all of the family appear to support Mother's position regarding the allegations against Father, feel that she has been treated unfairly and that the whole process has been unjustified. She said that Grandmother had been at Mother's house when she attended by appointment before Christmas 2013, and she found her to be attacking and sarcastic about the Local Authority concerns. It was also grandmother and grandfather who brought and read out to a contact planning meeting after the highly concerning contact in January, a worrying document from Mother, calling into question their judgment and again asserting that the allegations are true. She said that only last week grandmother referred to Father as "that man" when talking to a colleague. However she also accepted that some of the contacts have been really positive when all the family has been present.
65. It is proposed by the Local Authority and the Guardian (and supported by Father) that the Local Authority will continue to supervise all contact as at present, but that subject to review, it will move to the Roberts Centre by the October 2014 half term, where the supervisor will be fully informed as to the dynamics of the family. TW accepted that the maternal uncle may be able to facilitate indirect contact for Child.
66. The maternal family were united in their feeling that the low level of contact and the continuing supervision proposed is wrong and detrimental both to Child, her mother and their relationship with her. Child's uncle who lives in London with his wife and two small children said he would like to see Child at his home and would commit to keeping the rest of the family away. But although he was the most detached of the maternal relations, he still said that Mother had been right to do what she did and that she was not a risk to Child. He said he is willing to be a conduit for information for the maternal family. Grandmother said she thought she would be able to talk positively about Father in contact, and would help Mother to do the same, but I have real doubts that that will be possible for a very long time. Grandfather suggested that he would be willing to sign an agreement not to talk to Child about anything inappropriate in order for contact to be unsupervised more frequent, but on behalf of the Guardian it was pointed out that the family need to prove themselves before this can happen.
67. A contact schedule has been drafted in the terms proposed by the Local Authority and agreed by the Guardian and Father. Given the weight of the expert evidence as to the purpose and concerns over contact, I have to accept that the level of contact has to reduce radically from where it is at the moment. I acknowledge the Mother's position and her heart-felt plea for as much contact as possible if Child is not returned to her, and I sympathise with all the maternal family who feel they are being unjustly deprived of a proper level of contact. But I have to consider what is best for Child and again the welfare checklist. The most important heading to consider in terms of contact is the harm that Child is at risk of suffering, which here is in terms of negative things being said about father. It is quite clear that contact will have to be supervised for the foreseeable future, and that therefore the artificial setting of a contact centre will have to continue. I agree that given Child's anxieties over contact and the fact that she will find it increasingly restrictive, it should be far less frequent than at present. It would obviously be preferable for it to take place in school holidays, so that Child is able to get over contact without it over-affecting her routine.
68. I have decided that the schedule of contact proposed should be approved, but with one addition. At present there is no contact proposed in the February half term, and I can see no reason why this should not take place in addition to the six contacts proposed. It will not radically increase the level of contact recommended by the professionals, but it will go a very small way towards meeting the Mother's wishes. This therefore means that there will be contact in each school half term, at Christmas and Easter, and two in the summer holiday, one at the beginning and one at the end. This extra contact should be either for Mother alone or with her relations, as she wishes, but that needs to be decided today as it is important for Child to know who she will be seeing when.
69. I agree that indirect contact should take place monthly, through the Local Authority at first, and then moving to Father. I would like to record that I hope that Father will be open-minded about contact in the future. I hope he will accept the creation of a relationship with his former brother-in-law, SC and that they can exchange information about Child as appropriate. I also hope that as time passes, that as Child continues to flourish and the allegations recede, that contact will be able to move on.
70. The future of Local Authority involvement

The Local Authority had proposed that Father be supported by a 6 month child in need plan, but having listened to MG and discussed the matter also with the Guardian, the social worker on behalf of the Local Authority accepted that there should be a 12 month Supervision Order to assist Father with contact issues. TW said the Local Authority's view was originally that it was not necessary as they were happy with Father's care, but they are prepared to assist him with a Supervision Order, which will give him a higher level of support and for a longer time. This therefore is the order I will make.

71. The s91(14) application by father

It is right to say that Child has been the subject of court proceedings for much of her life. She was still only two when a shared residence order was made, and she was still only three when Mother contacted Children's Services for the first time alleging that Child was showing disturbed behaviour. She was six when Mother reported the first alleged abuse by Father and police investigations started. She was first interviewed by the police as a result of the allegations just before her 7^th birthday and Father was under investigation by the police for almost a year. There were cross applications for residence at the end of 2012 when Child was 7. This case has been under investigation for nearly two years, and before the court for 18 months. It has been created entirely by Mother's allegations about Father's abuse.

