England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

 

IN THE FAMILY COURT                                                                  Case No: NS13P00581

SITTING AT NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE

                                                                                                                             The Law Courts

                                                                                                                                 The Quayside

                                                                                                                    Newcastle-upon-Tyne

                                                                                                                                       NE1 3LA

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989

AND IN THE MATTER OF: K (CHILDREN)

 

Thursday, 30^th April 2015

 

Before:

 

HER HONOUR JUDGE MOIR

 

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

 

Re: K (Children)

 

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

 

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

 

Counsel for the Applicant Father: Mr Gray

Counsel for the Respondent Mother: Mr Ainsley

The Applicant Paternal Grandparents appeared In Person

Solicitor for the Children/Guardian: Miss Goldstein

 

 

Hearing dates: 17^thMarch and 22^nd to 24^th April 2015

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

 

 

APPROVED JUDGMENT

 

Transcribed from the Official Tape Recording by

Apple Transcription Limited

Suite 204, Kingfisher Business Centre, Burnley Road, Rawtenstall, Lancashire BB4 8ES

DX: 26258 Rawtenstall – Telephone: 0845 604 5642 – Fax: 01706 870838

HER HONOUR JUDGE MOIR:

1.                  I am concerned with the welfare of three children:

A, born on 1^st December 2005, so 9 years of age;

B, born on 27^th December 2007, so 7 years of age; and

C, born on 27^th March 2010, so he is just 5 years of age.

They are the children of F and M.  Also parties to this application are PGM and PGF, who are the paternal grandparents of the children. 

2.                  The parents married in 2005 and lived together at various places until they separated in 2012.  The original application to the court was made on 21^st October 2013 by F, whom I will, within this judgment, often refer to as father.  He had no contact from 29^th September 2013 until the first hearing before the court on 17^th December 2013.  M, whom, again, I will refer to as the mother, opposed the paternal grandparents having any contact with the children from 22^nd October 2012 until the first day of the final hearing before me.  It follows from what I have said in relation to the paternal grandparents that the paternal extended family have not been allowed to have contact with the grandchildren by the mother for some two and a half years. 

3.                  On 29^th August 2014, the father issued an application for the child arrangement order whereby he was asking the court to order that the children should live with him.  This matter came before me for final hearing on 17^th April 2015 and I heard six days of evidence.  I heard oral evidence from the father and mother and the paternal grandparents and from the guardian, Wendy McGaughey.  I had heard evidence from Estelle Louw, the jointly instructed child psychologist, on 3^rd March 2015 as she was due to be out of the country during the final hearing.  The court ordered written submissions, which were duly filed, and, alongside all the documentation within this matter, I have read and considered those submissions thoroughly.

4.                  Father’s application started out as an application for a child arrangements order dealing with contact but, as I have indicated, he now pursues an order changing the residence of the children so that they can come and reside with him.  It is submitted on behalf of the father and the guardian that, if such a change of residence is ordered by the court, the mother’s contact with the children should be supervised.  Estelle Louw, in her capacity as the expert instructed in this matter, recommended that the father should be the main carer and, in those circumstances, that supervised contact only to mother should be offered.  The guardian supports the father in his application for a change of residence.  

5.                  Mother, it is submitted, now readily agrees to contact, unrestricted and unsupervised, for both the father and the paternal grandparents.  A proposal is made by the mother for a shared care arrangement.  Father has set out, in a position statement, the findings which he asks the court to make which includes seeking findings that the mother has a personality disorder and has fabricated allegations against the father and encouraged the children to fabricate allegations against not only father but also the paternal grandparents.  The mother’s position is that she specifically does not pursue findings against the father of sexual abuse on her or in relation to the father’s use of alcohol or upon issues of financial or other control exerted by the father. 

6.                  The law, which I have to apply in this matter, was helpfully set out by Mr Gray and the other advocates.  Mr Gray set out the legal framework within which the applications of this nature are determined by the court.  The welfare of each child is my paramount concern and I consider such welfare in accordance with the principles set out in the Children Act 1989, namely any issues are determined in accordance with the principles and factors set out:

(a)           the welfare of the children is the court’s paramount consideration;

(b)          the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case, paying particular regard to the matters set out in the welfare checklist;

(c)           whilst there is no presumption of equal care, the presumption is that the children’s welfare will be furthered by the involvement of both parents in the lives of the children; and

(d)          the court should proceed on the assumption that delay is ordinarily inimical to the welfare of the children.

7.                  Mr Ainsley, in his submissions that a shared residence order translated into arrangements determining where the children should spend their time under the new scheme would be appropriate, drew my attention to A v A & Ors (Shared Residence) [2004] 1 FLR 1195, which confirms that the parents do not need to be able to get on with each other but that it may be appropriate as a means of ensuring that neither parent has an imbalance of power over their children.  Mr Gray also referred me to the European Decision in Sahin v Germany [2002] 1 FLR 119, which recognised that a parent’s rights are secondary to the rights of the child and the child’s health and development. 

8.                  TB v DB [2013] EWHC 2275 contains a consideration of the appropriateness of a shared residence arrangement when the mother has made serious allegations against the father and the case reflects upon the risks involved in a transfer of residence from one parent to the other.  Re: A (Residence Order) [2010] 1 FLR 1083 sets out some additional principles to be considered where there is a proposal to transfer residence which Lord Justice Thorpe referred to as a “judicial weapon of last resort.”  In paragraph 18, Lord Justice Thorpe set out:

“The transfer of residence from the obdurate primary carer to the parent frustrated in pursuit of contact is a judicial weapon of last resort.  There was hardly a need for a psychologist to establish the risks of moving these girls from mother to father, not only after her long years of care but also in the light of the negative picture that they had been given of a father who they had not effectively seen for 17 months.  The risks of gamesmanship from the mother in the future, confirmed in residence but nailed down with a clear detailed contact order, were plainly less, and from that essential risk balance the judge was diverted.  In a sense it could be said that the order she made was premature and in its draconian content too risky for these children.”

9.                  Lord Justice McFarlane in Re: W (Children) [2012] EWCA Civ 999 said that:

“The detailed rights and duties of a parent are not defined more precisely in the Act, but, in general terms, it must be the case that where two parents share parental responsibility, it will be the duty of one parent to ensure that the rights of the other parent are respected, and vice versa, for the benefit of the child.”

I bear in mind these authorities and apply the law as I have set out to the facts in the case before me. 

10.              I also bear in mind the guidance of Lady Justice Macur in the case of Re: M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1147 in looking at the oral evidence which is brought before me.  In particular, Lady Justice Macur said in considering lay evidence that:

“The judge's assessment of the parents characters, past behaviour and present attitudes are entirely dependent upon finding primary fact, interpreting and drawing reasonable inference from the same.  I agree with Miss Ball QC, they are unassailable on appeal.  The judge was obliged to reach her conclusions on the whole of the evidence and was not bound by the opinions of others, however eminent in their field.  The judge states the basis of her departure from their views, namely that of her ‘good opportunity not only to hear the witnesses' evidence but to observe their demeanour and credibility.’ 

Conscious that such comment is trite in first instance judgments it is pertinent to note in this one under review that the judge's description of the mother and father when giving evidence before her is analytical and detailed and obviously draws upon more than their performance in court.  It is obviously a counsel of perfection but seems to me advisable that any judge appraising witnesses in the emotionally charged atmosphere of a contested family dispute should warn themselves to guard against an assessment solely by virtue of their behaviour in the witness box and to expressly indicate that they have done so.”

I appreciate just how difficult and traumatic it can be giving evidence before the court and particularly in a case of this nature which, by reason of its content, is so emotional and sensitive.  In addition, I bear in mind that English is not the first language of the mother and also I bear in mind that there are cultural implications to which I must pay attention.  As encouraged by Lady Justice Macur, I do bear in mind these matters very clearly and I expressly indicate that I have done so. 

11.              Finally, in considering the authorities, I remind myself of the warnings given in Re: Lucas [1981] QB 720 and referred to in Re: M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 388 in relation to how the court should approach the question of lies when assessing a witness’s credibility.  During the course of giving judgment in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Ryder said:

“A Lucas direction is a criminal direction derived originally from a case on corroboration, R v Lucas [1981] QB 720.  It is used to alert a fact-finding tribunal, that is a jury in a criminal trial, to the fact that a lie told by a defendant does not of itself necessarily indicate guilt because the defendant may have some other reason for lying; that is, he may lie for innocent reasons.  A witness may lie because she lacks credibility, or because she has an innocent motive for lying.  If she lies about the key fact in issue, that is one thing; if she lies about collateral facts, that may be quite another.  A judge of fact may not be able to separate out every fine distinction, but may nevertheless conclude that an allegation is proved, despite the fact that the witness has lied about other matters.”

I take the view that the Lucas direction, which I give myself, is relevant in this case. 

12.              All the considerations of this court must be underpinned by reference to section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, namely, the welfare checklist to which I will return within the course of this judgment.  As in all cases of this nature where the court enters upon a case where fact finding is required, it is the applicant, namely, the father in this case, who brings the case and, therefore, it is the father who has to bear the burden of proof.  The standard of proof I apply is the balance of probability, the civil standard; no more and no less. 

13.              The background to this matter is the parents met in Thailand when the father was there to further his studies to become a facial maxillary surgeon.  The mother was in the course of studying to be a dentist.  In November 2004, the mother moved to the United Kingdom and the parties married in June 2005 and A was born in the December of that year.  I heard evidence in relation to the visa requirements and immigration process and, effectively, the reasons behind the parties’ actions at that time.  After the birth of B on 27^th December 2007, the mother suffered postnatal depression following a very difficult and traumatic birth.  C was born on 3^rd December 2010 and, from the medical records and evidence, the mother has continued to experience mental health problems and, at times, as she, herself, has set out, claims to have attempted suicide on more than one occasion.

