Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Family Division Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Family Division Decisions >> L, Re [2001] NIFam 8 (05 April 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/Fam/2001/8.html
Cite as: [2001] NIFam 8
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Neutral Citation no. [2001] NIFam 8
Ref:
GILE3395
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
05.04.2001
(subject to editorial corrections)
GILLEN J
The only application before the court is that by A McC pursuant to Article 8 of the Childrens Order (Northern Ireland) 1995 (the "1995 Order") for a contact order in relation to L (date of birth 2 February 1989). I am told another application by him to commit his wife for contempt has not been properly constituted and accordingly I dismiss that application.
There is an unhappy background and history to this application. L McC (born 10 April 1966) and A McC (born 22 January 1969) met in Northern Ireland about 1988. They formed a relationship and established themselves as a couple before moving to Scotland for a number of years. They subsequently married. Whilst in Scotland, A McC was sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment on two counts of rape, a count of indecent assault and one of breach of the peace. He was sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment on 3 April 1992 and released on 12 August 1996.
On his release from prison A McC sought access with his daughter, L. Social Services commissioned a psychiatric assessment of A McC and this was referred to in a wardship report of 27 August 1997. At that time Social Services referred L to the Childrens Resource Team at the Shankill Centre, Belfast. According to a report of Eamonn Quinn, social worker, dated 1 April 1998, L displayed some ambivalence towards contact with her father but there were no indications that L would suffer emotionally if she was to speak or meet with him. A McC wrote to his daughter and telephone contact was initiated. An application to make the child a ward of court was made by way of summons on 1 August 1996 and the child was made a ward of court on 8 August 1996. Care and control was granted to L McC. Subsequently that order was discharged on 4 December 1997.
Arising out of the wardship hearing of 4 December 1997, supervised contact took place on 5 December 1997 from 2.30pm to 3pm at the Shankill Resource Centre. At a wardship hearing on 30 January 1998 as directed by the court, further access took place on 30 January 1998 from 3.30pm to 4.30pm and on 3 February 1998 from 3.30pm to 4.30pm at the North Belfast Family Centre. The wardship order of 3 February 1998 indicated further access to take place on 28 March 1998. In general, according to Mr Quinn, the above accesses took place and passed off without serious incident. However, Social Services did indicate in correspondence to the court that A McC's use of language and belligerent attitude caused offence to health service staff at Antrim Road. A McC maintained correspondence with L in the form of two letters and some telephone contact was established.
By April 1998 the Social Services were recommending 6 monthly contacts between 12pm and 4pm and that after the 6 months, namely by October 1998, access should be increased from 12pm to 8pm. It was felt that only by building up a routine in which L felt safe and secure could a relationship between father and daughter be progressed.
On 16 November 1998 a consent contact order was made whereby Master Hall ordered that the respondent should have contact with L as follows:
(a) initially overnight staying contact on the last weekend of each month (commencing at the end of the present month of November) at an address in Northern Ireland in accordance with arrangements to be agreed between the parties;
(b) at an appropriate time, in 1999, occasional staying contact at the respondent's home in Glasgow where the child may visit upon terms to be agreed between the parties; and
(c) such further contact by letters, cards or otherwise as may be agreed.
