A, B, C and D (no 2) (section 34(4) no contact), Re

The local authority applies under section 34(4) of the Children Act 1989 for an order authorising it to refuse contact between the children – [Child A] (12), [Child B] (10), [Child C] (9) and [Child D] (7) – and their father [name redacted]. The application is supported by the children’s guardian and by the mother [name redacted].

In December 2024 I made final care orders to the local authority in respect of all the children. I approved a care plan which proposed to move all four children from their father’s care to their mother’s care. [see linked case A B C and D (stranding - alienatingbehaviours - extension of care proceedings refused), Re - Find Case Law - The NationalArchives).

This followed private law and public law proceedings in which findings were made that the father had physically abused the mother during the marriage, that he had abducted the children in Pakistan and brought them to England, that he had stranded their mother in Pakistan, thereafter isolated her from the children’s lives, and created a false narrative about her to the children. In this way he disrupted their relationship with her, created confusion in their minds about what was true or was not true, and prevented them from expressing their own thoughts and feelings. He made clear his expectation that the children should reject their mother and choose him. In this way he used the children to continue the abuse that he himself had perpetuated against the mother throughout their relationship.

The care plan was never going to be easy to implement. In December 2024 the parties were all of the view that it was premature to bring the proceedings to an end, and invited the Court to continue proceedings in order to retain oversight of the transition plan. Nonetheless, for reasons set out at length in my judgment, I took the view that it was not for the Court to be involved in implementation of the care plan.

An unforeseen consequence of that is that the issue of contact was not fully ventilated at the final hearing. The initial plan was for the children to continue to see their father for supervised contact sessions while the plan for them to be transitioned to their mother’s care was implemented.

At the conclusion of the care proceedings, [Child B] and [Child D] moved with their mother into a residential assessment placement, where they were supported to rebuild their relationship.

[Child A] and [Child C] moved to live with foster carers. The plan was for them to have regular contact with the mother, [Child B] and [Child D], and in time for them both to move to their mother’s full-time care.

In the event, there were a number of issues with the foster care placement. From 21 January 2025, [Child A] and [Child C] refused to go to school. [Child A] later wrote a letter to social care saying, ‘Me and [Child C] want this then we will go back to school. Me [Child C] [Child B] and [Child D]. Me [Child B] [Child C] [Child D] will go together 2 times each week to visit dad together Me and [Child C] never have to go to family centre and visit evil mum we never have to stay there. I want me [Child C] [Child B] and [Child D] to be together at foster care each weekend without evil mum.’ [Child A] consistently said that he would not go to school unless the social worker provided written assurance that neither he nor [Child C] would be removed from school and taken to their mother’s care.

[Child C] and [Child A] continued to be highly resistant to any form of contact with their mother.

The local authority had reason to believe that [Child C] and [Child A] were having contact with their father and that they continued to be under his influence.

By the end of January 2025 the local authority had come to the view that contact should be suspended.

The local authority’s application for the court to authorise the cessation of contact between the children and their father was issued on 4 March 2025.

The mother, [Child B] and [Child D] left the residential assessment placement on 10 March 2025.

In May 2025 [Child A] and [Child C] moved to separate placements. [Child C] presented relatively quickly with ambivalent feelings; saying she would like to return to her father’s care, but also expressing a wish to stay in her current foster placement and to have contact with her siblings. Over time she became more open to the idea of being placed with her mother, and was supported to re-establish her relationship with her. With the support of her experienced and sensitive foster carer, she moved to her mother’s full-time care in August. By all accounts this transition has gone very well. Her foster carer remains in touch and is a valuable and trusted source of support to [Child C] and her mother.

For [Child A], life has been harder. He continues to say that he does not wish to see his mother or sisters. He very much wants to see his father, but that has not been permitted. His situation is better with his new foster carer in many ways. He is now attending school which is an improvement on his previous situation. However, he remains stuck, is unhappy, and he is isolated.