14.              The statements filed by M set out a number of allegations which detail indifference and lack of support on behalf of F.  She maintained that, “I spent my life bringing up my son by myself and had little support from F.”  Further, following B’s birth, mother claims, “The only person who always stayed and looked after me is my toddler son, A.”  A must have been just over 2 years of age at this time.  Mother states that father’s behaviour towards A, and I read from paragraph 14 at B4 in the bundle:

“He hardly helped me to look after A.  He always had an excuse of his busy leisure schedule and social events, such as stag do or nights out to catch up with his friends.  He paid little attention in A’s life and routine.  F was frustrated from time to time when A denied to give him any physical contact with him.  A felt his father was like a stranger.  I have tried to encourage A to be patient and understand the important [rep?] of his father’s job towards the society as I was [pity?] with F’s work schedule.  I had asked F to spend more time when he was not at work with A but he always excused himself and left us alone by ourselves.”

The themes of F failing to provide support, being absent frequently and not being close to the children have been repeated throughout the evidence which has been given to the court by the mother. 

15.              F denies the allegations that mother makes or explains some of the matters brought up by the mother as being distorted versions of what actually occurred.  Whilst, inevitably, I heard evidence from both mother and father about their own relationship and the progress of the difficulties between them within the marriage, I do not think that it is helpful within this judgment to try and deal with all of those issues and, sensibly, Mr Ainsley, on behalf of mother, in the position statement which he filed, made it clear that the mother did not pursue findings about the minutiae of the marital arrangements or disputes arising therefrom.  However, within the oral evidence, mother did refer to some of the matters but the evidence, by agreement between the advocates, was limited and, thus, I make findings upon the basis of the evidence which is before me and which is relevant to the issues which are before me.

16.              In April 2012, the family moved to Liverpool to reside with the paternal grandparents while father completed his studies and training in Manchester.  Sadly, the relationship between the mother and paternal grandparents during this time became strained.  The mother had indicated to the father that she wished to separate and, on 22^nd October 2012, the mother left Liverpool with the children to move back to Newcastle.  It is apparent that the father did not want the separation but said that he would respect the mother’s wishes, it seems, at that time, with some hope that the separation would not be final. 

17.              The time spent in Liverpool was the subject of scrutiny because the paternal grandparents bring their own application for contact as parties within the proceedings and the relationships between the adults and allegations of what occurred during the period between April to September 2012 had a profound effect upon the future contact, or lack of it, experienced by the grandparents and, indeed, upon father’s position also.  The paternal grandmother did not see the children between 22^nd October 2012 and 8^th November 2014 because of mother’s refusal to allow contact to take place.  The grandparents were both desperate to have contact with their grandchildren. 

18.              Prior to the family moving in with the grandparents, there were very frequent visits between the grandparents and the children in Newcastle and it seems that there was a good and loving relationship between the grandparents and their grandchildren.  The children, from April 2012, saw their grandparents each and every day until 22^nd October when the mother left Liverpool with the children.  A period of two years passed before the children saw their grandmother again.  Mother continued to oppose contact taking place between the grandparents and the children until the first day of the hearing before me. 

19.              Mother’s position as to the grandparents’ contact was set out in the position statement provided by Mr Ainsley, on behalf of the mother, that:

“5.     Mother accepts the importance of the paternal grandparents to the children and she notes the very positive contact recordings from the supervised contact sessions.

6.      Subject to the paternal grandparents agreeing not to engage in any form of emotionally abusive behaviour, either to the children directly or through negativity in their presence towards the mother, she accepts that the children will benefit from unsupervised contact with them.

7.      Mother further acknowledges that there will be occasions upon which father will need to rely upon the paternal grandparents as support in his periods of care for the children.  She does not accept that they are a viable support for father in his proposed so long-term care of the children.”

20.              The mother’s account of her time when she was living with the grandparents was, and is, very negative.  She maintained that both she and the children were subjected to emotional abuse by the grandmother.  In her statement at paragraph 43 at B8 within the bundle, mother gives an account of what occurred during that time:

“F’s mother had problems to deal with B as she labelled her that she was a nasty, evil child when B refused to do anything to please her.  F often took his mother’s side of the story and complained about B.  He told me that B is a brat.  She was nasty.  I would try my best to recover+ their relationship.  I told him to be patient with her and asked him to listen to his daughter more.  He should better not try to command her to do what he wanted her to please him.  His relationship with the children was not any better because he never had time for us.”

            At paragraph 44:

“All of the time that I lived in his parents’ house, I had tried to allege to him about his mother’s mental health condition, which I think is added to by adding problems such as she lost her case to claim for an accident at work and the death of her baby grandnephew.  I had noticed F and I identified the problem which I was concerned and engaged.  I had asked F’s mother to seek help from her relatives and health professionals for her wellbeing.  He told me to keep it quiet because she did not want anybody to know.  I had told to be the one who accepted the fault and blame when I alleged F that his mum had emotional bullied and abused us. 

I also was concerned about the way that she treated her daughter’s son, master Z.  I alleged to him that his mum had shouted and screamed to the toddler daily, abandoned the toddler and let the toddler wander out of the house at least three times.  I found master Z regularly had cuts and bruises on his face when he came to stay during the week.  One day, I changed his nappy and found a long bruise, four to five inches, on the back of his torso.  I discussed this incident with my close friends, Y, X and W.  I had tried to report the incident to Children’s Services but I could not know the actual address of master Z as F ignored giving me on my request.  He said it was no proof.  Every time I asked why and how the bruise was occurred, F’s mother seemed to have a perfect explanation that there were many accidents. 

I later found F’s mother had forced master Z’s feet into small size shoes and made him bleed on both sides of his feet.  There were many accidents and coincidences which made me aware.  My children also started to show frustration.  F’s sister always used them as babysitter for their baby son and his half-sibling.  Regularly, we had to babysit master Z and his half-sister at weekends.  The relationship between the grandparents and children declined rapidly.  PGF was often drunk every night and woke up very late every morning.  He had little to do with the children except drop A off for his golf training on Saturday morning while he went to play golf as well. 

I had to commute between Liverpool and Manchester during the week by the command of his parent to look after F at his flat in Manchester.  I often found out that the children were ill or not well and nobody noticed but myself.  My children told me that nobody cares about them.  My children and I were regularly mentally bullied and abused by his mother which, subsequently, made me ill and had the tendency to suicide.  I was admitted in Clinic A in Southport, Merseyside in June 2012.  During the time that I was there, F’s mother promised that she would not try to force us to do anything against our wills again.  She said she would be better and would give the support that we need.  Later, it still carried on.”

21.              This statement by the mother in respect of her time in Liverpool gives a comprehensive and detailed view of the mother’s perceptions of the difficulties which she had during this time and also it is plain, from this statement, that the mother blamed the paternal grandmother for her illness which resulted in her admission to Clinic A.  In her oral evidence, the mother told me that PGM, that is, grandmother, verbally abused her and told her now nasty she was.  She said that she had so many problems with PGM and that she had so much emotional turmoil whilst in Liverpool.  The mother was visited by the mental health crisis team and they recommended that she should be admitted to hospital and I understand that she spent 13 days in Clinic A.  She was discharged back into the home and care of the paternal grandparents. 

22.              The email and Facebook entries, which the grandparents have exhibited to their statements to the court, seem to demonstrate that M, initially, appreciated the loving and supportive relationship between the grandparents and the mother.  The paternal grandmother told me that they, she and the grandfather, had loved M like a daughter but, with the deterioration in the relationship between the mother and father, by September the irritants started to occur.  Grandmother described the mother’s battle with the school about A’s admission to that school.  The grandmother described the mother as saying to her that she, the mother, was angry and was not going to let it go.  She wanted the headmistress to be sacked.  She was very angry.  It was what she was doing constantly.  She was determined.  It became a focus on wanting the headmistress to be sacked.  The paternal grandmother told me that if you disagreed with M, she did not like it. 

23.              Much later, mother made a complaint against Wendy McGaughey, the guardian.  She accused Mrs McGaughey of lying.  The mother told Estelle Louw that:

“The difficulty was that she was living in someone else’s house and had to look after everything.  She had to please everybody.  She had to report everything that she did, what she bought, where she went, what she wore and which TV channel she could watch was restricted.”

Mother further described her relationship and time spent with the grandparents to Estelle Louw and I read from the report provided by Estelle Louw to the court at D29 within the bundle.

“The house was too small.  Her ex’s sister’s son was there too from 7am to 7pm.  The grandmother would go and fetch him.  M claimed that she started to feed the extended family food cooked by M.  M was taken to his sister’s house.  The money came from her husband who said the bills were too high.  When she told him why, he disliked it.  M alleged that the paternal grandmother did nothing.  M also had to look after the nephew, Z, aged 1½, as grandma could not cope with him.  It was not her business to look after Z.  They were fussing about him because he is IVF.  M’s manner indicated that she found this irritating.  They were disagreeing about childcare.  At first, it was okay and then not. 

The grandmother hit M in front of the children.  She could not think of any reason why it might have happened.  Asked to reflect on this, M insisted that she did not know what prompted the grandmother to hit her that day.  She added that she told the grandfather that grandmother was hiding chocolate.  The grandmother has a weight problem.  In one of her emails, M made negative remarks about the grandmother being a world famous chocolate addict.  M said that grandmother could not cope with Z’s behaviour.  Her children were out of the house most of the time.  She gave the grandparents a lot of advice and they took it.  M’s perception indicated that she saw herself as the leading adult who had to manage the situation.”

24.              Numerous emails and Facebook entries from the mother have been exhibited by the grandparents, which seem to be very appreciative of the grandparents’ help and support, including referring to the Glamshed and gratitude to the grandfather for his kindness.  However, there is then demonstrated a sea-change and the emails become vitriolic following the breakdown of the parents’ relationship.  I have not seen any emails filed in response to those sent by the mother. 