72. Father says that he seeks a S91(14) order in order to filter further allegations and applications by Mother, to last until Child's 16^th birthday. He says that Child now desperately needs a period of calm and being settled. He says that without such an order, Mother in her present state of mind is likely to make more allegations and to disrupt the placement by using the court process. It is said that this is an exceptional case and that Child's welfare requires a s91(14) order. It is pointed out that the order is a filter of applications, not an embargo on them.
73. Both the Local Authority and the Guardian support the making of an order, saying that Father and Child need space to recover from the effects of this lengthy case. TW said she thinks this is an exceptional case, that as Mother still believes that Child has been sexually abused, she is worried that she may make an application in the future. She says Mother is highly collusive, she is still getting professionals on her side, and is a powerful and compelling advocate in her own cause. She thought that an order to age 16 is appropriate.
74. The Guardian said in evidence that the impact of the allegations and the case upon Father has been immense. She said she had noted Father's distress at the evidence of the maternal family. She said that protection from applications is important for him psychologically, and she would be very concerned where it would leave Child if he was under more stress. She said that Child needs to be protected until she can make her own decisions and agreed that it should last until she is 16.
75. On Mother's behalf a s91(14) order is strongly opposed as being both unnecessary and unjustified. It is pointed out that she has not made any frivolous applications, and while not accepting the court's decision, has not flouted any orders made. It is said that while she may not agree a reduction in contact, she will not go against it. It is a weapon of last resort, and this case does not get near that position. Mother says that she needs to be able to approach the court if there is a problem.
76. The case of Re P (Section 91(14) Guidelines) [1999] 2 FLR 573 is still the leading authority on the section. It makes it clear that the welfare of Child is the paramount consideration. The power to restrict applications to the court is discretionary and I must weigh all the relevant circumstances in considering whether to make an order. An order is a statutory intrusion into Mother's right to bring proceedings before a court, and therefore the power is to be used with great care and sparingly: it is the exception and not the rule. It is usually a weapon of last resort, only to be granted in cases of repeated and unreasonable applications, but in suitable circumstances and on clear evidence the court may impose an order where the child's welfare requires it, even though there is no history or unreasonable past applications. But in those circumstances I need to be satisfied that the facts of the case go beyond what is commonly encountered in a difficult situation, and that there is a serious risk that without the order, Father will be subject to unacceptable strain. The order can be made for any period, but the restriction should be proportionate to the harm that it is intended to avoid.
77. In the case of Re S [2007] 1 FLR 482 it was said that it is not permissible to attach conditions to a s91(14) order, but that it is permissible for a Judge to indicate to the party concerned the issues that must be addressed before any future application to the court was likely to be successful. Father suggests that I should identify that Mother needs to show some acceptance of the judgment of the court in the fact finding that she has caused harm to Child, and that she should seek proper therapeutic help. It is also suggested that a copy of both my judgments should be attached to any application.
78. The deciding factor in this application is in my judgment the nature of the false allegations made against Father and his psychological well-being. Despite having conducted himself with great dignity and never having shown any bitterness or rancour at Mother's behaviour, he is clearly traumatised by what has happened. His frank admission of his reaction to the maternal family's evidence showed how deeply he is affected by what has happened. I agree that the Guardian is right to be concerned about Child's future should Father be faced with the stress of further applications.
79. It is certainly right that Mother has not made frivolous or repeated applications in this case. The reason for imposing an order is simply to prevent Father from further upset after the conclusion of the case, and to provide Child with a stable and happy home life. It is also a fact that much will have to change before contact can be changed, and that some passage of time will be required before this happens. In my view this is a very unusual case, and the facts of it are truly exceptional. I do find that Child's welfare requires the making of an order, and that there is a serious risk that without the order, Father will be subject to unacceptable strain.
80. The next question I need to address is the length of the order and that the restriction should be proportionate to the harm that it is intended to avoid. I remind myself that the order does not prevent applications, but it makes leave necessary before an application is made. I have come to the decision that I should make the order until Child's 12^th birthday, which is the age at which it was said she will begin to be able to protect herself. Rather than requiring that my judgments and MG's reports are attached to any application, which sounds like an impermissible condition to me, I am going to record on the file that any further applications in the case will be reserved to myself if at all possible.
81. I think it would be proper to indicate to Mother the issues that she needs to address before any future application. Any application would be better received by the court if she can indeed show some acceptance of the court's finding that she has caused harm to Child by the false allegations, and that this is borne out in therapy she has received.
82. I was asked on behalf of Father to indicate whether any of the areas of the case that he has referred to in his last statement should be looked at in order to learn lessons from the way that this case was conducted. I have considered that request but decided that I will not do so, as the Guardian told me that she does have concerns which she will follow up in due course.

HHJ JANE MILLER QC

6^th June 2014