In November 1998 a highly significant direct contact did take place. The child's account of this access as given to Dr Falls (see below) was that A McC, during the course of an overnight access in Bangor, entered her room on Saturday morning wearing a balaclava, t-shirt and jeans and asked L what she thought of this. L told Dr Falls that she was very frightened by this. In evidence before me, A McC admitted that in fact he had put a mask on when with this child. He alleged that he had borrowed this mask from his son, who at that stage was living with his fiancé, had taken the mask from Scotland to Northern Ireland and, according to him, had brought it over so that he could let his daughter know what was happening in Northern Ireland. I have to say that I found this to be a bizarre and alarming action on the part of A McC. Whilst he told me initially that it was a spur of the moment action which he subsequently regretted, this in itself could not be true if he planned to bring the mask from Scotland before he even arrived in Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that this would have been a very frightening experience for a little girl only 9 years of age who was alone with her father. A terrifying experience such as this had doubtless fuelled this child's concerns about her father's behaviour and the risk of further intemperate behaviour on his part. Having heard him give evidence, I regret to say that I concluded that irresponsible behaviour of this kind was not foreign to him. In the course of the cross-examination of L McC, counsel on behalf of A McC had pursued a thread based on the premiss that by virtue of the child being told that there was a threat to abduct her fears of her father were unjustifiably built up. In so far as this did occur, I was satisfied that it was once again the behaviour of A McC which fuelled such a development. Whilst he was serving his sentence in prison in 1995, a psychiatrist had recorded a note from a social worker that A McC was pre-occupied with non-access to his daughter and hatred of his wife. He apparently threatened to abduct his daughter and on his release kill his wife. Staff at the prison were so concerned about A McC's comments regarding his wife and daughter that a request for a travel warrant to take him to Belfast on release was refused. In evidence before me A McC denied that this had happened alleging that the social workers had manufactured this allegation against him. However, when pressed in cross-examination on the matter, he did concede that he was liable to say things on the spur of the moment which he later regretted. I found his denial of this allegation singularly unimpressive. I was similarly unimpressed by his denial of the assertion by Mr Eamonn Quinn, social worker, who was called to give evidence that he had made a threat to employees of Antrim Road Social Services in the course of 1997 saying that if he didn't get what he wanted staff would need to keep a look-out through the window and then went on to say that the troubles were not over. I think that this is typical of the intemperate outbursts and threats to which A McC is given from time to time. Thereafter he follows a pattern of denial including even the denial that he was guilty of crimes of rape for which he was sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment. I think there is a great deal of truth in the conclusion formed by Eamonn Quinn in his report of September 1996 that A McC regards himself as a victim and is prepared to put the blame on and exercise threats against those who do not accept his reasoning.
It is against this background that I then consider the second extremely serious allegation arising out of contact between A McC and L. This occurred at Christmas of 1998. A dispute clearly arose between A McC and L McC as to the circumstances in which overnight access was to take place. L McC indicated that she did not believe that the child would be staying in Scotland with the paternal grandparents as alleged by A McC but that it was more likely the child would stay with A McC and his girlfriend in circumstances of which she did not approve. The contrary view was expressed by A McC that he was going to stay with his parents and that he refused to furnish L McC with his girlfriend's address because his girlfriend objected to this. It is not necessary to resolve this dispute at this level. What is important is that in the course of the dispute the child, L, spoke to A McC on the telephone in December 1998. Some disparity emerges as to her account of what happened. She told Dr Falls that when she indicated she was reluctant to join A McC over the holiday period, he is reported to have threatened "to get" L's mother. According to Dr Falls this was interpreted by L to mean that A McC would kill her mother. L McC's version of this was that the child told her that A McC had threatened her that if she did not come to Scotland he would put his mask on. This was a reference to the incident that had occurred on month earlier at the overnight stay in Bangor. She later added that a threat to her had also been made. A McC denied in cross-examination that he had said any such thing although he did concede that he may possibly have said something threatening on the spur of the moment. I was satisfied that this child was the victim of another frightening piece of behaviour by A McC in the course of this telephone call and it represented yet another illustration of behaviour on his part which was likely to occasion this child grave distress and re-awaken existing fears as to his future conduct.
It is A McC's case that subsequent to the court hearing on 16 November 1998 after L McC had agreed with him that L could visit him in Scotland from 29 December 1998 to 31 December 1998, L McC allegedly withdrew her permission a few days before L was due to travel.
Thereafter on 27 July 1999, Master Hall directed that A McC should have contact with L for 4 hours on Saturday 7 August 1999 and Sunday 8 August 1999.