25.              Mother, in her oral evidence, made it apparent that she did not have the same problem with grandfather as she did with the grandmother.  She told me that, “Grandfather gave a lot of help.  He is kind.”  It is, perhaps, unsurprising that there was friction between the mother and grandmother when both were living in the same household.  It is apparent that they have different standards in relation to such things as tidiness.  The grandmother accepted, in evidence, that she became irritated by mother’s behaviours which, she felt, were designed to rile and escalate the situation.  She said they tried to turn a blind eye and did not confront the mother in respect of the irritations. 

26.              The grandmother accepted that the mother found it difficult with Z although the grandmother was clear that she saw the problem as being the mother’s problem rather than Z being difficult.  Grandmother told me that the mother’s relationship with Z was, she said, not the norm.  She would get very angry.  Grandmother described Z as a clumsy child and that there were odd occasions between the children about toys and of such nature but said that she, the grandmother, would tell Z off and that it seemed to be normal childhood behaviour between the children. 

27.              The grandmother gave examples of what she found irritating, such as leaving lights on, leaving the grill on, but it seems that it was the whole living arrangement and, in particular, the mother’s attitude to Z, that sparked the tensions.  Grandmother said, in evidence, that, “Maybe, with hindsight, I should have been a bit more understanding.”  I found the grandmother to be a warm and generous person.  Mother described the grandmother as becoming increasingly difficult to handle.  She said the children did not want to be forced to play with Z, whom she described as “uncontrolled.”  She told me Z would hit grandmother and slap her, i.e. the mother’s, face.  Mother said, “All I could do was support her.” 

28.              The grandmother accepted that she had committed some of her issues with the mother to paper to assist F.  However, M got hold of the paper upon which they were written.  I am not sure how she gained access to the grandmother’s private papers and mother told me, and I quote from the evidence she gave me, she “went out and dropped PGM’s notes to the neighbours.  What she wrote was slander.”  It is, it seems to me, a very strange response to publish to others criticisms of herself and it would seem to indicate that the mother’s desire to denigrate the grandmother to her neighbours overtook any balanced approach to this matter.  Mother said, in evidence, all she wanted was a home.  Again, it seems a strange way of going about it.  Estelle Louw, in her evidence, said that, from a psychological perspective, the mother had a strong need to be wanted and admired. 

29.              The mother told me about the incident in July with Z when the grandmother, as she put it, walked through her and turned round and said, “Excuse me,” and picked Z up.  The grandmother denied that there was any physical contact.  Mother then went on to deal further with the incidents described by mother as occurring on 22^nd October as the family were packing up to leave for Newcastle.  Mother said that there were underpants on the floor and she bent down to pick them up. 

“PGM was walking to me and I fell to the ground.  I was not much hurt.  It was more of a shock.” 

Mother then gave evidence that:

“A jumped in and said, ‘Why did you do that to my mummy?  Why push her?’  She said she didn’t do it.  ‘You’re a liar, A,’ and A said, ‘I’m not a liar.  You are.’  PGM said, ‘We’re not talking about this.’  A said, ‘I saw granny hurt mummy.’  B said, ‘I saw it too.’  My children were in turmoil and anger.”  

30.              Grandmother, in her evidence before me, describing these matters, said that she recollected being upset that mother was shouting at Z.  She said she rushed in and got in between Z and M and said, “Excuse me, please.”  She said M started to scream.  A was in the room.  She told me:

“What concerned me was M’s voice.  There was no physical contact whatsoever.  I did not push M at all.  I saw Z’s face.  It used to happen when she would tell him off.  I also felt that she was annoyed I was supporting F’s cousin and his wife.  M didn’t like it.  I was not at home.”

31.              Grandmother’s description seems to bear out the psychological view that was expressed by Estelle Louw.  It is clear that some incident occurred with Z.  It is an example of the tension within the household and I find that mother was not happy with a situation where attention was drawn away from herself and her children.  I do not accept that the grandmother either pushed or struck mother on 22^nd October or that she called A a liar.  The grandmother was distressed when giving evidence before me and denying anything of that nature occurred.  I do not find that this grandmother has it in her to be unpleasant or unkind to one of her grandchildren. 

32.              It was part of the mother’s case that the grandmother had called B nasty and evil.  I accept the grandmother’s evidence that, in admonishing a child, she would say something along the lines of, “That’s not nice.”  I do not accept at all that this grandmother would have told a 5-year-old child that she was nasty and evil.  In fact, nasty and evil are words that the mother uses.  In her cross-examination by the grandfather, the mother told me that F’s sister is the real nasty one, “V told other people I was a nasty bitch.”

33.              I was referred to B316 in the bundle where, two years after the family had left Liverpool, A did a drawing upon which the writing was this:

“My dad lies, steals and forces me to do things.  When I come back from dad’s house, I tell mummy things.  Dad is mean to my mummy always.  I hate that my gran is evil.  I don’t want to see her.”

Sadly, I do not believe that A, unaided, would have referred to his gran as evil.  I will deal with father’s position later in this judgment. 

34.              The mother recounts that there was an occasion when granny and auntie V told B that mummy did not want them and did not love them.  The mother said, in evidence, that she had a problem with V, it seems arising from something to do with a birthday card.  Mother said that V told her mother, that is, the paternal grandmother, that the mother was nasty and a bitch.  Mother told me that PGM, the paternal grandmother, had been saying for some time that V was nasty and getting her brother into trouble; that V was feeling not good enough compared to her brother.

35.              Apart from what mother said, there is no evidence before me other than that father and his sister had a good and appropriate and affectionate relationship.  Sadly, I find the mother’s views about the paternal family are very bitter and distorted.  There is no evidence before me that the grandparents’ relationships with both their children are other than loving and supportive.  Further, I do not accept that the grandmother and, by connection, V would tell a 5-year-old child that she was not wanted or loved.  It seems to me that it is the mother who has considerable problems in her own family relationships, stretching back to childhood.  I base this view upon the evidence of Estelle Louw as to what the mother, herself, disclosed to Estelle Louw and also information that mother herself gave to the father.

36.              At B96 at paragraph 68, the mother sets out:

“A has suffered many flashbacks about events when I was abused by his grandmother.  He was told off and simply ignored by his own father and grandfather on the issue.  Clearly, C is the only one with no negative attitude towards his grandparents because of his age.  A and B have both been referred to CAMHS because of their distress after seeing both grandparents.  They have both complained that their grandparents try to buy them back with presents.  A drew and wrote about how he felt afterwards.  He was angry and anxious and refused to go to school.  He presented with stomach pains and I had to take him to see the headmaster who he trusts.  The headmaster was told by A that he hated both of his grandparents, who told him he was a liar and hurt his mum in front of him.  He said that he did not want to go and see them and he did not know why no one was listening to him.  He was scared that grandmother would hurt me again.  He was worried about my safety.  Both myself and the headmaster had to reassure him that it was not his job to worry and that I could look after myself.  I explained nobody could hurt me anymore and I will not let anyone hurt us anymore. 

B soiled herself in the bath when she came back from contact with the grandparents.  Both children were scared, anxious, worried and tearful for a few weeks after that.  They both had a nightmare seeing their grandmother chasing them or trying to eat them or trying to catch them at least three times a week.  With regard to paragraph 25, the children mentioned that their father was present at the contact.  He forced them to do things against their will.  B told me that daddy had told her to decorate a ginger biscuit and give it to her grandparents.  He had also told her to draw pictures, as I believe he wanted to put them in his statement.  Paragraphs 26 and 27 are irrelevant as I am not agreeable to the children being cared for by their paternal grandparents at any stage.”

37.              This statement is dated 9^th December 2014 and refers to the contact which had been ordered by District Judge Grey on 31^st October 2014.  The district judge ordered three sessions of contact for the grandparents, supervised by Impact.  It is apparent from the statement that, at that time, the mother still opposed any future contact by the grandparents.  The account provided by Impact in respect of the contact by the grandparents and the father are all very positive.  The first contact was on 8^th November 2014 after a break of two years and I read from C7 within the grandparents’ bundle:

“B showed interest when PGM showed her objects from their past together.  PGM got hearing aids out of her bag and she and B talked about when B used to get them and help her on a morning.  ‘Do you remember when you told me you loved me to the moon and back and asked questions about Tiggy the doll?’  C showed some interest by asking lots of questions about the photos in the album that PGF and PGM brought.  A did not ask questions but politely responded to anything that was asked.  PGF and PGM both spent the session giving the children their full attention.  It was a difficult task to spend time with all three children but each of them managed to move around and get one-on-one time and group time also.  They ensured throughout that they were showing a positive and encouraging attitude.  They were always alert to the responses the children needed. 

The whole family joined in with B’s biscuit decorating because she really wanted to do that.  PGF made an effort to play with C on the floor with cars and when C wanted to do something new, he joined him.  Both PGF and PGM tried to get A to do some new activities but when he wasn’t interested, they realised that he wanted to play with match cards and so joined in.  PGM asked if she could help him to put them away.  PGF asked him questions about football players.  Both of these techniques showed that they could do what he wanted and managed to get some interaction.  There were no problematic or inappropriate comments, conversations or questions. 

PGF and PGM, F, B, A and C all left together.  They walked out of the room happily, still chatting, and stood talking and laughing at the cars for a while after the session ended.  There were no demanded responses or problems.  There was no negative reaction.  They all left together, the children all happy and talking.  The contact following, on 6^th December 2014, was equally positive although A, it seems, was more withdrawn.  B and C smiled and laughed a lot.  A did smile but there were times when he started to smile and thought it.  I don’t know whether he didn’t want to be happy or didn’t want to look happy but he wouldn’t let himself smile as freely as the younger two children.”

38.              Clearly, this raises considerable concerns in respect of A’s emotional wellbeing and attitude if he was attempting to act in a way which was against what he naturally wanted to do.  At C17 in the bundle, it is set out that there were several occasions where they were engaging with A and he started to engage freely but, each time, B pulled their attention away, at which point A always withdrew and stopped what he was doing to go back to his book.