The final hearing had been due to take place in the summer, but was adjourned, as that was just the time that [Child C] was due to move to her mother’s care, and there were issues around childcare provision for all three girls during the school holidays.

At this final hearing, I must determine whether I should authorise the local authority to continue to refuse to facilitate direct contact between the children and their father.

Peter Jackson LJ set out in Re D-S (Contact with Children in Care: Covid-19) [2020] EWCA Civ 1031 the statutory framework surrounding parental contact with a child in care:

Mr Adler, for the father, referred me to the case of AU v Belfast Health and Social Care Trust [2024] NICA 1, in which the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland applied the guidance in Re D-S and referenced the human rights principles associated with applications to suspend contact as follows:

Although the applications are made within the context of public law proceedings, I have found it helpful to consider the framework set out at Practice direction 12J of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. This sets out the factors to be taken into account when determining whether to make orders for children to spend time with a parent where findings of domestic abuse have been made.

That framework provides that in every case where findings of domestic abuse have been made, the court should apply the individual matters in the welfare checklist with reference to the domestic abuse which has occurred and any expert risk assessment obtained. At paragraph 36:

And at paragraph 37:

I have reviewed all the evidence in the bundle, including the parties’ witness statements, the guardian’s two final analysis documents (one filed for the final hearing that was due in the summer, the other more recently), contact notes, and minutes of meetings. I have reviewed the documents from the previous two sets of proceedings that have been disclosed into these proceedings.

I heard evidence from the children’s social worker [Ms M], from each of the parents, and from the guardian.

[Ms M]’s written evidence sets out a comprehensive chronology of events since the care orders were made. She has weighed relevant considerations in the balance and gives clear reasons for her conclusions, setting out the source of the information she relies upon. She has built good relationships with the girls and is working to build trust with [Child A]. She is sensitive to his situation. In cross-examination she remained clear in her recommendations and confident as to the justification for her professional opinion.

[Ms M] has been allocated to the case only since the children were placed in care at the beginning of the year. She is faced with a challenging task. She is charged with reuniting all four siblings to the care of their mother, to maintain their relationship with their father, but to continue to support the children’s placement with their mother. It is high stakes.

The father has been found to have perpetrated serious domestic abuse against the mother, and the children have been victims of the abuse. No other family members were identified as suitable to care for the children. The father did not accept the findings of the Court made by Henke J in [2024]. He had not shifted his position in any way by December 2024.

At the hearing before me some ten months further along, his position remains the same, that he has never caused any harm to the mother or to the children, that he was a good parent to them, and in bringing them back from Pakistan and establishing a life for them in this country, he has acted only to protect them and to further their best interests.

While he was perhaps slightly less critical of the mother than before, he maintained that the girls’ current views were not their own, but had come from being under her influence. He did accept that if the children could not live with him, then the next best thing would be for them to be all together with their mother. He did not identify anything positive about her abilities as a carer. He denies that during the time [Child A] and [Child C] were in their first foster care placement, that he had any contact with [Child A] without the knowledge of the local authority. In the last six weeks or so, the father has completed some online courses which address domestic abuse and parenting skills. He said he did them because his solicitor suggested he should. He did not consider he needed to do them, because he does not accept there has been domestic abuse. He was not able to point to anything that he has learned. His response to the question of whether he would apologise to the mother or to the children for his actions was essentially blank; he does not accept he has anything to apologise for.

At the end of his most recent witness statement he proposes that contact between him and the children could restart in a supervised environment and then progress to overnight. He asks that the possibility of a shared care arrangement is kept open, ‘if legally permissible and in the children’s welfare interests, subject to professional assessments, the children’s wishes and feelings and placement stability.’