In an affidavit of 8 February 2001 A McC averred, inter alia, that the arrangements made for the summer of 1999 were again unfruitful. He alleges that on one Saturday in August 1999, by prior arrangement, he visited the home of L McC to see L. The applicant's sister M was also there. He further alleges that L McC said in the presence of L words to the following effect, "L does not want to see you – don't you understand that". L said nothing allegedly. A McC then avers that on the following day he took L out to Bangor for a few hours in the car, they went for a light meal, he thought that she was withdrawn and quiet in his company and that he had not seen L since then. Given his previous behaviour this was the minimum he could expect. It also ties in with her account of that visit given to the Official Solicitor and to which I will shortly refer. It is his case that the reluctance of L to see him has been inspired by L McC and her family and that there is no legitimate reason for her seeking to alienate L from him. He accepts in the course of paragraph 10 of that affidavit that "given the lapse of time and the attitude which has developed in L towards me, there would have to be a period when contact should be supervised before the terms of the order dated 16 November 1998 of this honourable court could be implemented". He is living in Scotland at the moment. He therefore seeks an order defining the contact between L and himself with the objective that such contact should in due course include staying contact.
3. A McC's proposals for contact outlined in an affidavit of 22 September 1999 were as follows:
(a) that he should have contact with L once monthly to take place commencing the Friday evening of the last Friday of each month;
(b) that L would fly from Belfast International Airport or Belfast City Airport to Glasgow Airport on a regular flight and would be met at Glasgow Airport by him and then stay at A McC's mother's house at 29 Portsoy Place, Glasgow;
(c) that L would then stay overnight on the Friday night and Saturday night with A McC based at his mother's address;
(d) that on each Sunday evening A McC would escort L to Glasgow Airport and she would catch a flight back to Belfast;
(e) that A McC would pay the return fare for L each month and would ask L McC to make a reasonable contribution.
A McC indicated that the alternative arrangement would be for him to come to Northern Ireland where he has no base and could not offer a suitable venue for contact. He went on to assert that he could not afford the cost involved in monthly travel to Northern Ireland and weekend accommodation even at a modest bed and breakfast setting. He averred that L had a loving extended family in Glasgow who wished to see her often and to maintain a strong relationship with her.
I had before me a report from Dr Falls, consultant psychiatrist, dated 23 August 2000. I have read this report carefully and on a number of occasions. The following matters emerge from that report:
(a) until 1999, L was seeing her father on an intermittent basis albeit that contact had been unsupervised. Dr Falls sets out in the course of that report the following at page 2;
"Apparently concern continues to grow with regard to L's change in behaviour. From being a `bubbly and lively girl' she had become increasingly withdrawn, to the stage where following her last contact in September 1999 (sic) she essentially did not leave the house (other than to go to school) for a period of 3 months. It is reported that there were 2 episodes of shop-lifting from local shops and an increasing friction between L and her mother within the home. It was noted that her schoolwork deteriorated with the start of the new term in September and L decided not to sit the transfer procedure. In addition it is believed that L stole money from her mother, maternal grandmother and aunt M. Over the last 3 to 4 years it is reported also that L had ongoing difficulties with toileting. She had a number of episodes of wetting which were infrequent and the last occurring in September 1999."
At page 3 of the report Dr Falls continues:
"L's contact with her father was discontinued we understand because of particular concern regarding two main episodes. Firstly at an overnight access with L in Bangor, (A McC) is reported to have entered her room on Saturday morning wearing a balaclava, t-shirt and jeans and asked L what she thought of this. L herself was unsure what this meant, but it is reported by L and her family that she was frightened of this. Secondly, at Christmas 1999, (A McC) is alleged to have phoned the family home and requested that L join him for the Christmas holidays. When she was reluctant to do so (A McC) is reported to have threatened `to get' L's mother. This L has interpreted to mean that (A McC) would kill her mother."