39.              The final contact of the three was also very positive but A clearly had mixed feelings.  The other children were absolutely fine.  At C26, the Impact worker sets out:

“A showed a range of emotions on this visit that he hadn’t shown before.  There were times when he laughed freely and was happy.  Each positive emotion seemed to be counteracted with a negative emotion in the form of destroying a plastic cup.  When A was interacting with PGF and PGM and [laughing?], he showed joy, happiness and an interest in what they were saying.  However, as soon as he stopped looking at PGF and PGM, he started showing anger and negativity and sadness towards the plastic cup.  It seemed to be a coping mechanism for A.  I felt like he was angry at himself for having fun and needed to do something to counteract the fun he was having but gave no indication as to why. 

B showed various emotions during the session.  She seemed sad or in a bad, angry mood at the start of the session but, during the rest of the session, she showed happiness, intrigue and was happy to laugh and ask questions.  C showed happiness and did not show any negative emotions.  He was freer to play where he wanted to.  A, B and C all smiled easily during the session and were enjoying various aspects of the time they had.  A smiled more than I have seen him smile before but each time he smiled or laughed, seemed to make more destruction on the cup he was playing with.”

40.              The summary which Impact set down is:

“A needed undivided attention which, for part of the session, he got.  He is a responsible young man who seems to have a lot of emotions and thoughts going on that he doesn’t express.  When A manages to get attention, he starts to come out of himself but when that attention is divided between younger siblings, who he may feel some sense of protection or responsibility for, he withdraws quickly.  A needs some level of quality time without his younger siblings demanding attention of the adults he is with. 

In this session, B needed to feel she could trust PGF and PGM and that was met accordingly throughout the session by PGF and PGM being patient and asking her to join in activities yet without force and demand and she adjusted and enjoyed herself after the first part of the session.  C simply needed to feel safe and be allowed to explore, play and have fun in order to build the relationships.  This need was well met and he seemed to have enjoyed himself.”

41.              It was not until the presentation of the position statement on behalf of the mother dated 13^th April 2015, to which I have already referred, that it became apparent that the mother accepted that the grandparents should have any contact.  Save for the reasons set out by Mr Ainsley in the position statement on behalf of the mother, that she had noted the very positive contact recordings, no explanation was given for the complete change in approach.  In her oral evidence before me, mother said she had changed her mind.  She told me that she did not have an issue with the grandparents being involved in the children’s lives.  No reasons were given by the mother in evidence and the last session of contact had been upon 20^th December 2014.  The positive reports had been available but no offer of contact had been forthcoming by the mother until the day of the hearing.  It is clear that B and C were happy to reinstitute their relationship with their grandparents.  A was, indeed, more wary and I have commented upon the concerns that the court has in relation to his behaviour. 

42.              The court has to consider what the children were telling people about their grandparents.  A told Estelle Louw, and I look at D64:

“Granny was a bit not nice to mummy.  He saw granny nudge mum in passing and B saw it.  A said he saw other things that granny did.  ‘She lied about B setting me up.’  Again, the unusual language that is not reflective of the vocabulary a child would spontaneously use.  Asked to explain what this meant, A vaguely said that B tried to get him into trouble.  A went on to say that grandad lied.  His little cousin punched her, B, and grandad was not looking.  A said his little brother was shoved off the chair by Z.  Granny said sorry to C and shoved him off.  Z was also given the last Creme Egg.  ‘He stole our Creme Eggs with granny’s permission.’ 

Mummy did the tidying and the cooking.  When A was very sick and not at school, mum had to go to the shops for his medication.  Sometimes when A had a problem, he gets a funny feeling in his stomach.  This happened tons of times when gran nudged mum.  (After three years of not seeing the person, the spontaneous apparent recall of this event indicates the child might well have been reminded.  It should be noted that the work of psychologists, such as Professor Ceci, has demonstrated very clearly that memories can be induced in very young children and that firm repetition by others, such as a trusted parent, can very effectively embed a false memory.)” 

43.              B told Estelle Louw, when asked about her other grandmother, that: 

“She’s a bit mean when she sees their cousin hurt them, like throwing iron cars and pushing C out of the chair.  Granny said that Z did not do it.  Granny and mum did not get on that well.  Granny elbowed and shoved mum.  ‘Me and A saw it with our own eyes.’  (After more than three years and the very negative attitude of her mother, it is not clear if the child is reporting something that she had seen and been reminded of or whether it is an induced memory.)  B said that she saved an egg custard for the next day and Z ate it.  Mum had to go out and buy some more.  B volunteered that she has nightmares about Wendy [which is the guardian] and granny.  It is like Scooby Doo.  She has them every single night.  (Mother mentioned dreams but not every night and without detail.) 

Asked about Wendy and CAFCASS, B said that CAFCASS told lies about what we said.  She said that they wanted to see dad and grandparents more but they do not.  CAFCASS said that mum and dad are in a fight and then next time she said, ‘No, they are in a mix and muddle.’  This made B feel that both of them will not like each other anymore.  She was asked if this would worry her and she said, ‘Yes.’  She told mum, who said, ‘It is all right.  I am going to look after you.’  ‘Just my mum, not daddy, because every time when Z hurts me, dad and gran say it was an accident.’  The specific reference to this, just after having said that she was fearful about both parents not liking the other, questions whether the child had been influenced by adult comments, with the mother influencing her to be negative about father and grandmother, even though she indicated that she cared about both parents.” 

B told Estelle Louw that she, B, is not scared or worried about anything else.  Asked if there was anything special that she is afraid of, she said she was afraid about Wendy telling lies.  She does not want to live with dad but she wants to visit him. 

44.              I will return to the children’s perception of the guardian at a later stage but, dealing with C and B’s memory of their time in Liverpool and these comments to Estelle Louw, which were prior to contact commencing, Estelle Louw raises her concern that false memory can be embedded by firm repetition by someone such as a trusted parent.  Her evidence in respect of C was very clear.  C told Estelle Louw that grandmother pushed his mother down the stairs.  Estelle Louw queried how could a one-year-old remember that incident unless exposed to being told about it.  I accept it could have been that C heard it from A or B but the root of the information, I find, lay with mother. 

45.              I am satisfied that the paternal grandmother was not violent towards the mother and yet B recalls that, “Granny elbowed and shoved M.  Me and A saw it with our own eyes.”  B was 6 at the time of the assessment and it was two years, at that stage, since she had seen granny.  The expert psychologist raises the question whether the child has been influenced by adult comments.  I am satisfied both A and B have been influenced by their mother in her statements, perception and attitudes about the grandparents and, in particular, the grandmother.  C was 4 at the time when Estelle Louw carried out her assessment and she said he appeared confused when asked if he had grandparents.  The conclusion that Estelle Louw drew generally about the children was that the children have been influenced by their mother’s perspective and are repeating what she is likely to have said to them. 

46.              After the mother and the children left Liverpool, on 27^th January 2013 the mother reported the grandmother to the police for emotional abuse.  There had been no contact since 22^nd October.  There has been no report of physical abuse but the mother continued to allege physical abuse against the grandmother and, from her own evidence, A continued to refer to his mother as being hurt by his grandmother.  On this occasion, when mother reported this matter to the police, mother also alleged that she had suffered domestic violence at the hands of the father.  It was the first of numerous reports to the police in respect of the father’s violence upon her and, in respect of reports which came later, of violence upon the children.  The mother repeated her allegations of domestic violence, not only to the police and Social Services but also to the GP.  In fact, she repeated her allegations of domestic violence against the father to her GP on 28^th January 2014.  I am not aware that the medical records contain any observation of any injury to the mother occasioned to her by father. 

47.              The mother was permitting father, but not the grandparents, to have contact at this time.  In March 2013, father took A and B skiing to Chamonix for a week and to Waren Mill camping.  Between 4^th November 2012 and 20^th October 2013, the father calculated that he made 37 return trips between Manchester and Newcastle.  At first, father wanted to retrieve the relationship with the mother and stayed in the matrimonial home.  He ceased doing so on 5^th July 2013 and did not stay thereafter.  I find that the father clearly took every practical opportunity to see his children. 

48.              At this time, the mother was allowing father contact and allowing him to take all the children away.  However, mother’s account of B’s response to the camping trip is instructive and set out at paragraph 57 at B11 in the bundle:

“On 7^th July, the children came back from camping with F.  F complained that B had pooed herself five times and actually kept one of the underpants with faeces for me to clean.  It was later explained that he would like B to see the granny again.  He had suggested it to her.  I have requested him to see this matter in the children’s best interests as it was no remedy to suggest that his mother would not start to abuse them again and they will be seen by CAMHS which I rather asked for help.  F was not happy about it and started to hit himself.  He punched himself again and again in front of me.  By this point, I have had to ask him to leave and never return to stay in the house any more.  B went to bed that night, cried and told us that she would not want to go and see granny.  She was scared of her.  I noticed him about this matter and it had been ignored.  B continued to poo herself at the end of school and at by school for the next four weeks.  She also developed nightmares and was scared to go to bed for the next three weeks.  I also discussed this matter with CAMHS.”

49.              The mother produced to the court a photograph which, she said, shows bruises which resulted from the father punching himself.  It is difficult to see on the photographs if, indeed, they are bruises.  Father accepts that there was an occasion when, in despair, he put his head in his hands and moved his hands and head.  However, I do not accept, as the mother implies, that it was some form of self-abuse. 