He does say that he will go on any course that is asked of him and will work respectfully with social workers, carers and his co-parent. However, nowhere within his statement does he say that he takes responsibility for his actions, or that he recognises the harm caused to the mother and to his children. It appears that he places responsibility on others to tell him what courses would satisfy them, or to reach a point where they can accept him back into the children’s lives. If he does not recognise that there is any need for change in the way that he parents his children, then they continue to be at risk of harm in his care. He would not be able to identify the behaviours that have been found to cause them significant emotional harm, and therefore not be able to change or regulate them.

The guardian says that signing up to courses is a good first step, but unless and until he can acknowledge his role and accountability then there is little scope for genuine change. Should he reach a point where he is able to recognise the findings of the court and the harm he has caused to the children, then she suggests he should undertake a domestic abuse perpetrator programme with ‘Respect’ accreditation, which involves in person group work, that offers a linked ex-partner support service, and will be able to provide a report at the end.

In the circumstances, there is no realistic possibility that any one of them could be restored to the father’s care, now or in the foreseeable future. The placement with their mother must work, if these children are to grow up within their family of origin.

At the time the final care orders were made, all four children were adamant that they did not want to see their mother, let alone live with her.

It is to the credit of [Ms M], the professional network that has been put in place around the girls, and most significantly, to the mother, that at this time, all three girls are living with their mother. They are happy and settled, caring, affectionate and kind to one another and to her, having fun singing and dancing with their mother and each other, but also responding to the boundaries that she sets for them. In discussion with the social worker and the guardian, they present as expressing their wishes and feelings with openness and honesty.

Nonetheless there are underlying fragilities and vulnerabilities. They miss their brother very much. They have been living in temporary accommodation, and have had to move house four times this year. Those house moves have also entailed school moves. This has disrupted their learning, their friendships and their sense of security. They will likely face another move in the near future. In recent years they moved to Pakistan, then came back to England with their father, leaving their mother stranded without them. They then experienced ten months without seeing her at all, and thereafter when they saw her, presented as highly emotionally conflicted and troubled; propelled, as the Court found, by fear of the father’s disapproval, into performatively rejecting her, shunning her, and being rude and aggressive towards her. They do love their father and have been raised to respect and honour his views and opinions. But those views were in conflict with what they knew in their hearts about their mother; that she loved them and cared for them.

It will take many months, even years, for them to process their own experiences for themselves and to make sense of them. [Child C] has generally settled well into life with her mother and sisters, but she can be easily upset if she thinks her sisters are talking about her. The girls can compete for their mother’s attention.

[Child A] is in a different position because he remains fiercely loyal to his father and fiercely rejecting of his mother, whom he continues to refer to as ‘evil’. His sisters wrote him letters in which they told him they loved him and missed him, reminded him how he had always stood up for them and taken care of them, and how they hoped to see him. His response was to say, ‘nice try’. He did not credit [Child B] and [Child D] with having written the letters themselves, and suggested their mother had written them instead.

On a balance of probabilities, I find that [Child A] was in touch with his father by email or otherwise through use of his laptop, when he was in the first foster care placement. From the evidence I have read and heard, I also draw an inference that [Child A] met his father in person during that time. My reasons are as follows:

The mother became emotional at points in her evidence, particularly when thinking about hers and her daughters’ continued separation from [Child A], and about his isolation, but was overall measured and clear in the answers she gave. Compared to her situation a year ago, her life is transformed, and she is now living with three of her children. Given where [Child C] was only a few months ago, and [Child B] and [Child D] were in January, it is a radical change.

That the girls have settled so well in her care is a testament to the strength of the relationship she had with them prior to their separation in February 2023. It is also a testament to her patience, love, kindness and constancy to her children throughout the time that they outwardly and vigorously rejected her.

In my earlier judgment I wrote this about the mother:

It would appear that this confidence has been well placed. The guardian describes the way in which she has coped as nothing short of exceptional. Despite the traumatic experiences of her childhood and marriage, and her continued isolation from her family, she has found the resilience and resolve to provide a loving home for her children on limited resources.