It was subsequently made clear to me in evidence from Dr Falls that the latter date was Christmas 1998. L has undergone contact with child psychiatry sessions under the aegis of Dr Fall. At page 5 of the report, dealing with an interview with L, Dr Fall records:
"The fourth session took place on 17 August 2000. L separated from her mother on this occasion quite willingly. We reviewed the main issues of the history as noted above and L did not alter these details as described. When asked again quite specifically regarding the possibility that she had been inappropriately touched or in any way harmed by her father or any other person L denied that this was the case. She did go on to indicate that she was however fearful of her father and was clear that rather than being afraid for herself, L genuinely believed that this man might well kill A McC. L told me that she believed this man might do this using a knife. When we discussed the options for L to have contact with her father, she again emphatically indicated that she wished for no further contact with this man. L had previously indicated to me in an earlier session that she wished for no further contact with her father.
In our most recent session we also reviewed L's present situation. Her soiling has essentially stopped, her relationships with her mother and family have improved and A McC feels L is essentially back to her old self. These changes have been attributed to L's ability now to relax and communicate more with her mother. She is also very positive about her move of school which is to occur in September. At this stage we feel we would remain in contact with the family and review their situation at the end of September once L has had an opportunity to settle into her new school."
Dr Falls concluded at page 8 of that report:
"Furthermore L presented as perfectly able to describe her own wishes and ideas with regard to contact with this man. She consistently and emphatically indicated that she wished to have no further meetings with her father. In view of the concerns expressed by L, her mother and the extended maternal family, as well as those concerned expressed by the various professionals who have had contact with this family, I would respectfully suggest that L is perfectly capable of formulating her own opinions with regard to what her father means to her. I believe that her opinion is valid and could be respected by the court. It would be my hope that if this process were completed, L herself might subsequently move on. Her present emotional and behavioural situation is considerably improved compared to last year. It is by no means clear, but it would not be surprising if at some stage in the future L were to disclose further details of a more concerning nature."
I also had the benefit of hearing Dr Falls in evidence before me. He emphasised that he had initially been treating the girl for therapeutic reasons as a result of a referral from the GP before he undertook any court report. The GP had written to him concerning the child's emotional changes, her social withdrawal, her soiling and wetting and the incidents of thefts of money and shop-lifting. Dr Falls carried out a number of sessions of a therapeutic nature with the child. The sessions commenced with a meeting with the mother/child in a family setting in order, Dr Falls said, to set the child at ease and also to ascertain what had been happening since the last meeting. He had seen these sessions purely in terms of her behavioural needs. He said the child was a "deep child", that it took time to get to know her but that he felt she had a clear view of what she wanted. At the fourth session, having initially set out to deal purely with her emotional difficulties, he was addressing the question of a court report. He had decided now to furnish a court report because if he did not then some other professional person would see her and he felt that he was probably in the best position to assist. He emphasised however that he was simply asked to provide a report based on his therapeutic work with the child and her position regarding contact. Accordingly, in cross-examination he accepted that this was not a medico-legal report or an investigative report. He did not agree to interview the father and he did not make a report in the context of the views or wishes of either of the parents. He confined his views solely to what he had discovered in the course of his therapeutic assessment. He was cross-examined on the basis that he did not therefore make a comprehensive assessment and did not take into account the views of A McC in particular. It was also suggested to him that a number of the problems that the child had could not be connected with the issue of contact. In particular the question of intermittent soiling or wetting had been going on since she was 4 and he accepted it was not possible to make a direct connection between this and the contact issues. In terms of the social withdrawal, he recognised that he had wrongly ascribed this to Christmas 1999 whereas in fact it had happened in December 1998. Miss M S Elliott, who appeared on behalf of A McC, put to him therefore that in terms there had been a telephone call in 1998, a lone contact in August 1999 and that no further contact had occurred between August 1999 and him seeing the child in June 2000. Moreover it was put to him that the history that he relied on was coming essentially from the family and in particular L McC in the presence of the child in the initial parts of the therapeutic sessions and that since the child was happy in her present unit (with A McC's partner being present for the past 7 years), she may well have picked up the family perceptions of A McC being unwelcome. Counsel also pressed Mr Falls with the suggestion that the child's fear of abduction had been generated by her mother telling her of such concerns.