50.              Father’s account of the camping trip is somewhat different and is set out at B38, paragraph 57:

“The children had a lovely time camping with me at Waren Mill, Bamburgh, on 6^th July 2013.  They looked at a photograph album of happy times in Liverpool with their grandparents and cousins and enjoyed doing so.  Whilst playing with other children on the campsite, B came to me with a sense of urgency needing the toilet.  Unfortunately, despite me carrying her and running to the toilets approximately 50 metres away, she didn’t make it and soiled her underwear.  This happened on two occasions during the trip, not five.  I showered her and cleaned her up on both occasions.  I cannot recall what I did with the soiled underwear but I expect I would have given them a quick clean to remove most of the debris and put them in a bag to be dealt with once home.  This was not done in a vindictive way as suggested by the respondent.  I would have dealt with this myself but I was mindful I have boys playing, supervised by the parents of one of A’s former school friends and School B. 

I was concerned because, on 5^th July, I had had to purchase new underwear for her following reports to me by the respondent that B had been doing this quite a lot at school and that lots of her underwear had been thrown out.  This story has also been told to U, Address C.  This was the first time any such concerns had been voiced to me.  I had my own concerns that the soiling may have potentially been a sign of psychological distress.  This was a new behaviour for her and I had been led to believe by the respondent that this was not an isolated event.  I had seen or heard of no other previous evidence. 

As a result of these concerns, I contacted T, headmaster at School D, on 8^th July 2013 to discuss this and the allegations of emotional abuse that had been made against my mother.  I reassured him that I fully understood his need to raise this with Social Services.  On 10^th July 2013, I received a voicemail from T who, to my pleasant surprise, confirmed that there had not been any soiling incidents at school.  On 6^th August 2013, I received a further voicemail advising me that the Social Services had seen no cause for further action.”

It seems to me that the mother’s account that B continued to poo herself at school had not been commented upon by anyone at the school. 

51.              The mother raised concerns about A being bullied at school and having abdominal pains during school time.  She sets this out at paragraph 58 at B11: 

“In July 2013, A had complained that he had an issue with some bullies at school for quite some time.  He started to have abdominal pain during school time.  He refused to go to school and expressed anger towards the abuse subject.  I was called out at least two times to pick him up from school.  I had to take him to accident and emergency, GP.  I later discussed the matter with the headmaster of his school, which he recommended CAMHS.  I had discussed this matter with my health visitor and she also agreed that it would be reasonable for the children to go to CAMHS and, on the same time, I discussed this problem with the GP to sort out his physical problem, if it was actually an underlying problem.  I informed F and he did not respond anything at all.  When he turned up on the contact during this time, he told A to get on with it and that the pain was not real.”

52.              The father said that he discussed this matter with the headmaster, who did not recognise the version of events described by the mother.  Father also raised concerns about the amount of medication that A was taking.  As he put it:

“I only knew him as a joyful, healthy little boy yet he was taking paracetamol, Buscopan, Loratadine and [Difene?].”

The father discussed the medication with the GP because of his concerns.  The children were seen by CAMHS at a later stage, who found the children to be well-adjusted and happy.  Estelle Louw, in her evidence, indicated that pains within the stomach can be a sign of emotional distress.  The children were, at various times, seen by Social Services, CAMHS and the police in relation to the reported concerns of the mother about the children’s health and wellbeing and, in response to her allegations, about the behaviour of the father.  

53.              In August 2013, a number of extremely troubling incidents occurred.  On 25^th August 2013, A made a FaceTime call to the father, angry that the father had left the mother bleeding and dying in a corner when he, A, was born, to go with his friends skiing.  Mother could be heard in the background, tearful and distressed, father said.  In her statement, the mother sets out her account of A making the call of his own accord.  She says:

“As to the incident that F stated in his court order application, it happened a few days after B’s class had some discussion about their baby life in pictures, which is part of their curriculum.  At home, A and B had looked up the picture when they were a baby.  A asked about any birth-related difficulties that I was engaged during giving birth and pregnancies.  He tried to compare it to the other siblings and wanted to know the details.  I told him the fact that I had had to spend all of my time after giving birth at the corner of the sitting room and unable to function with an infant and my mother.  Hence, he asked where F was.  Was F with his friends again?  I told A not to feel upset and it was past.  We should concentrate on the future.  No matter how hard the birth was or how many complications I engaged, I would not change anything.  A got very upset and called his father by himself on FaceTime, despite I had asked him not to do it.”

54.              When cross-examined by Mr Gray, the mother said that B, who, I remind myself, is 5, was talking about the complications of birth.  They watched a programme.  They were talking about the scars on mummy’s tummy.  Mother then went on to explain that, in August 2013, she was in deep depression.  She said, “Maybe it was not the best thing to say but I answered without thinking.”  On 26^th August 2013, the mother posted two videos on YouTube.  On 18^th September 2013, in a telephone call to the father, A and B requested A’s passport and B warned the father that he might go to gaol if he did not return it.  On 29^th September 2013, the mother facilitated A and B leaving voicemail messages for the father threatening him with gaol. 

55.              The videos and the voicemail were played in court.  They were extremely concerning and, indeed, distressing to listen to children of this age talking in this way to their father.  It seems that the message on 29^th September 2013 was left after A and B had seen their grandfather with their father.  A asked his father in the voicemail to call the court and get a court order because if he came to pick them up without a court order, he was going to be in big trouble with the police.  “Stick to the rules or you will be sent to gaol.”  The videos and voicemail were distressing to listen to. 

56.              The mother, in evidence, stated:

“I am sorry it was recorded.  I wasn’t in the right mind or the same mother.  I was in a deep depression in the middle of abusive problems of an ex-husband.  I don’t recall it.  I mix it up with the other emails.  The YouTube, I have problems with memory loss.  It wasn’t normal me.”  

She went on in her evidence, “I listened to the voicemail.  It wasn’t me.”  Mother then appeared to start crying in the court.  I observed that there were no tears when mother was crying.  It is very difficult to determine whether the mother genuinely cannot remember events which occurred at this time or whether it is a convenient way of avoiding explanation or responsibility. 

57.              In October 2013, the father moved back to the northeast and issued his application for contact after the mother stopped contact following the father allowing the children to see their grandfather.  The court, on 17^th December 2013, ordered the mother to permit contact eleven to four on a Sunday and FaceTime on a Thursday and Saturday.  The guardian provided an initial analysis in February 2014 which expressed the view that contact appeared to be working well and benefitting the children.  Thereafter, contact was ordered to progress to an overnight contact, 4pm Saturday to 4pm Sunday, and in July there was an agreement for a week’s holiday for the children with their father. 

58.              The grandparents issued their own application for a child arrangements order in July 2014.  On 18^th July, the mother emailed the father’s employers.  She made contact with a professor in his department and told him that she had an ongoing abuse case against the father and that the father had spread rumours about the professor.  This, apparently, was ahead of his interview for a consultant’s post and the father believed that the mother had acted to deliberately affect his appointment.  He had completed 17 years of study and training and, of course, it was his employment which was funding the family and yet it seems that the mother attempted to interfere with his employment.  There can be no other explanation for this action other than the mother’s desire for revenge upon the father which outweighed any balanced or sensible approach.  I accept father’s account of the mother’s actions in this regard. 

59.              Father took the children camping to Robin Hood’s Bay between 26^th and 27^th July 2014.  A received an injury to his leg whilst involved in kite flying.  The father said A ran across to the boy who was flying the kite and got the string round his leg.  Father said that A was not bothered.  He was fine and went on playing.  On 31^st July, the mother took the children to the general practitioner and expressed concern for the children following their return from the camping trip.  It triggered safeguarding issues.  A gave an account to the GP which father says was inconsistent with the pattern of injuries.  The GP, as he is required to do, informed Social Services.  B had some bites from playing outside on the campsite.  Father said she did not complain.  Mother’s account was that she did not think that the father even noticed the bites which carried on happening until the end of October.  Mother said that she had to ask the GP for a prescription because B complained about insect bites every time she went to stay with her father.

60.              On 6^th August, the mother raised allegations about the camping trip and on 14^th August, at court, insisted on the father having supervised contact only.  She sets out at paragraph 25 at B83:

“By 14^th August, as mentioned in paragraph 22 of the applicant’s statement, I got to the stage where I felt the children should only be seen on a supervised basis.  This was because Social Services told me that, as a mother, I had a right to stop the contact with the children if I felt it was dangerous.  I got the same advice from the NSPCC.  The children told me that they did not want to spend time with their father for a long holiday because they had been neglected previously.  They also tell me that they told Wendy McGaughey but it does not appear that she reported this to the judge.  The children felt unsafe.  My children have clearly been able to express themselves and they have very advanced vocabulary and literacy standards.  This would probably explain the comments made about them using language beyond their years.  With regard to paragraph 23 of the applicant’s statement, it would appear that the applicant has a lot of new support witnesses since the issue has been raised at court.  I imagine all of his friends have been drinking too.  However, he has given an undertaking now not to drink when the children are in his care so this no longer should be an issue.”

61.              Father, indeed, provided some witness statements, as referred to by the mother.  The witnesses were not required to be called within the course of this hearing to give evidence and they were father’s friends and all, I think, doctors, and were clear in their descriptions of the normal parenting which they observed on behalf of the father.  Following the 14^th August hearing, contact was varied to include further school holiday contact and, on 29^th August 2014, the father issued his application to the effect that the children should live with him and have contact with their mother. 

62.              Father told me that he did not want to spend the rest of the kids’ childhood having to duck and dive.  He said he felt exhausted.  It was apparent, from the father’s evidence, that he felt that he had to make the application for the children to live with him because each time contact seemed to be progressing and going well, he said, allegations were made against him.  Normal parenting was met by intervention by the police and Social Services or the children being taken to the general practitioner’s and telling the general practitioner’s  that injuries occurred and happened in different ways to the way, in fact, he knew they had occurred.  The father said he felt he was left with no other option.  He told me that he became increasingly concerned about the children in their mother’s care, particularly when he saw the pictures sent to him on 21^st November, and he requested a hearing for an interim change of residence.