She has confidence that she will be able to offer a home to [Child A]. She thinks that it would be valuable to see him together with his sisters. There is an argument that, as before, this would be an opportunity for her to show [Child A] her steadfastness, her acceptance and her unconditional love for him. However, she accepts [Ms M]’s assessment that [Ms M] would like to build trust in her relationship with [Child A], and does not want to jeopardise that by putting pressure on him to spend time with his mother when he is adamant he does not want to do that. The mother agrees to go at [Child A]’s pace, and therefore agrees not to press the local authority for contact at this time.

The guardian has been allocated to the case since the start of the private law proceedings. So this is her third set of proceedings. She has been an advocate for the children throughout, and has assisted me greatly in her full account of each of the children. She has described not just what they have said, but the manner in which they have said it. She describes little details of the children’s behaviour that she has observed, which give an insight into their experiences and a glimmer into their inner worlds. She articulates clearly and with insight how thess observations have fed into her analysis of the bigger picture.

For example, in her most recent report and in her oral evidence, she described the differences she has seen in [Child C] as she has moved from her first foster placement to her second foster placement, and then to her mother’s care. The guardian said it was troubling to see [Child C] in the first placement, using adult phrases, swear words, and continuing to speak in a strident and harsh way about her mother and siblings, who she accused of ‘betrayal’. In comparison, within a short time of being in her new placement, the guardian observed that [Child C] was presenting in a way that was much more congruent with the nine-year old girl that she is. She is using softer, more ageappropriate language, wanting to play with toys, and feels free to be affectionate towards her mother, as her instincts guide her, but where before she felt constrained by her father’s disapproval.

The guardian’s analysis, contained within her two documents, and elaborated on in the evidence she gave to the Court, was powerfully persuasive. It is informed by deep knowledge and understanding of the children, of their experiences over the past few years and their needs. She has weighed all relevant factors carefully in the balance and meticulously considered the question of contact from all perspectives. I place significant weight on her conclusions, which were well-reasoned, and supported by the evidence.

The issue of contact is complex, and is affected by a number of different factors, many of which will change over time.

On behalf of the local authority Mr Perry’s essential submission is that the progress for the girls – in terms of implementing the local authority’s care plan - has only been made because they have been removed from the father’s sphere of influence, and then supported to rebuild their relationship with their mother.

He submits that progress can only be made for [Child A] if he too is removed from his father’s continuing and negative influence.

The point of the care plan is not simply to transfer the children from the home of one parent to another. It is not right to understand this case as a battle between parents for the custody of their children, which the father has lost and the mother has won. The public law proceedings were brought because all four children were suffering significant emotional harm, and were at risk of further significant harm, as a consequence of their father’s past actions and continuing behaviour towards them and their mother. The purpose of the care plan is to enable the children to process and recover from their experiences, and to be raised in an environment where they are safe, and feel safe and secure, physically and emotionally, and where they can thrive in all aspects of their lives.

Their mother has demonstrated that she has the capacity to support all her children in that process.

Their father remains locked in a battle for the hearts and minds of the children.

He has not shown any insight or understanding of the impact of his actions upon the children or their mother, has not taken responsibility for what he has done, and continues to maintain that all he has done is to bring the children to this country in order to give them a better future.

This narrative was expressly rejected by Henke J in her fact-finding judgment. It is an illogical position to take, given that the children were settled and established in this country, and it was the father who brought them all back to Pakistan, took them out of school, and kept them there without informing their teachers in England that they were not coming back. It ignores the fact that he stranded their mother in Pakistan and separated her and the children.