I have to say that I was impressed by Dr Falls. He did not for one moment appear to me to be partisan and made a number of proper and reasonable concessions. However, he made clear a number of points;
(1) That this was a child who was reasonably successful in school, and appeared to him to be well able to form a view of her own. He had given her a continuum of possibilities of contact commencing with residence with her father, through unsupervised overnight and weekend contact with him, unsupervised contact, supervised contact and in-direct telephonic and written contact. Given that choice however, the child did not hesitate to say on 17 August 2000 that she wished to have no contact with her father. Since August 2000 Dr Falls has seen her 3 further times, the last occasion being on 26 January 2001. She was still emphatic that she did not wish to have any contact with her father.
(2) This consultant psychiatrist was on the look-out for signs of her having been brainwashed or influenced by her family to say this. He was alert to the danger. He was satisfied however that there was no question of this child giving anything other than her own views. He asked her about the future in terms of contact with her father, and the child indicated that she wished to make this decision herself and wanted to be consulted about any further arrangements. This coincides precisely with the opinion formed by an experienced Official Solicitor and I was satisfied that Dr Falls gave his evidence in such a considered and concerned manner that I can place great weight upon his conclusion despite the cross-examination of him. I should add that the social worker Mr Quinn who gave evidence before me if his contacts with the family saw no evidence that L McC had unduly influenced her daughter.
(3) Dr Falls was alert to the danger that the child is now in a family unit which she finds congenial. She has a younger sister, there is a new partner for her mother and there is a very stable background. Notwithstanding this Dr Falls indicated that approaching adolescence she may well have questions concerning her natural father and may want to know about him in the future. However, he emphasised that she did wish to have control of when this would happen and what information would be imparted to him. He was satisfied that she was not displaying a loyalty to the family unit which was overwhelming her real desires or wishes. It was his view therefore that any future contact arrangements must be driven by L's own wishes in this regard.
(4) It was his clear view that direct contact would be probably detrimental to this girl's well-being. Whilst I accept that there is no direct evidence that the soiling/bed wetting is connected to contact I still believe that this is a very vulnerable child. Dr Falls said that there had been evidence of distress at the prospect of court hearings and distress when discussing the question of direct contact with her father. Dr Falls' evidence was that her physical symptoms returned at times of stress and that he felt that this would probably occur again if this court were to make an order of direct contact. I remind myself that Dr Falls is a concerned and experienced psychiatrist who has had a great deal of experience with this child and I am satisfied that the court should repose confidence in his opinion. Whilst I recognise that he was seeing her several months after the last contact with her father, nonetheless the incidents of bizarre and unacceptable behaviour by her father during contact that she outlined were sufficiently poignant to be of some lasting effect on her. Consequently it did not surprise me when Dr Falls indicated that she exhibited concern when she discovered that her father knew about her school reports, knew where her school was and allegedly had been seen in Belfast. This had served to keep alive her fears. This child exposed these fears to him in a context wholly independent from her mother and against a background where Dr Falls was well aware of the dangers of coaching. On the contrary, his account was that the child had made it clear that she felt she could contact her father without any interference from her mother if she so wished. It is my conclusion that if there were factors working on this child other than her genuine fears of contact, Dr Falls would have picked them up. I was reinforced in this view by my assessment of L McC when she gave evidence. I think this woman did have genuine fears as to what A McC might do upon his release from prison. I am not at all persuaded that her concerns about possible abduction of L were unreasonable given the behaviour of A McC. If she shared those fears with L, this was largely as a result of that behaviour. Moreover whilst she clearly has not encouraged contact I do not believe that she had attempted to prevent or inhibit L from contacting her father.
I have also had the benefit of a report of two interviews with L by the Official Solicitor, Miss B M Donnelly. First, on 21 September 1999 the Official Solicitor visited L at home. A report of that visit includes the following paragraphs:
"2. L was adamant that she did not want to see her father. I asked L if she could give me reasons for this. L explained that last Christmas she was speaking to her father by telephone and he said he would like her to come over for the New Year. L and her father had a chat and L said she would think about this and ring him back. L rang her father back and he said something along the lines of `If you do not come over I will get your mum'. By this L understood that he would harm her mother in some way and L genuinely believed that he would harm her mother.