63.              A hearing was listed for 18^th December 2014, the listing notice being sent out on 28^th November 2014.  On the evening of 4^th December, the mother described that the children came back from contact at about 7.15pm: 

“A was very upset and angry.  At about 8pm, B told me that the applicant had hit A again.  I asked why and A said that he had told me his father had hit him before.  I recall that he told me more than six months ago, ‘Daddy has smacked me.’  I told him if it was discipline, he should accept the punishment if he had been naughty.  A went on to tell me that the applicant had hurt him regularly since January of this year.  At first, A thought it was because he must be doing something wrong and did not understand what he was being disciplined for.  However, in the last six months, it appears to have increased for no reason or just because he was too slow to move out of his father’s way or responding too slowly to what his father wanted.  A is now very confused.  He said to me that he understood that my discipline was the naughty corner or a smack, not to hurt, and then explained, ‘Daddy was angry and latching on me.’ 

I was shocked and asked where his father had hit him.  A pointed to his chest, which had a red mark of approximately three to four centimetres on it.  He explained that his daddy had grabbed him from the chest, pulled him and shouted at him angrily because he had shouted at C.  B then pointed out that A was hit again on his back.  There was a mark of five by ten centimetres in the upper middle of his back.  A and B described that daddy had whacked his back for no reason when he was angry at something that had nothing to do with A.  All three children said that their father had hit A regularly.  B also said that she was hit by her father when he was angry without any reason.”

64.              The mother contacted the NSPCC and they referred the matter to the police.  The out-of-hours social worker recommended, apparently, that contact be stopped.  The mother went on to say in her statement at paragraph 125:

“I have seen many suspicious bruises and marks on the back of A’s torso or shoulders after contact but, when I have asked about them, A did not want to answer and said that he did not know.  I assumed that they were simply bruises from him being a 9-year-old boy and knocking things.  Clearly, this has not been the case.  As a result of these events, all contact with the applicant should be supervised at a contact centre and there should be no overnight contact.  Contact over Christmas will have to be reconsidered as I will not allow the children to spend time with him on an unsupervised basis.”

65.              The father denied all the allegations.  He set out what he said occurred on that particular evening.  He stated that, on 4^th December, he had collected all of the children from school.  A was completing the building of his LEGO Interceptor, a birthday present from his grandparents, when C began playing with one of the little LEGO figures:

“A shouted at C in a very angry manner, which I did not like.  It was in the manner consistent with the anger depicted in the pictures the first respondent had introduced to these proceedings in her solicitor’s letter, dated 21^st November 2014, which resulted in my request for the hearing on 18^th December 2014, and was out of character.  I shouted at A that he was not to speak to his brother in that way and pointed out how upset C had become, who was, by now, crying and distressed.  At this, A became visibly upset in a manner which I had not seen before.  He was more distressed than I had ever previously witnessed.  I tried to give him a hug, while stating that his little brother just wants to play, and pointed out how upset he had made him. 

A was not comforted by this and resisted my hugs, pulling away from me.  I sent A to his room, settled C, and immediately followed A to his bedroom.  I had a chat with A, reassuring him that I understood how difficult things were for him, that I could not do anything about it but that I was trying to fix it.  I did not go into detail, merely trying to acknowledge he was having a difficult time and to reassure him that I love him and all the children very much and I’m trying to do my best.  He seemed settled by this and the rest of the evening passed without event. 

When it came to taking them home, I was sorting C out with his footwear and coat and had asked A and B to put their shoes and coats on.  When I had got C ready, I entered the lounge and neither A nor B had done as I had asked them and were arguing over a nerff gun.  I took the toy from them, separated them from each other and told them to do as they were told, pointing out we were late.  I dropped the children off at the mother’s at approximately 19.15.”

66.              The mother said that she took the photographs of A, which we have seen, at about eight o’clock.  The photos depict a faint mark to the chest and red marks, which resemble scratch marks, to A’s back.  A was seen by the police the following afternoon.  No marks were visible.  The mother told me that she did not check to see if the marks were there in the morning before the children went to school.  She said to me, “If it was there, it was there.”  Mother told me that when the children returned, she asked B what had happened to A because he was very angry and not nice.  I quote from the notes I took during the course of the hearing:

“She said, ‘Daddy hit him again.’  I said, ‘What?’  A was in full clothes.  He said, ‘I really, really hate that man.’  ‘Why B said he hit you again?’  He said, ‘He hit me on the front.’  I asked him to lift his top up and I saw the mark.  I’m not sure what I felt.  I asked him how that’s happened.  He said, ‘It happened when I had a fight with C.’  B said, ‘It’s not that mark.  It’s the other one.’  I said, ‘Did he hit you twice?’  He said, ‘That one hurt,’ when I lifted it up.  There is a mark there.  A and B say that daddy whacked their back all the time.  I was speechless.  I didn’t know what to do.  I took pictures and tried to send emails to my solicitor.  I called the NSPCC for advice.  ‘What should I do?’  The children were in the lounge.  I was in the kitchen.  I said to A I would speak to the headmaster, ‘So if you were not very happy, you could talk to the teacher.’  I felt numb and my head was spinning.  I went and spoke to reception.  I informed them that there may be some Social Services and police coming to school.  The kids went to bed at 10pm.”

67.              The ABE interviews were played in court.  A and B said that daddy caused the marks.  As part of the interview, A said, “He did it to me and then did it to B.”  B, in her interview, said, “He hits me but not on that night.”  On 18^th December, when the matter came before the court, contact with the father was to resume but on a supervised-only basis.  It was a backward step.  The police interviewed the children and the mother and the father.  Father was interviewed not only about the assault on A but also in relation to the allegations of rape which the mother had raised.  I have specifically excluded any considerations or findings in this regard. 

68.              The allegations in respect of 4^th December must be examined very carefully.  If the mother is correct in her account and A is telling the truth when he says that his father hit him, then there are very clear implications in respect of the future contact and residence of these children.  The father accepts that he used physical means to manage the children that day but nothing over and above ordinary parenting.  The children were spoken to by the social worker who noticed some inconsistencies in their accounts.  It was twelve days before the children were interviewed, during which time there was no contact between the children and their father. 

69.              The ABE interviews raise questions.  Both children, it was apparent, were very keen to give a great deal of information.  It is, I think, Mr Gray who used the word that they “gushed” and, particularly, that information from A was gushed out and not restricted to the events of 4^th December in response to the single first question.  B revealed that A had been scratching a rash on his back.  The father contends that the picture of the mark on his back is, indeed, a scratch and it seems to me that it has the appearance of a scratch mark.  It is difficult to see how the scratch could be caused to A’s back by father if A was wearing a school shirt, jumper and possibly a gilet, which mother seemed to confirm when she said A was in full clothes.

70.              On mother’s account, B says to the mother that when she looked at the mark, “It’s not that mark.  It’s the other one.”  It is not clear how B knew that there were two marks visible as a result of father’s actions, bearing in mind that A had his clothes on.  No medical assistance was sought by the mother and the police complaint was not launched until approximately 2300 hours, although it seems that the marks were noticed by the mother before eight o’clock when they were photographed.  I find it difficult to accept that the mother did not look at the marks on the morning of 5^th December if she was concerned about marks to A.  It would be the most natural thing to do. 

71.              Mr Gray refers to mother’s statements in respect of the violence perpetrated by the father against A and says at paragraph 20(e):

“Perhaps, most revealingly, the mother’s written evidence to the Family Court sets out the more serious contentions that A stated, that his father had hurt him regularly since January, that this has increased in the last six months and, later, more often in the last three months.

(i)                Her first statement to this effect is dated 9^th December.

(ii)              She then makes no reference to this in her police statement prepared the next day, 10^th December, at least beyond the words again.

(iii)            The contention never emerges in detail in her civil statement of 14^th January.

(iv)            It was not mentioned in her oral evidence at the hearing in April 2015.”

It is apparent that, by the time of the final hearing, it is the allegations of violence, rather than any other aspect of parenting, which is uppermost in the mother’s mind and in questioning father’s ability to care for the children.

72.              The allegations of 4^th December were made when the grandparents had started to have supervised contact.  Father had asked for a change of residence and, in particular, had asked for an interim change of residence by application on 28^th November 2014.  Thus, the hearing of 18^th December was completely hijacked with new allegations as, indeed, had been the previous hearings in similar ways.  The mother had received the report from Estelle Louw and she said in oral evidence that she was unwell at the time. 

73.              Mr Ainsley submits “whether the events of 4^th December were of such gravity that they warranted the following events is a matter for the court.  Crucial to this, as to so many areas of this case, is mother’s state of mind at the time, a subject I return to below, but what is clear is that there was an incident that evening, one doubtless recounted by the children to the mother.  The degree of accuracy of the children’s account remains unknown but it was an incident which, in the context of the photographs and visible injuries, was something over which mother was justified in being concerned.  It was not a fabrication. “

74.              I accept that certain key elements of the allegations are not disputed by the father.  A had been asked to go to his room and there was an incident at home time.  It is perfectly possible that A or B mentioned these matters to their mother.  It seems, if the mother is correct, it was B who gave the first account when mother asked what was the matter with A and it seems that B described A getting into trouble twice from his father during the contact.  It seems to me, on balance, from the evidence, that, as she has done in relation to incidents in the past, for example the kite, the mother has manipulated both the situation and the children to provide a scenario which can, and on this occasion did, bring about serious consequences for the father. 

75.              I am satisfied that the scratch to the back was just that and not caused by father but probably, as B indicated, because A scratched his eczema.  The fact that it had disappeared the following day would support this scenario.  The mark to the front is very faint.  I do not know what it is or how it was caused.  I am satisfied that the children were encouraged to reflect their mother’s exaggeration of the incident, which is best described as normal parenting behaviour and not assault.  The events were not of such gravity to warrant police involvement or Social Services’ involvement or the school being informed, or their father’s contact being suspended and then supervised for the next four months.