Since the girls have been living with their mother they have been visibly and increasingly happy, settled and relaxed. In conversation with [Ms K], the specialist practitioner who is supporting them and their mother, they have started to talk about some of the memories they have of living in Pakistan with their mother and father, and living in their father’s sole care. What they have said has served to confirm the previous findings of the Court. They have talked about their father repeating information to them about their mother that was not true, but led them to question their own memories. They have talked about arriving in England, not knowing whether their mother was, feeling scared and confused, but feeling too afraid to ask. They have talked about the distress they felt when they were having contact with their mother, because they knew that if they interacted with her, even just by smiling, their father would find out – either through [Child A] or from reading the notes – and they would then be punished by having devices confiscated, by being ignored or being made to stand with their backs to the wall. These accounts have come to me as hearsay evidence. They have not been fully investigated or tested in Court. However, it is of significance that the accounts come from more than one child, and that they are entirely consistent with the findings that have been made, and the descriptions of the professional witnesses about the likely emotional impact for the children of having to manage this highly charged and difficult situation.

All three girls have made it clear that they do not wish to see their father. [Child B] is described by [Ms M] as being ‘clear and unwavering in her response: she stated that she does not wish to see her father and does not feel safe in his presence. She expressed profound anger and sadness regarding the lies her father told them and the time she lost with her mother. [Child B] firmly rejected the idea of letterbox contact, explaining that she would not trust anything he wrote.’

The guardian noted a contrast between the way in [Child B] expressed her wishes and feelings to her in January 2025 and in September. In January 2025, she is described as ‘making a noisy display of emotion in front of her siblings’ when the guardian shared the letter I wrote to the children explaining the decision I had made to separate from their father.

In September, she described a genuine display of emotion from [Child B], who cried quietly and with her eyes looking downward when contemplating the prospect of being made to see her father. [Child B] is noted by the guardian to have said she did not want to see her father because,‘you have done so many bad things and you have ruined our life and mum’s life’. This was a phrase the mother used in evidence, and it was suggested therefore that [Child B] was effectively speaking with her voice. I note that [Child C] is noted to have said on 21 February 2025 about the social workers, ‘you guys you have ruined my life’. I cannot say that this is a phrase that [Child B] is more likely to have got from her mother than from her sister. I accept the guardian’s evidence that [Child B]’s wishes and feelings as expressed to her in September are genuine, and are based on her experiences.

[Child D] has also described feeling scared of her father and does not wish to see him or receive any letters.

[Child C] has told the guardian that she feels safe in her mother’s care. She has shared memories with the guardian about seeing her mother in contact, and how she smiled when she saw her mum, but when she got home she was in trouble with her dad who was angry with her, telling her he got sent the files.

She does not wish to spend time with her father in person, although she is open to receiving letters, cards or gifts.

Unlike his siblings who until February 2023 were raised mostly single-handedly by their mother – she lived in Pakistan for the first five years of the marriage, and the father visited for about a month a year – [Child A] lived in England with his father from the age of three. As the oldest child, and the only son, he has a longer-established and closer bond with his father than his sisters. That will exist whether or not he continues to see his father.

The overwhelming evidence is that it would be emotionally harmful for any of the girls to spend time with their father even in a supervised environment. It would be against their expressed wishes and feelings. They are at risk of feeling fearful and anxious in his presence. There is a risk that they will once again be manipulated, become conflicted and confused; their father has shown no sign that he will present in a different way to them. Their rehabilitation to their mother is still in its early phase, the risk that contact with their father will destablise and undermine their progress is high.

Should the placement fail, it would be nothing short of catastrophic for these girls who have already suffered significant disruption and turmoil in their young lives.

Although [Child A] actively wants to see his father, and says he is not scared of him, his behaviour has always been aligned to his father’s position, and his father’s influence upon him is clear. He is at risk of continuing to be subject to his father’s manipulation, with the consequence that his emotional development will be hindered, his relationships with his siblings damaged further, and the prospects of him being able to repair his relationship with his mother in jeopardy. If he is not able to move to his mother’s care, then he will remain isolated from her and his siblings and will likely remain in longterm foster care.

There are no measures that could be put in place that would reduce these risks to a manageable level, because the father cannot be trusted to work openly and honestly with the local authority, and because he does not acknowledge that there is any need to parent the children in a different way. He has not shown any evidence that he could provide them with the reassurance that they would need to feel that they were safe when they saw him.

[Child A] and [Child C]’s first foster carers seemed to be aligned to the father’s perspective and resistant to, at times obstructive of, the local authority’s attempts to progress their care plan.

There is some evidence that since he has been placed with new carers, [Child A] is becoming a little more receptive to attempts to engage with him. [Ms M] described some of the conversations she has had with him; she feels that she is building some trust.

[Child A]’s laptop was removed from him on 8 May – the day that he moved to his new foster placement. For the first two weeks there he refused to leave the house, stating that he would not leave until his laptop was returned to him. However, he did then start to go out into the community when he got some pocket money, and agreed to go to school.

While there are some positives, the professionals are concerned that he is in limbo and implementing the care plan for him remains significantly challenging.

In June [Child A] met [Child D] and [Child B] at a pizza place, but did not take his coat off, refused food and drink and was withdrawn and avoided eye contact. He refused to accept food and gifts from his mother. His sisters persisted and he did in the end ask a few questions and mentioned that he was looking forward to starting school the following week. He did say he would be open to another session. He had a more positive online contact with [Child C] a few days later.

On his first day at his new school on 17 June he failed to return home at 4pm, and was collected from the police station at 7.54 p.m. He has not said where he was. He has apparently spent long periods unsupervised during the summer holidays when he says he is at the park, but there is no clear picture of what he has been doing or who he has been with.

[Child A] is bright, well able to use technology, and spends his days at school where he has unsupervised access to phones and computers. His carers can make sure that he is collected from school or that his use of the school bus is carefully monitored, and they can put in some house rules, ultimately it is likely that if he is determined to make contact with his father then he could probably find a way. There is an argument to say that it would be better therefore to facilitate that contact so that at least the local authority can observe their interactions and monitor the information that is shared between them.

Further, there is an argument that spending time with the father will support and nurture the children’s identity as members of the paternal family. The children previously spoke positively of their aunt and cousins who they lived with, or very close to.

However, in her careful and considered analysis, the guardian concludes that this would not be in the children’s best interests.

She relies on Dr Williams’ advice, in his written reports and as shown in the notes of the professionals’ meeting that he attended in January 2025. He is recorded to have said:

She notes that [Child A]’s consistent position is that he wants to see his father and to return to live with him. Although she acknowledges [Child A] is a bright and articulate child, it remains her assessment that he is not able to think critically about his own circumstances. [Child A]’s maturity needs to be considered in the context of Dr Williams’ conclusion .. that the emotional harm done to [Child A] has compromised his ability to know, let alone speak, the truth. [Child A] remains wedding to the narrative set out by his father and is unable to take on board the findings made by the court around his father’s actions.’ She considers [Child A]’s attitude towards his sisters remains blaming and negative, and he does not credit them with having genuinely expressed feelings, for example in his response to the letters they wrote him.

In all the circumstances, she recommends that on balance, ‘it would be the better option for the local authority to refuse direct contact arrangements in order for [Child A] to understand that all the professionals around him are very concerned about his father’s influence on him and to give time for [Child A] to access the targeted therapeutic support he will need to start to recognise the coercive control that has been exerted upon him.’

I have had regard to the framework set out at paragraphs 36 and 37 of the Family Procedure Rules. I have considered each of the matters at paragraph 37 generally throughout this judgment.

Paragraph 36 says that the Court should only make an order for contact if it is satisfied that the physical and emotional safety of the children and the parent with whom they

In the past the father used the children as a means of perpetuating domestic abuse against the mother. The emotional harm he has caused to them and to her is incalculable and will be life-long. Even if contact were to be supervised, the children will continue to be at risk of emotional harm from their father because his influence over them has been so strong, their fear of him remains, being in his presence is likely to trigger memories of the conflicting and difficult feelings they had when they lived with him and were expected to reject their mother, and they remain at risk of once again being manipulated by him. The mother’s physical and emotional safety is at risk. She would not be able to trust that the father may discover details of where she and the children live, or other information about her. She would be living in constant fear that the children might once again fall under his influence and be separated from her, physically or emotionally.

For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the children’s or their mother’s physical and emotional safety could be protected if direct contact were to take place at this time.

Having regard to all the circumstances, considering each of the factors on the welfare checklist, and with the children’s welfare my paramount concern, I have reached the conclusion that the local authority should be permitted to stop all direct contact between the children and their father.

This is the best means of progressing the care plans for all four children.

Each plan has a number of elements to it. It is about rebuilding relationships between siblings, between the children and their mother. It is about enabling the children to have the time and space to process and recover from their experiences, to rebuild and repair the losses they have experienced in their relationship with each other, with their mother, and in their education, and abilities to make friends, and to build resilience so that they can in time contemplate restoring their relationship with their father and paternal family, but from a position where they can be their authentic selves, and not have to live as the version of themselves that he requires them to be.

All of those things would be put at risk by the children spending time with their father, because he does not see or understand that this is what they need, and he is not at this time capable of supporting them to address these needs.

There is no way of mitigating the risks, which remain even if contact is supervised and closely monitored.

The risk is too high to run. All efforts to enable [Child A] to be reunited with his mother and siblings must be taken now. The longer he is separated from them, isolated, and still subject to his father’s influence, the harder it will be to implement the plan. The children’s placement with their mother is in their best interests and she is a very capable parent. Nevertheless she will need a lot of support to sustain it. She and the children deserve to be supported and protected from the father’s negative influence. If the placement does not work, there is a substantial risk that the children may be separated, and that they would not grow up within their family of origin. The impact upon them and their mother would be devastating, and lifelong.

I recognise that stopping all direct contact prevents the father from exercising his right to a family life, prevents him from having a fulfilling, loving and meaningful relationship with his children, and in [Child A]’s case, is contrary to his firmly and consistently expressed wishes. However, as [Ms M] said, the reason for this lies with the father, who caused the harm and remains unable to take responsibility for his actions. I am satisfied that the interference with the father’s and the children’s right to a family life is a necessary and a proportionate intervention in all the circumstances.

It is not for me to interfere with the process of drafting the care plan nor its implementation. Nevertheless, I note that the local authority accepts the guardian’s recommendation that contact should be reviewed not less than every six-months, and more frequently than that should circumstances require it. This is consistent with the guidance from the Court of Appeal in AU v Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, cited above, and which cited with approval the case of KA v Finland [2003] 1 FLR 696:

The local authority will continue to facilitate indirect contact. The guardian’s recommendation is that significant care should be taken around this for each of the children. I agree. If the children are not receptive to indirect communications, then they should be kept safely for them.

The father does not object to the continuation of a non-molestation order first made by Mrs Justice Lieven in September 2023.

The parents are agreed that the port alert orders should also remain in place; for the girls for two years from now, for [Child A] until his sixteenth birthday. The local authority will apply to discharge them sooner if so advised.

The children have been subject to consecutive sets of proceedings for the last two and a half years. The question of a section 91(14) order was raised, although no formal application has been made.

It is foreseeable that at some point there will be an application to the Court to discharge the care orders. The Court will be concerned then not to re-litigate matters that have already been the subject of the court’s determination. However, the court would need to be satisfied there had been a significant change in circumstances before an application was allowed to proceed. There is no basis therefore for an additional section 91(14) bar to be imposed.

Neither of the parents has made frequent applications within the proceedings. Unlike in private law proceedings the parents will have the Children We Care For meetings, and continuing contact with the children’s social worker throughout the life of the care orders. So they have a mechanism to raise concerns without having to apply back to the Court.

In all the circumstances I will not make a section 91(14) order in this case.

I will write letters to the children to explain my judgment and the reasons for it.