3. L saw her father on 7 and 8 August. On the Sunday her father took her to Millisle. I asked L if she had a good day and she said `No, not really'. L explained that she was relieved to have the visit over and was glad to get home to her mother. I asked L how she felt about that visit and she said she felt it was imposed on her and she had no choice but to see her father on those occasions."
The Official Solicitor's view also was that L was not worried about offending her mother should she see her father and was quite clear that this was not a problem.
The Official Solicitor's conclusion on 22 September 1999 included the following:
"As L's legal representative I will be strongly submitting that she should not have contact with her father imposed on her at this stage. I did ask her if she thought she was prepared to have contact with her father in the future and she said at this stage she did not know. L has reacted very badly to her father's threatening behaviour on the phone last Christmas and I am not sure how this matter can be dealt with in the longer term. Although L is the most charming girl I found that when I asked her about her father she was extremely withdrawn and on occasions when I asked her a question she would stare into space for a while and then stare at the floor. … Nevertheless, I would conclude that she genuinely does not wish to see her father at this stage and contact should not be imposed on her."
There is a further report from the Official Solicitor dated 13 February 2001 following a visit to L at her home on 11 February 2001. A report of that visit includes the following paragraphs:
"2. I informed L that I was to ascertain her current views regarding contact with her father to enable me to provide a report for the court.
3. L was absolutely adamant that she does not wish to see her father and does not wish to have anything to do with him. I was in no doubt that L was expressing her own free will and is not influenced by anyone. L confirmed that she remains afraid of her father and while she retains residual concerns that he would try to meet up with her when she is coming out of school, etc she is not as concerned about this matter as she was previously.
4. L seemed much brighter than she had been on previous occasions and her mood appeared much lighter. I asked L if she is happy at her new school and she confirmed that she is. I asked L if she felt happier generally because her views had been sought in relation to her father and would be taken into account by the court. L confirmed this was the case."
The Law Governing this Matter
The principles upon which a court must act when deciding an issue relating to contact have been summarised by the Court of Appeal in England in Re: P (Contact: Supervision) [1996] 2 FLR 314. The principles laid down are as follows:
"(1) Overriding all else … the welfare of the child is a paramount consideration, and the court is concerned with the interests of the mother and the father only so far as they bear on the welfare of the child.
(2) It is almost always in the interests of the child whose parents are separated that he or she should have contact with the parent with whom the child is not living.
(3) The court has power to enforce orders for contact and it should not hesitate to exercise this power where it judges that, overall, it would promote the welfare of the child to do so.
(4) Cases do unhappily and infrequently but occasionally, arise in which a court is compelled to conclude that under existing circumstances an order for immediate direct contact should not be ordered, because so to order would injure the welfare of the child.
(5) In cases in which, for whatever reason, direct contact could not for the time being be ordered, it was ordinarily highly desirable that there should be indirect contact so that the child grew up knowing of the love and interest of the absent parent with whom, in due course, direct contact should be established. "
(See also Hersham McFarlane at section C paragraph 316-320.)
Clearly contact is the right of the child and not the right of the parents. (See Re: S (Minors: Access) [1992] 2 FLR 313. The child has a right, where the parents are separated, to know the non-custodial parent. There is a normal assumption that a child will benefit from continued contact with this parent but that assumption can always be displaced if a child's interest indicate otherwise. (Re: KD (A Minor) (Access: Principles) [1988] AC 806).
The normal assumption in favour of contact is based upon the harm that a child would suffer if contact with a parent were to be denied. Where the principle of contact is in issue, it is helpful to use the welfare checklist and to ask whether the fundamental emotional need of every child to have an enduring relationship with both his parents is outweighed by the depth of harm which, in the light of, inter alia, his wishes and feelings, the child would be at risk of suffering by virtue of a contact order. (Re: M (Contact: Welfare Test) [1995] 1 FLR 274 at page 278. Moreover I believe it is important to bear in mind the wise words of Butler-Sloss LJ who said of similarly aged children in Re: S (Minor) [1992] 2 FLR 313 at page 321D:
"Nobody should dictate to children of this age, because one is dealing with their emotions, their lives and they are not packages to be moved around. They are people entitled to be treated with respect."