76.              The effect on the children of the stopping and starting of their contact with their father is also apparent from the social work account, which is set out within the bundle at C41 and C42.  It is recorded:

“When speaking with the children alone to gather their views regarding contact, they did not raise any significant concerns.  However, B informed me that she would like contact to take place between the children and their father in a safe place and that it was the court’s decision.  This use of language appears rather sophisticated for a child of B’s age and I suspect she may have overheard this from an adult.  F arrived early and had set the room out in preparation for the children arriving and had brought with him a range of toys and games to play.  When the children entered the room, B and C showed a great deal of affection towards their father and were kissing and hugging him.  However, A was reluctant to show the same level of affection towards his father. 

When F requested A give him a high five instead, he did this but, again, it was reluctantly.  C was particularly keen to show his father love and affection and enjoyed being tickled by father.  B appeared very chatty with her father and seemed relaxed in his company.  B appeared keen when she asked F when she would next be having a sleepover at his house and asked how long she was able to spend with daddy.  B asked to change football team on the games console and F requested that A change the team.  A appeared defiant at this point and unwilling to cooperate and do as his father had requested.  F then attempted to lift the mood and started tickling A, and A’s facial expression changed and he displayed an angry face and played on the Xbox alone for a short while. 

F continued to play games with B and C, and C was extremely giggly and seemed to relish spending time with his father and being tickled and hugged.  F spent one-to-one time with C, and C was able to build a LEGO model which F had brought for him.  B preferred the attention to be on her and when F was spending time with C, B gained attention by calling her father by his Christian name.  F responded by picking B up and tickling her, which she appeared to enjoy.  There was a great deal of positive physical contact between F and his children, particularly C and B.  A took a bit of time but eventually came round and was chatty and pleasant.  A was keen to talk to me about his football card book and showed me his collection of cards which F was able to engage in.  F then suggested they all play a game of Battleships together until the end of contact. 

In my opinion, the contact was generally positive and the children and F all appeared to have fun and enjoy themselves.  I would have no concerns or hesitation in recommending that the children have unsupervised contact with their father as I did not observe the children to be fearful of their father in any way and witnessed F to provide safe, warm and loving care for the children.  On the short walk from the Apple room, where contact took place, to the reception in Contact Centre E, where the children were being collected by their mother, I asked if they had had fun.  C and B reported they did.  However, A reported that the game they were playing was a little boring and, from my observation, did not wish their mother to hear that they had been having fun and enjoying spending time with their father.  It would appear that the children were aware of the ongoing issues between the parents and of the negative attitude expressed by their mother towards their father. 

Having met with F, it is clear that he is extremely distressed following the most recent allegation and was able to show a valuable insight into the emotional impact the separation is likely to have on the children.  F strongly denies the allegations made and states that he did not cause any harm to any of the children.  F states he is deeply concerned that his relationship with A, in particular, is deteriorating and, in my opinion, he appears to be a committed father to A, B and C.  F also expressed his concern that the children are currently withholding information and believe that they were being manipulated by their mother.”

77.              The mother’s complaints about father’s contact continued until the commencement of the final hearing.  In the intervening weeks before the final hearing, the children arrived on 29^th March wearing t-shirts stating, “It’s very expensive being A, B, C.”  When asked about this in evidence, mother said that they were a present from their aunt.  She could see no problem, in the circumstances when the children’s residence, contact and financial remedies had not been concluded, about sending the children to contact with these t-shirts.  The father clearly felt that it was wholly inappropriate and I agree with him. 

78.              I heard evidence from the guardian.  She told me her concerns were, and still are, significant.  She prompted the instruction of Estelle Louw, who has provided a comprehensive report to the court and given oral evidence.  The guardian stated in oral evidence that, rather than the situation ameliorating, it has escalated, with the children increasingly brought into the conflict.  The guardian was concerned about the number of professionals the children were required to see.  Mrs McGaughey did see the children initially in the half term in February 2013 and at their mother’s home again, briefly, on 10^th June 2014.  She then met the children on 14^th August and has provided a separate statement to the court about this meeting.  The district judge had asked the guardian to go and see the children as the mother would not agree to summer holiday contact and the mother wished it to be supervised.  Miss Goldstein, in her closing remarks, sets out a summary of the meeting:

“The children could remember who the guardian was and almost immediately, without any introduction, A accused the guardian of stating, when she met him in February, that she was there to sort out a fight between his parents.  B immediately started to argue with A, stating the guardian had told them it was a mix-up, a muddle.”

The details of the interview, as I have said, are set out within the bundle. 

79.              The information provided by the children was difficult to understand.  B was clear that she would like to stay with her father a bit but then later said that she did not want to as dad let grandma and grandpa hit them.  The paternal grandparents had no contact with the children for two years at this time.  B also told the guardian that their dad had done something naughty and he had kept them for three nights without telling their mother, who had been waiting for them at Asda.  She said dad had taken them out of swimming without telling mum.  A equally gave contradictory information.  He said it would not be best if he spent time with his dad as he already spent a lot of time with his dad and he worries about his mum as she is sick.  He complained that dad did not spend time with him.  He spent time with his friends, that dad would only read a few pages of a book to him whereas mother told him stories about Thailand.  It would be better if dad was to change and he did not talk to his friends too much. 

80.              Throughout her evidence, the mother referred to the children being frightened of the guardian.  Mother said that the children did not know about any dispute between the parents until the guardian referred to a fight.  In cross-examination by Miss Goldstein, mother corrected herself and said she meant the court proceedings.  The mother told me that, because of the words the guardian used, it had caused the children anxiety, upset and a link with her, the mother, getting hurt.  It was put to the mother that B disputed this with A and mother replied, “No, she didn’t.  The guardian went in and started talking about a fight.” 

81.              Miss Goldstein put that there was considerable discussion about what was said to the guardian and the mother responded, “Yes, my children started saying, ‘Mummy, are you okay?  Are you hurt?  Why do we have to stay with daddy this long?’  Mrs McGaughey told me that she most definitely would not say, “I am here to sort out a fight.”  Mrs McGaughey is an extremely experienced and well-regarded guardian.  I do not accept that she would tell children that she was there to sort out a fight.  Thus, A has got this view from someone else and, sadly, it seems to me that the only person it could be is the mother. 

82.              The mother said, in evidence, before me:

“I wish F would get closer to the children and listen to the children more and understand what the children need.  It’s conflict at the moment.” 

Sadly, I find that it is the mother who has created conflict between the children and their father.  C, according to the father, said to him that B and A did not love him but he, C, did.  The mother did not accept that it was possible for C to say that but I echo the guardian’s concerns, which are set out in the guardian’s closing submissions. 

“The guardian’s position is that there has been a sustained and relentless attempt by the mother to directly involve the children in the parental conflict right from the point of separation in September 2012 and that, unfortunately, the position has not changed today, some two and a half years later.  The expert referred, in cross-examination, to the mother wishing to alienate the father.  All the more worrying is that, to date, C, to some extent because of his age and being the third child, has not had such direct involvement but, as recently as 31^st January 2015, it appears that this is changing.  The mother was referred to this in cross-examination by the guardian’s solicitor.  This is the incident where C hurt himself at soft play. It is noted that C had been questioned by his mother and she is reporting that C is stating that he was lost and could not find his father or another supervising adult.  This is the first real direct reference to mother seeking to involve C in such an open way.  The concern is that with C’s growing years, he, like the other two children, will become more directly involved and this will also have an impact on him at an emotional level.”

83.              Estelle Louw’s evidence was comprehensive and careful.  I find that she had appropriate regard to the cultural issues and possible language problems.  She was clear in her oral evidence that she checked and allowed as much as she possibly could for extra understanding.  She said the mother is a trained dentist and an educated individual and that there was nothing to say her cognitive processes did not enable her to fully participate in the interview.  Estelle Louw concluded, at D77 in the bundle:

“The respondent presented herself as a very reasonable person who would wish the children to have contact with their father and that it is only the father’s poor parenting skills and his neglect of the children that has caused her to want to protect the children by limiting and previously stopping contact with him.  She presented herself as a victim of a controlling, abusive husband and alleged that the paternal grandparents, especially the grandmother, behaved in a similar way.  She did not give any indication at any time that she acknowledged that she might have had a role to play in the breakdown of the relationships.”

84.              I find that this summary is also an accurate reflection of the evidence which the mother gave to the court.  Although on occasion mother paid lip service to taking some responsibility and wanting to move on, it is absolutely clear, not least because of the most recent incident two days ago, which I will deal with presently, that the mother has not changed her approach.  Mr Ainsley, on behalf of the mother, submits:

“Mother has made significant progress during the course of these proceedings.  Although frequently damaging to family relationships in this case, I suspect that a contested hearing has brought closure and resolution.  That, in large part, is due to the way that the parties have conducted themselves in court in measured and largely conciliatory terms.  As discussed above, the proceedings themselves and the ongoing court involvement, at least initially, gives mother significant confidence in the future.  The fact that, for the first time, all of the paternal family is perceived to have promised before a judge not to act in a way that is harmful to the children has huge significance to the mother.  The mother accepts there is a possibility that there are issues around her mental health that need exploration and potential management.  She has already investigated the possibilities for further assessment through her GP.  She has openly recognised the importance of father and the paternal grandparents in the children’s lives.  She readily agreed contact, unrestricted and unsupervised, for both at court.”

85.              A report from Hospital F has been provided to the court.  Mr Ainsley has not had the opportunity to take instructions although he was made aware that the report was available.  The concern that I raise is that it seems that the mother continued to inform the doctor that the dad had hit A, grabbed him and hit him on the back and that B did not like to go to her dad’s.  Of course, I bear in mind that I have not heard evidence in relation to this and that Mr Ainsley, briefly, from instruction, has indicated that it is not accepted that the words, as recorded, were the words that the mother spoke but I am afraid that it is more of the same. 

86.              Also, I bear in mind, but obviously make no finding, Estelle Louw’s evidence that abdominal pains can be an indication of a worried child.  Estelle Louw, in her oral evidence and report, highlighted the mother’s inconsistence in her description of her background and the effect and mood of the mother.  The expert concluded:

“With regard to the assessment and all the information, the mother showed a very negative attitude towards the father.  She is very critical of him in both the role of father and husband and she blamed him entirely for the family difficulties.  Although mother tried to show herself as not angry, this was not evident from her manner and the rest of the evidence.”

87.              The expert described the situation in the context of the email sent by the mother as showing quite vituperative anger and out-of-control emotionality.  The expert concluded that the mother was unable to appreciate that questioning the children could be emotionally manipulative and likely to be emotionally intrusive.  Mother’s thought patterns were entirely self-focused on her personal perception and she had no capacity to think about issues from the perception of another.  At D81 in the bundle, Estelle Louw opined:

“It is particularly concerning about her psychological profile that M presents as being willing to draw the children into what should be an adult disagreement that they should be protected from and not have knowledge of, other than at a basic reassuring level.  Examples have been given variously during this report.  The psychological assessment indicates that the children very clearly have been influenced by their mother’s perspective and are repeating what she is likely to have said to them.”

88.              Essentially, the conclusion is that M is a self-focused individual.  While she does care about her children, she does not have the personal insight or self-discipline to not draw them into her negativity towards the father.  The psychological assessment concludes that the children’s perception of father’s family and father have been directly influenced by the mother.  Memories have either been induced, enhanced or perpetuated due to the mother’s negativity about their time in Liverpool and about the behaviour of their father.  The language she used; the clarity of what the children report, even after years; the similarity of their reports all indicate that their mother is likely to have discussed issues with them.  M considers herself to be the victim and, in these circumstances, any therapeutic input or family therapy would not be helpful. 

89.              At D84, Estelle Louw sets out:

“While the children love their mother, and she is committed to them, the indication from the assessment is also that she is closed to their emotional needs for security and safety by having a relationship with both mother and father that is consistent and comfortable because both parents accept the situation and give them permission to be with the other.  A further concern is that the mother shows no understanding that her negativity towards the grandparents, that has led to her excluding the children completely from having contact with the paternal family, is not in their emotional interest.  It is probable that her own experiences in Thailand, of not having contact with her father and poor family relationships there, have influenced her in decisions such as this. 

It is also probable that jealousy, when the children enjoy seeing their father and grandfather, and her sensitivity to exclusion influence M to block contact and draw the children into her negative attitudes, regardless of the harm done to them.  She justifies this as she presents herself as the victim.  The assessment indicates that it is likely that the children have induced maintained memories about what happened in Liverpool and their negative comments on father have been influenced by their mother, whose views they reflect.”

90.              Of very clear importance is Estelle Louw’s view that the mother presented as behaving in an emotionally extreme manner that is unsafe for the children to experience.  She goes on at D86 to say that:

“This assessment acknowledges that the children love their mother and that she loves them.  In this context, though, their attachment to her will be insecure with an element of anxiety.  She did not show understanding of the children’s emotional needs to secure relationships with both parents.  In her anger and apparent wish for revenge or retribution, she presents as not having scrupled to draw the children into her battle as allies.  This is not in the children’s interests and raises a high level of concern about her ability to raise and care for the children.”

91.              Estelle Louw’s view of the father is set out within her report in which she states that:

“F presented as loving and caring with the children, who responded well to him.  Due to his training schedule and the marriage breakdown, as well as the mother limiting his contact for a period at the end of 2013, he has not always had close contact with the children.  They still presented as close and affectionate with their father.  There is no indication that he neglects their needs when they are with him.  From a psychological perspective, the indication is that he has reasonable understanding of the emotional needs of the children.  He spoke about having no strategies now to deal with M after all this time.  His reliance is on the court to make the appropriate decisions.”

92.              It is, of course, not the expert who decides but the court, having regard to all the evidence before it.  I am assisted by the guidance within the welfare checklist.  I am satisfied that these children have suffered emotional harm by reason of their mother’s negativity towards their father and their grandparents, which has resulted in the children being drawn into adult disagreement and the mother influencing the children against their father and grandparents.  She is closed to their emotional needs for security and safety by having a relationship with both parents and being given permission by the parents to do so.  She has drawn the children into her battles with the father and grandparents and she has relied upon the children particularly A to support her emotional needs in an inappropriate way.  A was described by Estelle Louw, in oral evidence, as “a worried child.” 

93.              Estelle Louw concluded that the mother has a personality disorder, unstable, anxious, hostile, and the anger expressed in her behavioural profile is very clear and very worrying.  Estelle Louw was of the view that the mother will need to keep the situation going with new allegations to ensure that she keeps the children.  Estelle Louw is of the view that the mother must keep them from their father.  She sees him as a threat.  Estelle Louw expected additional allegations.  Her prediction, sadly, has been borne out.  As soon as it looks as if progress in the father’s relationship with the children has been made, fresh allegations appear. 

94.              Estelle Louw further stated, in evidence, with regard to the direct question as to whether shared care could safeguard the children, the expert responded that she was much more concerned now than she had been previously.  She acknowledged that to remove a person from a child’s life is a serious matter.  She said that if that person who is causing the emotional harm to the child could develop another attitude and a potential then exists for change, it would be more satisfactory, but she could see no indication that mother acknowledged her role and, indeed, she felt there were indications that mother’s mental health was deteriorating. 

95.              In cross-examination by Mr Ainsley, the expert stated that her move from concern about the situation in her report to conviction, due to the continuing behaviour of mother and allegations from her about father, including allegations of racism, the expert felt there was an escalation on behalf of the mother in searching for different things to achieve her goal.  The expert said that she had undertaken additional research and that the pattern of behaviour of the mother indicated a borderline personality disorder. 

96.              F was very clear that he could not parent his children in a satisfactory way if mother is in a position to continue to make allegations against him.  I have to consider how capable each of the parents are in providing care for the children.  I find that the mother is not capable of providing satisfactory care and cannot meet the children’s emotional needs.  It seems to me that father can.  I acknowledge that the mother has suffered mental health problems of varying severity for a number of years and it has affected her abilities to deal with problems in her everyday life.  In relation to her attitude towards the father, I have some difficulty, as did the expert, Estelle Louw, in determining whether the allegations and statements are self-serving or something that she has brought herself to genuinely believe.  Sadly, in relation to the present welfare of the children, it makes little difference which it is although, if it is the former, it demonstrates a determination to damage the father’s relationship with his children and without regard to their feelings or welfare. 

97.              It is very important that I look at the effect on these children of a change in their circumstances.  If the children are to live with their father, they will experience distress at the loss of their close relationship with their mother.  However, it is clear from the evidence that it is a destructive relationship.  The practicalities involved in this father looking after and being sole carer for three young children are problematic.  He works long and sometimes unpredictable hours.  It is apparent that he has good local support from his friends, who rallied around him when his contact had to be supervised, and his friends ensured that his contact was completely and constantly chaperoned.  The paternal grandparents told me on several occasions that they will do what it takes to assist.  There was some criticism levelled at them that there was not more flesh on the bones in respect of detail and how they would fulfil their other family commitments.

98.              There was also criticism of father changing his plans and suggesting hiring an au pair or childminder as a possibility.  It is said that the father is unrealistic in his view that he has the ability to juggle career and childcare.  The children, it is said, will inevitably end up being moved from childminder to childminder.  I find there is nothing inevitable about it and nor is there an indication that the children will miss out on after-school activities or any other activities which they presently do.  Professional people have to make suitable childcare arrangements.  It can be difficult but, when required, it can be done.  Father tells me that his employers are sympathetic but, obviously, that only goes so far but matters evolve.  The grandparents are criticised for their naivety in saying they will assist if needed and the paternal family are criticised for not having detailed discussions long before the final hearing. 

99.              The reality is that if the paternal family cannot manage, there will be huge implications for these children.  There will still be a move.  It is not safe for these children to continue in the care of their mother as she presently functions and behaves and I make that finding.  I do not dismiss the emotional problems of these children, partiularly in light of what they have been exposed to by their mother in connection with their father, but the alternative of them remaining with their mother is unsafe and untenable.  Her allegations and behaviours have escalated.  Her mental health, it seems to me, after listening to her evidence, is not good and her reaction to any outcome from this hearing is unpredictable.  I have no doubt whatsoever that this mother very much loves her children and feels, as she said in evidence before me, that they are the best thing that has ever happened to her, but my responsibility is the welfare of these children.  A change to live with their father is not going to be easy and it is not in accordance with their wishes.  Father will need help, not only from his parents and friends, but I anticipate the possibility that he will need professional help.  The guardian will be able to assist in that regard in pointing the father in the right direction if it is needed. 

100.          The children will need to see their mother.  I am told that there was a lack of emotion on mother’s behalf when the guardian discussed the possible option of a transfer of care.  I suspect that the mother may have failed to see it as a likely possibility but if I am wrong about that, I also am concerned that it may be that she has plans to thwart the transfer.  She has, in the past, made comments about taking the children to Thailand.  I do not know how serious mother’s threats have been or are but they cannot be dismissed.  Thus, contact at the outset must be supervised.  There should also be indirect contact by FaceTime and Skype as well as letters and cards. 

101.          The children will move today.  It is the only way to reduce the possibility of distress for them.  The grandparents will be fully involved in the children’s lives.  I will make the findings sought in accordance with the judgment I have delivered which will exclude, in the schedule of findings set out by Mr Gray, paragraph 9 in relation to the rape and paragraph 13, which is not being pursued.  Otherwise, I make the findings sought and I make the orders which are proposed on behalf of the father and the guardian.  Thus, the child arrangements order will recognise that the children are to reside with their father with presently supervised contact to their mother. 

[Judgment ends]