Conclusions
Considering the facts of this case and applying the legal principles, I have come to the following conclusions:
1. I have been persuaded that there is sufficient material before me, including the professional appraisal of a child psychiatrist and the Official Solicitor, apart from my own assessment of L McC, and A McC, that the risk of harm to this child attendant upon an order for direct contact outweighs the well recognised benefits of direct contact between father and daughter at this time.
2. I consider that this child is old enough to be able to express her own genuine and sincerely held views. Obviously in the final analysis it is the court who must decide and it is vital that the burden of decision be not foisted onto her shoulders. It appears that she is adamant that she does not wish to see her father at this stage and I consider that her wishes and feelings must be taken into account if this court is to avoid placing this child at the risk of suffering by virtue of a direct contact order. Whilst I recognise there is a very strong presumption in favour of maintaining contact between a child and both parents, each case has to be examined on its own facts and I consider that the facts of this case with its sad and unhappy history of contact are such that there is sufficient evidence to support my conclusions that the distress and loss of a sense of security which a direct contact order might cause, outweigh the benefits of direct contact between L and her father at this stage.
3. I have considered individually the welfare checklist at Article 3(3) of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. Applying each sub-article my views are as follows:
(a) I have obtained the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned. Bearing in mind her age and understanding I am satisfied that she holds a genuine objection to direct contact.
(b) Given the emotional and physical symptoms clearly outlined to Dr Falls, I consider that direct contact at this stage could well elicit a recurrence of the symptoms that she had suffered in the past.
(c) The likely effect on her of any change in the circumstances which obtain at the moment whereby she does not have direct contact could elicit the recurrence I have mentioned above.
(d) I have taken into account her age, background and the vulnerable characteristics which she has displayed in the past and they all persuade me that direct contact would not be suitable at this time.
(e) I am satisfied that she is at risk of suffering harm if direct contact was to be re-established at this time.
(f) I consider that given the vast improvement that has occurred in the girl's education and well-being in the last year, her mother is well capable of meeting her needs and I am not satisfied that the father, especially through the medium of direct contact, is in a position to meet her needs at this time.
(g) I am aware of the range of powers available to me but I am satisfied that only the order which I intend to make is appropriate.
I have also considered Article 3(5) which is to the effect that a court shall not make an order unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all.
It is my view that at this time, and I stress that I am dealing with the present and the immediate future, the court, having a wide and comprehensive power to arrange contact, should only make an order only for indirect contact between A McC and L. There will be no order for direct contact. The conditions that I impose on the residential parent, namely L McC are as follows:
(a) that she should send photographs and school progress reports to A McC periodically provided he furnishes his address to her through the Official Solicitor;
(b) that she should inform A McC of any significant illness and send medical reports concerning L;
(c) that she should accept delivery of cards, letters or presents for the child and allow her to read any communication sent to her by her father and deliver any present to her from her father.
I wish to make it clear that the obligation to furnish communications to the child is not subject to a right of censorship by L McC. If they should prove to contain offensive or frightening material then the matter can be returned to the court.
I should add by way of a postscript to this order that I would encourage where possible the intervention of the Official Solicitor to ease the path of this order and its implementation. It may be for example that A McC may chose to send his cards, letters or presents to the Official Solicitor in the early stages so as to satisfy himself they are being delivered. Moreover, at any appropriate stage consistent with L's wishes, the Official Solicitor might consider introducing into the equation the services of a body such as the New Lodge Family Centre referred to by Mr Quinn. However, I do not make these latter suggestions as part of the order and I do not fetter in any way the discretion of the Official Solicitor in how she approaches this issue or the steps she considers it appropriate to take at any given moment. I am hopeful that at some stage in the future direct contact between A McC and L may become possible. However, such an eventuality, if it is to occur, must take into account the child's own freely held wishes and be at a pace set by her.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND